Monday notes: Russell Okung edging to the exit?

March 14th, 2016 | Written by Rob Staton

Two reports surfaced today suggesting Russell Okung is considering offers from three teams…

The Seahawks weren’t mentioned by either Jason La Canfora or Josina Anderson.

It’s also interesting that Okung is reportedly speaking to Pittsburgh’s O-line coach Mike Munchak today, suggesting they might be in the lead for his services.

The Steelers don’t have much cap room (just over $5m at the moment) but they seem to be dedicating their efforts to bringing Okung to Pittsburgh. The interest appears to be somewhat mutual — with Okung tweeting favourably yesterday about the teams heritage.

It’d be a good fit for him. A contender using a pass-friendly offense. They have a respected O-line coach. It makes sense.

Has he moved on from Seattle?

Bob Condotta suggests not. Or at least not yet. But after meeting with three teams and with Okung still contemplating his next move — the signs aren’t entirely positive that he’ll return to the Seahawks with a positive answer.

Even though he’s clearly not had a can’t miss offer from the Giants, Lions and Steelers — he hasn’t rushed back to Seattle.

Meanwhile the Seahawks have signed Bradley Sowell on a $1.5m contract to add some depth at offensive tackle. They needed to do that anyway — so this is unlikely to influence any decision on Okung.

Kelvin Beachum isn’t currently scheduled to visit with the Seahawks. It was originally reported he would travel to Seattle today — but he went to Jacksonville instead. Fresh reports say he is now heading home to Pittsburgh to evaluate his next move.

They’ve also agreed terms with Sealver Siliga, per Rand Getlin. He was once traded to the Seahawks for John Moffitt in 2013, was eventually cut before joining the Patriots. It’s a one-year, $1.4m contract.

They’re also meeting with Sammy Hill today and tomorrow — the former Detroit Lions defensive tackle. Cincinnati’s Brandon Thompson also made the trip to Seattle as the Seahawks continue to look for cheap depth to replace Brandon Mebane.

Here’s what I wrote about Thompson before the 2012 draft:

“He’s got a great bull rush, it’s really come along over the last 12 months and you can see in the video how often he drove back the interior Virginia Tech lineman to create disruption up the middle. His real value comes against the run – he’s quick off the snap and has great upper body power to jolt back linemen and fill running lanes. You almost expect him to be bigger than the listed 6-2 305lbs because he plays with the attitude of a bigger NT.

Mobility is good, he moves around well for his size. He’s got a relentless approach and has a motor that never stops despite the fact he plays the bulk of the rotation at Clemson. However, I keep coming back to the fact he has just three career sacks in four years. Last season he had Da’Quan Bowers soaking up blockers and still only registered a single sack. This year, Branch is providing the edge attention and he’s had two games with 0.5 sacks only.

He’s consistently in the backfield and you want to buy into his play, but why isn’t he getting more production? For starters I think his hand use could be better to disengage, buying maybe that split second to finish a play rather than ‘nearly’ make it every time. You can’t sniff at a player who looks that disruptive and while he may not reach the dizzy heights of former elite defensive tackles, he looks like a solid R2 prospect who could really promote his stock with a blast of production over the rest of the season.”

The apparent stalemate with Okung further highlights these thoughts from Tony Pauline today:

“Insiders believe there could be a run on offensive tackles early in the first round with as many as three (Laremy Tunsil, Ronnie Stanley and Jack Conklin) ending up as top 12 picks. There are a few reasons for this: A. Offensive tackle is a priority position come draft day. B. There were no top-tier tackles available in free agency. Right now, it looks as though a half-dozen offensive tackles are going to be first-round choices.”

If you want to come out of this draft with an offensive tackle — for the now or the future — it’s increasingly likely you’re going to have to take that player in the first round. The options just aren’t going to be there later in the draft.

Unless Okung re-signs on a multi-year deal and they’re able to dedicate the middle rounds to the interior offensive line — all signs continue to point to an offensive tackle being Seattle’s pick at #26.

The candidates to go in round one

The three that won’t make it to #26

1. Laremy Tunsil
2. Ronnie Stanely
3. Jack Conklin

The three that might

4. Germain Ifedi
5. Taylor Decker
6. Jason Spriggs

The two other possible top-50 picks

7. Shon Coleman
8. Le’Raven Clark

231 Responses to “Monday notes: Russell Okung edging to the exit?”

  1. bobbyk says:

    One thing that really surprises me is the fact that Fahn Cooper isn’t more highly thought of. You don’t see him taken in the first three or four rounds in hardly any mock draft. Every year there’s a few guys who go a few rounds early and people are like, “where’d this guy come from?” When I watch his tape (that Rob provided earlier and then some on my own), I see a guy who is almost right there with some of these potential first rounders. He’s the one guy that never gets mentioned that I can totally see being a day one starter in the NFL. If a team misses out on a tackle in the first round and can take Cooper in the 3rd or 4th round, I think that will be a coup for that team. He just seems like a guy who is going to be a good, solid player.

    • Trevor says:

      I really like him a lot and think he would be a great mid round pick who could develop into a solid NFL tackle. At a minimum he would be a high quality depth guy.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I like Cooper — I’m just not sure he’s more than a guy to compete for a job early. I’d hate to be relying on a tandem of Gilliam/Cooper at tackle.

      • bobbyk says:

        I see your point but I do actually have far more faith in Cooper starting for us in ’16 than I do Clark. I know Clark is the one with the major upside, but I think the floor of Cooper is pretty stable.

        But, yeah, what if Okung leaves town and we pass on a tackle in round one with the assumption that they will start Cooper as a rookie as a third round pick. Then Cooper goes before that pick. That would be the definition of being caught in a terrible situation.

  2. Colin says:

    I guess you could move Gilliam to LT, but then you’d be looking for 3 offensive linemen in this draft (LG,C and RT). Not ideal.

  3. Trevor says:

    If we are forced to go with 3 rookies on the OL or the likes of Britt and Sowell it is going to be real ugly to start the year. Like last year or worse. If they make the right picks it could end up being a solid line but would be real young and inexperienced starting out that is for sure.

    • Trevor says:

      I still consider Glowinski a rookie having only played one game.

    • I hate this thinking. WAAAAAAAAAY too many Seahawk fans are over simplifying and incorrectly remembering why we had our OL problems last year and how the OL was improved at the mid way point. Hate the OLine PTSD Hawk fans have. Who cares how many rookies we have on the line as long as they play well?

      ——————————

      Cohesion and continuity matter of course, but using 2015 as an example is just faulty. The players sucked ass, and they got two weeks to practice together before week 1.

      Britt (awful) was moved to LG (new position) with 2 weeks of preseason left before week 1 vs the Rams. Gilliam (total noob) was slotted to RT (college TE, had been developing to be a LT for like a year) with 2 weeks of preseason left before week 1 vs the Rams. Nowak…well do we even have to go into how bad Nowak was? Then it is possible (I have some evidence) that Britt was injured the first half of the season, his left arm in a sleeve and him avoiding using that arm, sleeve comes off after the bye week and he is playing better.

      All of that must have a bigger impact on the quality of play we saw from our O-line over them just not having a year together as a unit under their belts. You might forget that yeah we got better in the second half, but it is more than just “the OL had cohesion by then”.

      1) The passing attack was changed, we went to quick timing throws. Russ got the ball out quicker so pass rush was less of an issue.

      2) Nowak was replaced with Lewis. It looks like not only did the level of Center play improve but the communication and snapping skills improved.

      3) Britt’s left arm possibly healed from an injury.

      4) The defenses we were playing in the second half were awful; 9ers, Steelers, Ravens, Browns, Cards week 17…not just that but they were 3-4 defenses which our OL seems better able to handle.

      So boiling down so many variables into “cohesion is a must, we got better cause of cohesion, we were bad the first half because of a lack of cohesion, therefore; no need to start from scratch again.”

      I couldn’t disagree more with that.

      ——————————-

      Let’s not get PTSD flashbacks of last year, let’s not forget all of what it took to have one of the worst graded O-lines in the NFL the past 4 year last year. It wasn’t just that they were new to our OL. They sucked for a BUNCH of reasons (mainly the players suck). We did better in the second half for a number of reasons (mainly we played sucky defenses and we put in a decent Center).

      • Trevor says:

        Nathan can you name 5 rookie O Liineman who started last year and were major contributors with above average grades? I don’t think I can. Then you want us to draft and start 2-3. It is not PTSD our line sucked last year and would be worse if we have to rely on 3 rookies or Britt &Sowell. There is a OL is the one position after QB where experience and technique matter most. Even 1st round tackles usually take a year or two in order to settle in.

        • Hey if you are Naks8 are happy with how Britt played at LG and think he is better than a 1st round OT we would take..go ahead and think that. To me he looked like one of the worst Guards in the NFL.

          Now maybe I could be convinced that who we get to play Center (let’s say Glasgow or Dahl or Whitehair or McGovern) isn’t ready, that Lewis and his solid play is a better bet for the Hawks in at least the 1H of the season…that I could be convinced of. But that Ifedi or Coleman (or others) isn’t likely to be better than Britt? Eh, not so much.

          • Trevor says:

            I am not saying Britt is the answer. In fact the exact opposite. I just think we really need to sign at least one or two veterna guys and hope get a rookie who can start in Rd #1 and hopefully a guy who can compete for a spot in Rd #2. To expect more than this is just not the norm in the NFL.

            • Ya I mean… I guess I just don’t get peoples point. Already we are likely going to have 2 new linemen on the OL (LT, RG). From there it becomes a question of; do we let Britt start? and can we find a Center better than Lewis?

              If the answer to one of those or both is yes, then that is 3-4 new linemen on the OL. Is that a bit scary? Sure. But if the talent level is higher I am okay with going through some growing pains again (hopefully not as bad as ’15).

              I’d like to see us draft a OT with our 26th pick, then a G (McGovern? Dahl?) that we have compete with Lewis or a Center (Glasgow?) to compete with Lewis. Does the 26th pick beat Britt for LG? Maybe. If not then okay, I guess we are rolling with Britt. Does the Center beat Lewis? Maybe. If not then I am okay with that, Lewis was solid in ’15.

              I don’t WANT an entirely new line but I also don’t want us being fine with Britt and Lewis being our solutions for LG and C. They aren’t long term solutions.

              • Naks8 says:

                I understand your view point. And I don’t think Trevor or I are saying Britt is the answer. My thing is that starting a rookie is not the same as a veteran. I agree that I would like to see us bring in more vets as competition and maybe even have Poole/sokoli/britt/nowak take a step forward. My issue with rookies is that taking a step to the nfl is a big one and not every player is ready to take that step mentally and physically. Look at Tyler Lockett for example, we eased him into playing time as a wide receiver but gave him experience in games as a returner. The reason you ease him in is because of the mental side of the game. Throw a rookie into the fire and it may cause him to lose confidence which could be damaging in their long term development. Lockett was special enough to continually improve and understand the mental aspect of the game. Golden Tate was another example of a guy who needed 1-2 years to become comfortable in the system even though he had all the tools. I just don’t want to see us jump all in on 2-3 rookies and set them up for failure. If they are mentally prepared then perhaps they will get stronger from getting their ass beat by Aaron Donald. If they start to doubt themselves then Aaron Donald will forever own them.

          • Darth12er says:

            I don’t understand where you got Trevor said he was fine with Britt… Trevor brings up a legitimate concern here.

      • Naks8 says:

        The chances of finding 3 game ready rookie offensive lineman is pretty generous. How many teams started more than one rookie offensive lineman? Even the good rookies took a couple games to half a season to start to play well. You are saying that 3 rookies would be just as good as the guys we had last year just because they have more talent? That’s ignoring the mental game and game speed jump that a player must take. Also, is the player physically strong enough to hold up against nfl lineman all year? Sometimes it takes more than 1 year to get there. Remember cable’s statement about college lineman? For some of these guys we are basically resetting what they learned in college. If you get 3 guys doing that, what’s the chance that all three are successful or at least league average. It’s like starting 3 true freshman in college. I think you can start 1 maybe 2 rookies. And it’s probably better if our future center starts off at guard do he can get the line calls down. Similar to what we did with unger. I think you are oversimplifying that you can just plug in rookies and that will make it a better oline. Your thread below makes sense, I’m just skeptical about starting too many rookies as stated above

  4. I see a few options for us;

    1) Re-sign Okung, Penn or Beachum to a short (1 or 2, most likely 1) year deal. They play LT for ’16. We draft a OT in the 1st round and he competes with Britt for LG (my god he better beat Britt). In 2017 we move Gilliam to LT (Gill now has two full years of starting OT play in the NFL under his belt) and the LG to RT (has a full year, his rookie year, under his belt. No more jitters when going into his 2nd year).

    2) Sign Beachum to a longer term deal, or a 1 year deal expecting to be impressed and wanting to re-sign him to a 3+ year deal after the ’16 season is over (aka Beachum is seen as our long term LT). I still say we should draft a OT in the 1st, have him compete and earn LG. Even if he ends up being our long term LG, that is a great spot to have strong play come from, and if a starting OT gets hurt he can move over to RT.

    3) We don’t sign any FA OT. We draft a RT in the draft and have him compete and start at RT in ’16, moving Gilliam to LT.

    4) We don’t sign Okung, Penn or Beachum and instead sign a RT (like Breno) and move Gilliam over to LT. We’d hopefully draft a RT in the 1st to compete with the vet RT and whoever wins gets the job. If the RT we drafted loses he competes with Britt for LG.

    —————————————————————————————-

    My favorite option is #2. I am high on Beachum and him being our long term LT. Rob do you think he will only sign a 1 (maybe 2) year deal due to his value being so low (due to his ACL injury)? I would imagine so. But even so, unless he wants to totally cash out, I’d love to sign him even to a “prove it” Rubin style deal (relative to his positions cost) and then re-sign him to a long term deal like we did Rubin (assuming Beachum proves “it”).

    That way we can have: LT Beachum – LG 26th pick OT – C 56/91/97th OL pick – RG Glow – RT Gilliam

    If we could have that line and keep it intact for the next 4+ years…wow. THAT is how you jump from 26th-32nd worst OL in the NFL to a top 15 OL. You’d have to find the $ to re-sign Beachum long term after the ’16 season, and you’d have to extend Gilliam after ’16 (is a RFA in ’17). But the LG and C would have 4 years of club control and Glow has 3 more years of club control left.

    —————————————

    My second favorite option and I think the more likely is #1. That the LT we sign in FA will only be a 1 year deal and in ’17 he will be gone. The RT we draft in ’17 at 26th overall will go from LG in ’16 to RT in ’17, with Gilliam moving over to LT. That is still a good looking OL for us. Then a ’17 draft pick + Sokoli + Nowak + others can compete for LG.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m not sure on Beachum. I’m sceptical — he seems to have inherited a slightly bloated reputation for me. He’s a former 7th rounder without ideal measurables for the LT position. Regardless of what he wants — I’d only be interested on a prove-it deal.

      • Hmmmm…Others are definitely higher on him than you, but I do respect your opinion. Either way I’d imagine we’d sign him to a 1 year prove-it deal if we signed him, whether we/he wants longer or not.

        Seems like Penn is the best option then for LT if all three are 1 year deals…he is the most durable so far in his career and has played solid at LT for a long time right?

        Overall I just hope we grab one of them. The options if we don’t are kinda scary. Even if the OT we drafted was good at RT and Gilliam was good at LT, what we look like if one of them got hurt is scary; Sowell or Britt from off the bench? Yikes. At least if we sign Penn/Beachum/Okung and one of our OT’s gets hurt then the OT we drafted at 26th (playing LG) can move over to RT, then Britt can move in to LG.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Okung is still the best option for Seattle IMO.

          Beachum is a guy with one full 16-game season in his career, with guard size and the athletic profile of the seventh rounder he was. I’m sure he’s played well for the Steelers (I haven’t seen him) but he’s coming off an ACL and to me it just feels like he’s being pumped up a little bit too much.

          • hd says:

            It appears Okung met with the O-Line coach in Pitt today again and still no contract signed…I’d rather offer Penn who said he’d consider Seattle. Oakland hasn’t moved on him and he hasn’t visited anywhere. Draft a tackle early and since Cleveland is wheeling and dealing…how about a 3rd and a 6th rounder for Bitonio on the left side…

    • Bill Bobaggins says:

      Making Beachum your LT of the future is risky. It’s clear that teams aren’t clamoring for his services right now. LT’s are tough to come by and his market demand is almost nil right now.

      Your favorite option has the Hawks starting almost an entire new OL (Gilliam being the only returner). That doesn’t sit well. Beachum (no market demand) – Rookie – Rookie – Glowinski (“redshirt rookie”) – Gilliam? Good thing Russ can scramble.

    • Trevor says:

      I think I prefer option #2 as well.

  5. Adog says:

    I think that rob hit on key point in a earlier post… That if Okung’s market is soft…then it makes sense for him to sign a one year prove it deal with a pass orienrated offense. So the steelers make sense. I have a feeling that the Seahawks are offering him a fair multi year deal that is back loaded. Most likely the Seahawks have their group of players who they want to draft. Perhaps the top three tackles rob listed is on this list in the first round, but I’m not sure about the next five guys. If there is a run on tackles in the first round, then it makes more sense for them to get one of top rated guys at another position. Running back and line backer makes the most sense to me in the first round. Elliot or Henry could slip to them at rb.

    • Rob Staton says:

      “If there is a run on tackles in the first round, then it makes more sense for them to get one of top rated guys at another position.”

      They too will likely be gone considering the Seahawks pick late in the first. If the Seahawks don’t get a tackle in round one — and they don’t sign Okung — they have to address that need. Otherwise the 2015 O-line is going to look like a golden era for blocking.

      • Adog says:

        Last year was the golden era by the numbers. If Russell Wilson does not throw the ball up for grabs on the kuechly pick six…we might not be lamenting the oline so much. Wilson broke the rules of Pete Carroll…he turned the ball over twice in his own red zone. While the o line looked young and inexperienced at times last year…they were productive. Offensive line do not tilt field or score touchdowns. They are basically pawns in front of the queen. Is one pawn much different from the other? Perhaps…the true value of pawns is schematic. Ball control and explosive plays is how I see the bevell offense. With that in mind I don’t see them reaching for a tackle in the first.

  6. bobbyk says:

    We signed Siliga. Mebane replacement.

    • Darth12er says:

      1.4 mil, 250k guaranteed. Good no risk deal. He must have improved since he was cut off our PS to justify this. Nice depth, competition for a rookie I suppose.

      • Ignorant says:

        In fact Seattle traded for him in 2013. Probably was cut because of insane depth that year. Mebane, McDaniel, McDonald, rookies Jordan Hill and Jesse Williams, not to mention Red Bryant who saw snaps inside. Hard to look good against that. PFF liked him for the Patriots, grading over+7 against the run on limited snaps, and he did offer something against the pass. He has youth, experience and will have a clean shot for the starting job.

    • Steele says:

      Siliga is not really a Mebane replacement. Rotational, a notch down. Hopefully he outperforms.

      • HI Hawk says:

        Rotational is what any run-stuffing DT is on this team, Rubin included. He may be a notch down from Mebane, but I doubt there will be any real impact on the defense from fielding Siliga instead of Mebane at 1T.

  7. Scraps says:

    Maybe Okung is playing the agent by saying he’s impressed with Pittsburgh. Drive his price up, if he’s just about to sign with Pittsburgh, then he comes back to Seattle when the price is bumped. You know, playing the agent.

    Well, it could be….

  8. Robert says:

    Russ ought to hire Lionel Messi. He might be the only person in the history of people that could help Russ improve his already phenomenal elusiveness. Messi is the GOAT at making large would-be tacklers miss and Russ can probably expect diminished Tackle play this season. I expect better Guard play, but that ain’t sayin’ much. The 2015 Guards set the pass protection bar pretty low!
    Here’s some of the best of the greatest futballer ever! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwiKkOSQFbg

  9. Ehurd1021 says:

    Seahawks signed Sealver Siliga…. sounds like a nice addition that can come in and compete.

    Siliga Vs the Run – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52SQO9xX4YU

    • bigDhawk says:

      I was a little bummed when he was cut in camp a couple seasons ago. Glad to have him back. He was decent for the Patsies.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        @bcondotta: One advantage to Siliga signing — since he was not tendered as a restricted free agent he does not factor into formula for comp picks.

    • vrtkolman says:

      Great pickup, I’m legit excited about this.

  10. Landhawk says:

    It looks like they’ll add another FA O lineman or two if possible. Add to the competition and for depth. The pickings look very thin though. Unfortunately it seems as though this situation was not addressed when it should have been…much earlier. Wilson has had terrible protection for the most part since he’s been here. I hate the argument that we won the superb owl and almost another with this type of line. We won in spite of it, not because of it! It may be that we need to use three of our four top picks on the o line. I’m wanting them to take good players that have been successful at their positions in college. I know they have wanted the guys to have played tackle but I just want good players.

    Decker/Coleman
    Garnett/ Westerman/Whitehair
    Kelly/Martin/Glasgow

    Three of those players might do it. Tackle in round one. I’d love to get Garnett in round two. Center after that. We may need to do some maneuvering to get our guys. This situation has to be fixed though. Starting rookies isn’t ideal but neither is going with the same mess of a line we’ve had. Sweezy and maybe Okung gone anyway. Time to get this unit squared away. It’s been the elephant in the room for far too long. Too bad it wasn’t addressed much sooner.

    By the way…no more conversion projects, please!

    • Rob Staton says:

      Let me just add though Landhawk — there’s a reason the Hawks (and others) prefer tackles to kick inside. Playing guard well in college really doesn’t mean that much. As Carroll noted upon his arrival in Seattle — he was asked if USC could beat pro teams. He said WR’s, CB’s, LB’s — they could hang. But the major disparity between the two would be in the trenches. That would be a massacre.

      Guards in college really are the guys not athletic enough to work the edge — for the most part. And while they might perform well against college DT’s — the pro’s are a totally different beast. So giving yourself the best chance is really taking the bigger, strong, more athletic prospect and preparing them for the challenge.

      • drewjov11 says:

        Garnett is an athlete who happens to big a large and powerful man. He could have played tackle if asked to do so at stanford.

        • Rob Staton says:

          He didn’t perform like a great athlete at the combine. I also know there are some concerns regarding his conditioning.

          Here’s his combine workout — 5.32 forty, 29 inch vertical, 8-3 broad jump. These are all pretty ‘meh’. According to SLA he’s in the 67th percentile.

          Compare that to Ifedi who weighs 10lbs more and grades in the 98th percentile.

          Who is better served to handle pro D-liners?

          • Jarhead says:

            That is a strawman arguement Rob. That is assuming that Ifedi’s athelticism directly correlates with that ability to actually block. That is not the case at all. Just because he is big and fast doesn’t mean is at all more qualified to be a good blocker. It merely means that he has a measurable skill set that would make it easier for him to move to the point of attack more quickly. But what if he can’t throw a block worth a dang when he gets there? On the Oline, to me personally, blocking ability> athletic ability anyday of the week. By your reasoning Shawn Oakman should be a break out talent, but you have repeatedly panned him.

            • drewjov11 says:

              Josh can use proper technique and good footwork to dominate his man. I’ve been watching him since high school. He’s got a great lunch and is really good at locking on to his man, and even getting to the second level on occasion. Everyone here keeps talking about LeRaven Clark because of his measurables… And yet he’s a borderline awful football player at this point in time. He’s got zero clue as to how to block his man. It’s a lot of reaching and guessing. Garnett bullies people. You can’t block someone in the NFL off of potential. You have to be able to actually do the job.

            • H M Abdou says:

              I think Ifedi would be the O-lineman I’d want at pick 26, that is unless Robert Nkemdiche is still available.

            • Rob Staton says:

              You’ve missed the point I was making jarhead.

              It’s not about being more athletic = being a better blocker or a better pass rusher. The point is — the step up from college to the pro’s is so difficult in the trenches — that every single rookie faces an unbelievably difficult challenge. Someone who is a vastly superior athlete is better prepared to adapt to that challenge. It doesn’t mean that EVERY athlete is up to the task, but someone who is explosive, strong, enormous and long has a better shot at it than someone who is a middling or average athlete. Being a technical blocker inside in college really is just irrelevant. It’s about translating whether a guy can have the same success in a much tougher environment. And that’s why you see so few guards drafted in R1 — and the ones who are generally go in the top ten.

              • Volume12 says:

                You also need athletic lineman to play in a ZBS.

              • Steele says:

                Technical blockers are technical blockers. It’s not irrelevant. It has to do with training, work ethic, study, instincts. Coaching. And yes, athleticism helps.

                Sometimes it translates from college to pro, sometimes not.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  The training starts from scratch in the pro’s. That’s the point.

                  Whatever ‘technical’ quality you show in college isn’t likely to be enough to handle the step up. You’re ability to pick it up at the next level is usually predicated by a physical quality as much as the mental side of things. You/we might wish that to be the case — but as stated, there’s a reason why so few offensive guard go in round one and the ones who do go early. And they are very athletic (Scherff, Cooper etc).

                  Name me the last middling athlete of average size who played guard in college technically well who went in R1. There’s the point.

                  • drewjov11 says:

                    Josh didn’t jump well or run a blistering 40, but he won’t be a pushover against defensive tackles and he’s really intelligent as well. He’s got enough lateral quickness and footwork to handle pass protection, and he’s a bull in the running game. I don’t see why we have to choose here. Take Ifedi round one, Garnett round 2. Let them both lock down the left side for years, or even if they move Gilliam over, you strengthen the talent level of the line for years to come.

    • Scraps says:

      The elephant in the room? Everybody knows it, everybody’s talking about it! For a year at least!

      • Landhawk says:

        It’s been a huge problem for the entire PC/JS tenure…not just a year. I don’t think a QB other than Wilson would have survived it.

  11. Lubbock Air Corps says:

    Although I would be excited by Elliot and happy with Henry, two inexpensive RB options to consider that have not been discussed thus far on the blog; DeAndre Washington from Texas Tech and Bishop Sankey from the Titans. Washington will be a day 3 pick or priority UDFA. He really only had two poor games his senior year, one against Baylor and the other against LSU. He is undersized, but runs hard, catches the ball well, and is committed in pass pro. He will never be a bell cow, but I think he could be a solid 3rd down option. Sankey may be the odd man out in Tennessee after the Murray trade as they David Cobb and Antonio Andrews as well. I would be curious to see how he would perform in the Seattle blocking scheme and may be available via an inexpensive trade.

    • Volume12 says:

      I originally thought guys like Washington, Josh Ferguson, Tyler Ervin might be too slight, but the fact they’re interested in RBs Zac Brooks and Lance Dunbar, kind of says they might like to pair a COP with Rawls.

      You couldn’t do that with Lynch for one, because he was a true/rare 3 down back, and it woulda tipped off the defense.

      Now, with Rawls, not so much.

      I actually like Washington. Reminds me of Ray Rice a little bit. Washington is a tough runner between the tackles too, and an exceptional receiver outta the backfield. Decent pass protector too.

  12. Phil says:

    I keep thinking that PC/JS are going to pull another rabbit out of the hat. What are we missing? Who is going to be the 2016 equivalent to Harvin or Graham? For example, what veteran LT would we be willing to trade our #1 and maybe one of our third round picks for?

  13. POB says:

    How did the consensus shift so dramatically re: Decker vs. Conklin? I know JC had better Combine numbers, but I based off of a few YouTube clips, I prefer Decker. Joe Ledyard also has Conklin graded poorly. He’s been tweeting critiques of LRC the past few hours.

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      He’s been hammering Clark. Mercilessly. With video too. And as someone who can see SEA taking Clark depending on how the board shakes out, it’s a bit disheartening.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I like Joe but as with many on Twitter/bloggers he seems to latch on to bad snaps and forms an opinion based on limitations. We know the Seahawks like to focus on what a guy can do and his ceiling.

      • Jarhead says:

        Can’t that be considered a little Pollyanna though, Rob? They focused on what Michael could do, but neglected to see that he wasn’t a passionate football player. Looked at what Richardson could do, didn’t consider that he was so small that ge can’t stay healthy. Looked at what Carpenter could do, didn’t consider that he couldn’t stay in shape. I think there is plenty of evidence that what the FO is doing is mostly working, but they really should start weighing guys glaring limitations are instead of justbfocusing on what they will be getting if everything goes right. This is mostly in reference to the idea that they would spend a 1 or 2 on someone with such god awful tape as Clark. I just think that would be a huge waste, but am terrified of seeing it unfold before my vary eyes on draft day

        • David says:

          I don’t think Prich’s size had anything to do with his ability to stay healthy. There are plenty of players who are smaller than him (including Lockett and Baldwin – granted their builds are different). Richardson had an ACL in college and came back and performed even better in his last year. He had an ACL at the end of his rookie year but ACL’s – as far as I know – have nothing to do with size. Thomas Davis has had 3.

          • reggieregg says:

            The acl was a fluke and let’s not forget he pulled that hammy catching a 40 yard pass….I must say he went and got that one. PRich is goin to ball this year. He is our DJax and teams will have to respect his speed when he’s on the field.

  14. HOUSE says:

    I like the Siliga signing today. I think he’ll be a good rotational guy and much needed depth.

    Is Sowell looked at as the Paul McQuistan/Alvin Bailey guy? I personally haven’t watched any tape on him and I don’t see him making a huge impact.

  15. Trevor says:

    You have to think a front office as forward thinking as ours, has to have a plan for the OL. They always seem to be planning a year ahead for almost all scenarios.

    I just don’t see anyway they go into the draft needing to upgrade so may spots on the OL.

    As it stands currently even if we draft say Ifedi and Mcgovern in Rds #1 and #2

    LT Gilliam – One year starter with 0 starts at LT
    LG Britt- Worst rated LG in the entire NFL
    C- Patrick Lewis- Started 15 Games in his career. Average at best or Mcgovern- Rookie who has never played Center. Lots of upside but no experience at position.
    RG- Glowinski- 1 NFL start
    RT- Ifedi -Rookie with 0 NFL starts.

    With that line even Russ is in trouble.

    I know PCJS must have a plan I just wish they would start revealing it. If not this OL could close that championship window shut. Like they did in the NFC playoffs against Carolina last year.

    • Rob Staton says:

      McGovern’s lack of experience doesn’t concern me. If they draft him in round two they think he can start like Mitch Morse. And Morse had a terrific rookie season having switched from tackle to center.

      I think we need to accept, prepare and embrace the thought that there’s going to be young guys on this O-line in 2016. It could be three picks out of the first five. That’s solid investment, it’s addressing a need. And if they’re talented players (this is a decent OL class) they will be good for this team for the next few years. That is more attractive than putting a band aid on this situation.

      • Trevor says:

        Morse was probably the most impressive rookie OLineman last year. I know the Hawks wanted him. It really is too bad they didn’t get him. He would have been a nice foundation to the middle of the line with Glowinski.

  16. Trevor says:

    Rob if we get Ifedi in Rd #1 and he needs to play RT who do you think would be available when we pick in Rd#2 who could come in and start over Britt day #1 at LG?

    • Rob Staton says:

      There will be some options — I don’t think they necessarily have to do it in round two.

      Let’s not forget — Alex Boone was an UDFA. They could still add a veteran LG as they clearly considered a year ago with Mathis. That could even happen after the draft.

      • Trevor says:

        Really hope they add a couple of veteran depth guys at least.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Last year they talked to Wisniewski and Mathis well after the first and second wave of free agency. They have time. They can easily go into the market before or after the draft if needed. I understand why some fans might get antsy because the line isn’t complete and ready today a week into free agency — but really they have so much time to put this together. And so many options.

          • Trevor says:

            Good point I am one of those fans getting a little antsy. Just need to have faith.

          • SeventiesHawksFan says:

            Agreed. I think that antsiness is fueled by visions of Britt back at RT and no depth behind him. Would be a lot calmer if one of the FA OT’s gets signed.

            • H M Abdou says:

              Britt almost…ALMOST makes me yearn for the days of McQuistan playing LT in 2013. I did say almost 🙂

              • David says:

                That is my exact fear. That they decided that Britt is serviceable at LG or RT and plan to walk him back out there as the starter next year, which is looking more and more likely with every guy they sign or re-sign without making a impactful move on the line.

  17. Trevor says:

    I like Daniel Jeremiah and think he is one of the best national guys but he has us taking Eli Apple in RD#1. I love Apple as a fit for the Hawks but I don’t see any way we go CB after re-signing Lane.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Agreed. They won’t go CB in round one.

      • Trevor says:

        In his mock draft Ifedi, Coleman and Spriggs are all still available when the Hawks pick.

        • Greg Haugsven says:

          I agree, they won’t go corner, even before they signed Lane. Earliest they have taken one is round 4 (thurmond). Kiper also selected a corner, (fuller) it’s like these guys don’t pay any attention to teams tendincies.

          • David says:

            Not just tendencies, but glaring needs. OLine is universally accepted as a weakness for the Hawks not to mention that we currently do not have a starting LT on the roster. Seems like a slam dunk for anyone who is marginally paying attention.

    • SeventiesHawksFan says:

      No way is that going to happen now.

      OT or maybe pass rusher. It’s not going to be a receiver with everyone coming back and getting healthy. It won’t be a DB. Frank Ckark is slimming down to become more like Bruce, so I doubt it’s an LB either. We aren’t taking a guard or center with our first. Or a run stuffing DT. Going to be an OT or pass rusher.

    • Davidess says:

      Didn’t Eli Apple measure “badly” compared to what the Hawks like in their CBs?

  18. Trevor says:

    Teams taht could go OT in Round #1 before us.

    Tenn
    Bal
    Phil
    Oak
    Ind
    Pitt

    Am I missing anyone?

      • Trevor says:

        I guess the Giants too if they are trying to sign Okung. I thought Flowers was decent last year though.

        • bobbyk says:

          Flowers is only one tackle though. And you’re right, he was good and is going to be a good pro.

        • Baldwin says:

          We need Stanley to last a bit, to push some other LTs down the board.

          BAL could very well go LT, but Ozzie won’t pass on D talent like Bosa or Jack if they fall in his lap.

          PHI is interesting because they don’t have a 2nd round pick and they are switching to a 4-3 D and traded/lost a number of their skilled players. If they keep Peters another year or two, they might have a tough time justifying a LG (Conklin?) at 8 with other needs.

          HOU is getting Brock protection or a weapon. They put their a$$ on the line with that contract so they are going to force it to succeed.

          OAK prob goes LT unless Elliott is on the board (just a hunch).

          IND needs to keep Luck healthy and they seem like a team that would take Decker over Conklin.

          PIT has major secondary issues. They drafted a LB past 3 years in a row and OL each of the 3 years before that?

          There’s always a run on LTs. I just hope it lasts a little later this year.

          • James says:

            The mock drafts are starting to pile up and the emerging consensus, for what it’s worth, is that, in addition to Tunsil, Stanley and Conklin will be gone by #15 or so. Most mocks have the Colts taking Taylor Decker (seems odd it is so unanimous?), and very few mocks show another OT being taken before the Seahawks pick, which would of course leave Spriggs, Ifedi, Clark and Coleman. To my eye, Spriggs seems the most natural left tackle, amazingly quick feet. Clark and Ifedi are prototypes, but very raw. Le’Raven seems to be quickly moving up the boards, so maybe OL coaches are reaching the conclusion that his flaws are correctable? An OT in R1 seems more and more a certainty for the Seahawks, given the appealing options likely to be available, and it being unlikely a FA signing will yield anything more than a one or two year fill-in.

  19. Trevor says:

    I am not a fan of the Walter Football site in particular but his mock today was a nice one for the Hawks. It was a 4 round mock.

    Rd#1 Decker
    Rd#2 Bullard
    Rd#3 Garnett
    Rd#3 Austen Johnson
    Rd#4 Max Tuerk

    That almost sounds like the perfect draft to me. Perhaps switch Johnson for a LB like Perry or Feeney. But still would be an amazing draft IMO.

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      You get everything you need. Tackle, Center, Guard, DT, and Bullard who is kind of a tweener. I’ll sign up right now. Intetesting, 5 picks all on the line of scrimmage.

    • oz says:

      Gotta love that draft!!!

    • dtrain says:

      Tuerk is a diamond in the rough. He doesn’t get the hype as the other centers do but his tape shines. Good athlete too. I’d love to see him taken with one of the 3rd rounders. I can’t see Garnett lasting to the 3rd. IMO he’d be a steal in the 2nd. Fits the Hawks LG mold.

      • franks says:

        Can’t see Garnett or Johnson lasting to the third, and the bottom of the third, forget about it. Bullard and Decker look like they’ll fall sooner.

        I’ve always wondered about the guy Walter, what qualifies him. I like his site because it doesn’t bog down my computer, but his projections are always a long way off everyone else’s.

    • SeventiesHawksFan says:

      Who wouldn’t be pleased with that? I want a former tackle over Garnett, but I’d be happy if they got him too.

  20. Javiosullivan says:

    David Onyemata, DT Manitoba 6’3″/300, 5.09 40y, 33 bench, 33″ vert, 9’11” broad jump. BEAST

    I want this boy in the 5-6 round.

  21. Seahawcrates says:

    If Pittsburgh really does have an offer on the table for Okung doesn’t it have to be a multi-year deal? With only $5 million in space they aren’t in a position for a single year prove it deal are they? Am I missing something? Seems like Okung might be deliberating between a one-year deal from say Detroit or NY and a multi- year deal for less than he wants from Pittsburgh and/or possibly Seattle. Big caveat, IF he has actual offers. Pretty sure Seattle did give him an offer from reports.

    • Scraps says:

      Reports have Okung getting offers from (at least) Pittsburgh and the Giants….

    • James says:

      Logically, we can assume that if Okung had an offer from the Steelers for anything north of 4 yrs @ $10 mil/per, he would have signed it in the blink of an eye. I think everyone is offering him a short-term prove-it deal, and he continues to cast his line for that one good offer he had been expecting before the surgery. Obviously, he has not gotten that offer, nor is he likely to, and he must decide soon, because the teams looking for an OT can’t wait. Is it a safe to guess that the Seahawks believe they have Okung coming back for a one or two year deal, since they apparently passed on Beachum? Given the wealth of talent certain to be available at #26 in R1, the draft has to be the long term plan for our left OT of the future.

  22. Seahawcrates says:

    “Hearing Russell Okung still very much considering Seahawks along with Steelers, Lions and Giants.”
    Seattle Times reporter tweeted this about 15 minutes ago.

  23. Josh says:

    Deion Jones reportedly ran a 4.38 at his pro day today.

    • Jarhead says:

      Whoa whoa whoa. That is a huge disparity between the 2 times. I think someone might be cooking the books a little to get their boy up the boards. You don’t go from 4.6 or something to under 4.4 in a couple of weeks just becaue of a different surface. That is nuts

    • bobbyk says:

      Fast track but still impressive…

      • manthony says:

        Of course “cooking the books” or whatever you want to call it, does happen to an extent.
        But other factors are in play too, mainly being comfortable at your him facilities, surrounded by their collegiate coaches who know how to motivate them, not being distracted by all the other combine stuff, a desire to improve on the combine numbers, etc., there’s a lot of different things that can factor into the difference of performances.

    • Attyla the Hawk says:

      Cooked books or not, the tape on Jones really highlights exceptional closing speed.

      He has other deficiencies. His tackling is generally poor — lots of missed tackles on tape. Not something he can’t improve on but he isn’t particularly gifted at wrapping guys up. Not a big hitter either — tends to bounce off carriers much like a CB.

      Additionally, he doesn’t appear very comfortable attacking the LOS or navigating the wash of blockers. He moves great in space, but doesn’t reliably close the deal and secure the tackle.

      Not sure how he’d grade for us. Athletically he is incredibly sudden and his closing speed pops on tape a lot. Gets there, but doesn’t finish.

      I would bet that his speed is closer to pro day than the combine values. But that’s just one component. By the eye, he looks like a WILL backer almost exclusively. Not very physical and looks like he’d have difficulty setting the edge properly like Irvin was capable of doing. Looks like he needs to be kept clean to be effective.

      As a prospect, it’d depend on how much we think we can coach him up on tackling. And then it’d probably require Wright make a position swap. I can’t answer how much Pete wants to move KJ from his current position.

  24. nichansen01 says:

    Fun fact: Sealver Siliga is the boyfriend of my aunt’s sister’s daughter…. (Second cousin?)

  25. nichansen01 says:

    Jeremy Lane – Starting corner
    Ahtyba Rubin – starting defensive tackle
    Jermaine Kearse – Number 2 receiver
    Jon Ryan – Punter
    Bradley Sowell – Backup swing tackle
    Sealver Siliga – Rotational run stopping tackle

    Sign either Okung and Penn… And this has been a quiet but savvy free agency for seattle

    • Davidess says:

      Kearse as a 2nd WR?
      Think Lockett would argue that haha

      • franks says:

        Lockett has not beat out Kearse, where do you guys keep getting this.

        Kearse is the nbr. 2 receiver and the third target, after Graham. He’s a very good no. 3.

        • rowdy says:

          I’ve been a critic of kearse for awhile, always liked him but never thought he was special. But last year he proved his worth and took advantage of every opportunity he got and won use some games last year. He deserves the 2 wr spot at this point but lockett will get eventually.

          • David says:

            Arguing over WR rank on the team is a bit pointless as there are no defined parameters on what constitutes a #1,2 or 3 WR. Are you basing Kearse being WR2 from snap counts, targets, receptions, talent? From a talent perspective, Lockett is certainly the 2nd most talented WR on the team and potentially first. From a stat perspective Kearse and Lockett had the same number of targets on the year but Lockett had more catches TDs and Kearse had more yards so I would say there isn’t a clear cut #2 WR there but in the last 8 games of the year Lockett had more catches, targets, yards and TDs so not sure how you can definitely say that Kearse is the number 2 WR and 3rd target on the team.

            • franks says:

              That’s true Russell spreads the ball around… But who does he throw to with everything on the line, again and again? When the chips are down, locket is Option 4-a.

  26. bobbyk says:

    Re: Garnett/Ifedi

    What we know:

    1. The Seahawks love tackles and transitioning them to guard. This means Ifedi is much more attractive over Garnett.

    2. Garnett doesn’t have the measurables that Ifedi does with an early pick.

    This means Ifedi over Garnett is a no-brainer.

    Why it might not be a no-brainer:

    1. Pete/John have proven they will do whatever they want. With the supposed reputation for “hoarding” picks, they go out and trade four picks for one pick last year in the Lockett deal.

    2. A left guard and nose tackle are not sexy. I very much doubt they take either with their first pick because of the reasons mentioned on this blog many times. However, I won’t put anything by them.

    3. Cable has consistently talked about how college OL are not NFL ready. Playing at Stanford is as close to NFL ready as an OL can be. For a team in a championship window now, I think even Pete and John would admit that Garnett is more NFL ready to help the 2016 Seahawks at LG than Ifedi would be.

    4. I don’t buy the idea that tackles always make the best guards. Pro Bowl guards in recent history like Iupati, DeCastro, Mankins, Grubbs, Carl Nicks, etc. all played guard in college (and the tackles they played next to haven’t had good pro careers). There are tackle converts, too, who are Pro Bowl guards: Jahri Evans, Marshal Yanda, Josh Sitton, Zach Martin, etc. But eliminating a true guard because he was a college guard is a mistake (see Iupati, DeCastro, Mankins, etc.). As I look back at the ’15 season, I see the worst starter on our entire team as Britt at left guard (after Nowak was replaced). If Okung resigns and they don’t feel forced to take a tackle (perhaps there’s a mid-round guy Cable thinks he can develop for a year like Fahn Cooper), I think it’s possible, though still not likely, they could take a solid LG if Cable likes him.

    Again, I’ll agree that the odds are against this based on their drafting body of work of six years, but I also know that as soon as we think we have them figured out that they may be willing to do something different, too.

    Personally, I think they will take an athletic freak if they stay at #26. If they go into the draft with Gilliam as the best tackle option, I think it’s a 99% certainty they go tackle in round one. If Okung signs, I think they go athletic guy in the front seven or anywhere on the OL (including center).

    Lots of options to ponder (not Christian).

    • Tien says:

      Haha! Definitely not Christian!

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      Not sure how #1 is an argument in favor of Garnett over Ifedi. I mean unless you know for a fact what they want to do. If anything, it’s a factor in favor of them going Ifedi, given what we know about how they view OT vs OG, athleticism, size, etc.

      #2 doesn’t really apply either because even if Ifedi starts at LG, that’s not why they’re drafting him. At least not entirely. They’d probably be drafting him hopefully to take over at RT so Gilliam can slide to the left.

      #3 I wouldn’t presume to know what JS/PC think about Garnett’s readiness vs Ifedi. I think they’d be too focused on what Ifedi can do over Garnett to care one way or the other.

      Can’t argue with #4.

      I hope this doesn’t come across as contrary. After all we come to the same conclusion: SEA would probably take Ifedi over Garnett.

      As for Ifedi vs any other OLer? I think Ryan Kelly is the kind of prospect that would warrant a pick at 26, but there are other options available later like Westerman, McGovern, Glasgow, etc. As Rob highlighted in his post, there are only 4 OTs likely to be available at 26 worth taking – Coleman, Ifedi, Spriggs and Clark. You can add Decker for 5 if you want but I bet SEA would still take Ifedi or Spriggs over Decker.

    • Landhawk says:

      That is a great breakdown on some of the reasoning for Garnett. He also won the award for being the nation’s top interior O-lineman. Sometimes a guy is just a “player “.

    • manthony says:

      I like Garnett. I think he’s a total round 2 guy through and through though, or at least that’s where I’m hoping we target him, even I we have to trade up in the second to get it done.
      Is anyone in favor of trading up for Conklin in the first frame? Out of all the guys to trade up for, he’s one id like to see done, maybe move up 8-10 spots, could we get that done with a 4th and future 4th or something?

      • Volume12 says:

        People are concerned about Ifedi coming from A&M, but not Garnett from Stanford?

        Gotta disagree that playing on Stanford’s O-line is anything close to an NFL scheme.

        It’s more HS level. Jumbo package, 2 TE sets, pull the OTs and release the LG into the 2nd level.

  27. Ignorant says:

    Straight up: Garnett at #56 or Tretola at day three?

    • Steve Nelsen says:

      I like Garnett over Tretola. But, I think Garnett goes in Round 3. There are too many questions about his pass blocking and athleticism. We love him because he is local and because he is a fantastic nasty run blocker. But his ceiling might be Sweezy.

      • franks says:

        Garnett doesnt separate himself from the crowd enough to be taken in the 2nd imo, which is where youd have to take him. Lots of big guards in this draft like Tretola. If we sign a LT and draft Ifedi/Coleman, definitely not taking Garnett. Tretola prob makes more sense even if we dont. Especially on Day Three if he lasts that long.

  28. GeoffU says:

    Does Seattle like drafting tackles and transitioning them to guards, or do they draft tackles and when they fail there, turn them into guards?

    • C-Dog says:

      It’s a legitimate question to pose. Carp and Britt both started out at RT, but when Britt was drafted they already had Carp at LG.

      • bobbyk says:

        Carp and Britt were failed right tackles they moved to guard. John Moffitt was a pure guard who was actually decent, I thought, but didn’t have the passion. Poole was drafted with the intent to move him to guard right away.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        As far as I know, JS/PC have drafted college OGs only twice – Moffit and Glowinski. Seymour might be a third, but he played a lot at OT and was more of a multi-purpose OLer.

        • bobbyk says:

          Glowinski actually played tackle before he transferred to West Virginia so there is some tackle in his history, too.

  29. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    @bcondotta: Hearing Russell Okung still very much considering Seahawks along with Steelers, Lions and Giants.

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      What’s everyone’s gut on Okung. Back with Hawks or gone daddy gone? I say he stays.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        +1

      • Steele says:

        *Edited to remove swearing*

      • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

        I think he stays for 1 more season. I’m of the opinion he will get a 4M/8M/12M type of deal, depending on play time. He played 16 games, (a) his next 2 season automatically be come guaranteed, less than that, he can be a UFA in 1 year / or (b) some type of performance clause.. such as probowl/allpro, he then can auto void the deal and become a FA.. Fair to him and the team. It is a prove it deal, but he can make serious bank in 12 months.

  30. bobbyk says:

    Without pondering the Ifedi/Garnett scenario, lets just say one of those guys (or Coleman or whoever) is drafted early with the intent to play them at LG in ’16. Lets also say that Okung comes back at least for ’16.

    This is something we haven’t talked about, but who would play RT?

    I know the easy answer is last years starter, Gilliam. However, if Gilliam was so much better than Britt at RT then why didn’t he beat him out for the starting job when both were rookies? Don’t state the obvious that Cable plays favorites and doesn’t make his hand picked rookies compete like they do with the rest of the team (Carp and Moffitt).

    Cable even said that moving Britt to LG in camp last year had more to do with getting his top five OL on the field than anything. If Britt sucked so bad as a RT, then how did the Seahawks almost win the Super Bowl with him starting there (and Gilliam not even active for the game)?

    We know Gilliam isn’t very good at run blocking for a RT. We know Britt is a pretty good run blocking RT. We know Gilliam is a decent pass blocking RT. We know Britt is pretty brutal in pass “protection.”

    If the top four OL are the LT, LG, C, RG… and Britt and Gilliam are 5/6 in either order, then which of those two would start at RT?

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      The only answer I have is that Gilliam was drafted ad a tight end. They converted him to tackle. He didn’t beat out Britt year 1 cause he was learning a new position but beat him out year 2.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        Not only that but they drafted Britt to play RT. They signed Gilliam (UDFA) to see if they could mold him into a franchise LT. It wasn’t until the early preseason when Britt looked like he’d regressed from 2014, that they moved him inside and gave Gilliam a shot at RT.

        It just wasn’t how they planned it all. Goes to show you they’re adaptable. Also, Gilliam earned almost $330K in performance based bonus (based on playing time relative to draft position), 5th highest in the NFL in 2015. He did really well at RT for a UDFA TE.

    • franks says:

      No way Britt starts at RT. Worst case scenario gilliam stays there and the guy we signed today starts at left.

      Britt’s gonna be fighting for a roster spot.

      • Volume12 says:

        Kinda think Seattle’s O-line will look like, if Okung isn’t back…

        LT- 2016 rookie
        LG- Britt- if Okung is then 2016 rookie LG
        C- 2016 rookie
        RG- Glow
        RT- Gilliam

        Depth- Sowell, Lewis, probabl another FA, and Soko

        • rowdy says:

          Gilliam will be the left tackle

          • Volume12 says:

            Yeah- Gilliam might be.

            Depends on what they do in the draft, and who they think can handle LT.

            Might not wanna move him unless the have to, which isn’t a big deal anyways.

        • franks says:

          Don’t agree that Britt has done more to merit a starting spot than Lewis.

          I don’t want britt starting anywhere and I don’t think that’s just me. Lewis otoh did a better job than he’s getting credit for.

    • STTBM says:

      Bobbyk, there are too many unknowns to answer your questions accurately. We have no idea whether or to what extent competition along the line was scrapped by Cable, nor the true reasoning behind the moves. Though of course we can conjecture–and I would hazard a guess that Cable did his usual and suspended competition and just put guys where he wanted them for his own reasons. But admittedly, I have no inside info on that, so am just as likely to be wrong.

      Cable has repeatedly said he wants to be a HC again. Its not out of the realm of possibility that he’s playing games, trying to turn nobodies (Nowak, Sweezy, Sokoli, etc) into somebodies at the expense of the lines performance, in order to make himself look good. Chudzinski did it, showing off by making his offense overly complicated and nearly ruining Cam Newton. It got him a HC job, but only for one year. Wouldnt surprise me one bit if Cable was trying to pull the same thing.

      How did the Hawks win with some seriously poor players along the O-line? A combination of things, namely a Great Defense, pretty smart and adaptable playcalling, and the two most important parts–Lynch and Wilson. Any other back and QB combo besides AP/Newton would have failed miserably with our line the last two years. They were that bad.

      Gilliam should get better at run blocking, but Britt will always be stiff and slow-footed. Gilliam can gain muscle and weight without slowing much, but it takes time. Britt cannot get quicker or more agile at the waist–he is what he is. Britt appears to be yet another Cable Bust, a guy who just cant play in the NFL. That said, he may have been injured a good portion of last year, and this is his year to put up or shut up.

  31. bobbyk says:

    Something else to consider. A. Smith could sign with the Vikings. He’s visited the past few days. If he signs, that means Loadholt would most likely be gone (“again”). He may not be out of our plans yet.

  32. Stuart says:

    If the tackle options in round 1 were limited to only Decker and Spriggs, which one would be a better option for us?

    • bobbyk says:

      The one who is going to have the better NFL career. 🙂

      • franks says:

        Decker easy choice.

        • franks says:

          Better rookie season.

          • Volume12 says:

            That’s not a certainty.

            I like Decker, but he offers nothing unique.

            • franks says:

              High floor low ceiling might be just what we need. This roster is already insanely good and Russ can dodge some of the pressure if its at a minimum. Having someone who can do an ok-to-good job I think will get it done and preferable much preferable to someone who will take some time and might make the pro bowl in a few years.

  33. Turnagaintide says:

    If we don’t get Okung back, (it’s hard to say this) but I hope he goes to the Steelers. To point out the obvious, the Steelers pick one spot before we do which could ruin our draft plans if they take Olineman we want.

  34. reggieregg says:

    And Munchak has been scoping every oline prospect thoroughly. Good call! Bryant getting suspended might help if they are looking for a receiver early now also.

  35. Baldwin says:

    If JS admitted we weren’t the bully anymore and presumably his desire is to regain that fear/swagger, which of these R1-R3 projections can make an impact in that area? If that’s the goal (and PC/JC are incredibly honest when you see the end result) and we don’t have the money to acquire FA difference makers and R4+ kids aren’t going to fill the void, that has to come from our R1-R3 picks.

    We could be misinterpreting the bully comment. Some think it’s death backer stuff (and it might be), but I think it aligns with most folks OL wishes. Our biggest weakness in 15 wasn’t that we didn’t hit hard enough, it was that we couldn’t close out games. We can talk about blown coverages like CAR at home but the main reason we lost a number of those was because the O couldn’t get a first down and keep the clock running. We went 3 and out v good Ds and just gave the ball back.

    In previous years, we wore the opposing DL down by the 4th and we could get chunk yardage on obvious running plays. That closed games out and that was a bully IMO. A bully is imposing our will on an opponent, not just big hits.

    Resign Okung, draft Ifedi to play LG future LT/RT, Ryan/McGovern/Glasgow C, Glowinski/Britt RG, Gilliam RT.

    We also went 0-4 v not so much CAR and STL, but 0-4 v Donald and Short IMO. Resign Okung and beef up the interior.

    Retain and invest.

    • Steele says:

      They lost their bully and their swagger in many ways. Losing important personnel, mental (fatigue, Super Bowl hangover, Kam, etc), and coaching defections. Stats and numbers do not capture the intangibles.

    • GawksAtHawks says:

      I’m I the only one who thinks Sowell could beat out Gilliam at RT?

      • Steve Nelsen says:

        Yes. Sowell is competing for a backup spot.

        • HI Hawk says:

          No, I’m there with you. Gilliam would be better off as the swing tackle (or starter at LT) now that Webb and Sowell are Seahawks. I think the better run blockers would make a lot more sense at RT. Webb, Britt, and Sowell are all better run blockers than Gilliam, so I think his days as the starter at RT are over.

  36. Volume12 says:

    Richmond WR Reggie Diggs. One to monitor. Seattle attended his pro day and scouted his team back in October.

    6’3, 214 lbs., mid 4.5 40, 38.5″ inch vert, 11″ foot broad jump, 6.9 3 cone

  37. Steele says:

    The Bradley Sowell signing is disturbing. He ranked among the worst in pass pro. Why bother with him?

  38. Martin says:

    Here is a thought….what about a trade for one of the tackles from Tennessee? If they do in fact draft Tunsel they have Lawan now. They will have a odd man out maybe Bell any thoughts? I do not expect the Titians to trade away Lawan that cost is to high in my opinion.

    • reggieregg says:

      Good thought I hope that’s the direction they are going. Madden style start trolling rosters.

  39. EranUngar says:

    Re Okung,

    With practically no free cap left, the only offer PIT can put on the table is a back-loaded multiyear contract. In order to pay what Okung is looking for it will have to include a sizable signing bonus to be prorated over 4 years or more. That in turn makes the total number on top quite big. When you consider the helth risk etc. they will probably not offer a big guarentee.
    The Seahawks will not likely be happy to match that big number on top and Okung the agent may be temmpted to display his acuman by signing the biggest total number rather than the safer one.

    Without Okung our current OL is:

    LT- Gilliam, LG Britt/Sowell, C-Lewis, RG-Glow, RT-Britt/Sowell. No need to say more.

    Even if we do add a FA tackle (Penn, Beachum) the picture is still very glum. Drafting the best OL player at 26 becomes a must. Adding another on round 2-3 is also a clear need.

    The finall line with an FA tackle will probably be:

    LT – Gilliam/FA Tackle, Britt/Sowell/1st pick, Lewis/2nd pick, Glow, Gillian/FA Tackle/1st pick.

    If we do not sign an FA Tackle:

    LT – Gilliam, Britt/Sowell/1st pick/2nd pick, Lewis/2nd pick, Glow, Britt/1st pick.

    Without that FA Tackle, that line looks very risky.

    I am beginning to think we may be forced into another option – Bring a vet Guard later in FA.

    LT-Gillian, Britt/vet G, Lewis/2nd pick, Glow/2 pick, Britt/1st pick.

    Hopefully, they won’t wait till 2 weeks before the season starts to finalize it. If all works well we should end up with:

    Gillian, vet G, Lewis, Glow, 1st. pick.
    backups: Britt, Sowell, Soko, 2nd pick.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I would tend to agree. I think a veteran signing before the draft or shortly after seems very likely. Possibly at center or guard, depending on what they intend to do in the draft.

      I would expect J’Marcus Webb to sign shortly too for extra competition. And who knows. Maybe they’ll trade for someone.

  40. EranUngar says:

    We seem to have some very fixed notions regarding what this FO looks for when drafting for the OL. The arguments are based on the last 6 drafts:

    2010 – Okung – was a top 10 pick, a bit fragile but very solid LT.
    2011 – Carp – Late first round, failed at RT, ended at LG. We miss him now but at the time he got the kind of accolades that Britt gets now. He is now considered a great pick at 5M a year by the Jets.
    2011 – Moffit – 3rd round bust.
    2012 – No high OL picks. Sweezy was picked at the 6th round. Was considered a hole at pass pro and got no love from the faithful here. TB was happy to give him over 6M a year. Lewis UFA, ended up a starter at Center.
    2013 – No high picks, Bowie at the 7th and UFAs Bailey and Gillian. Gillian is now our solid Tackle, Bailey was a decent backup swing tackle, Bowie is gone.
    2014 – Brit in the 2nd. Currently stars in our nightmares.
    2015 – Glow and Poole in the 4th, Soko – another convert in the 6th. So far, 1 start on a meaningless game.

    Of the above, Only Soko and Sweezy displayed top percentile SLA.

    Looking at the above, it’s hard to say that a clear pattern appears. You can see players that were “common wizdom picks” (Okung, Carp). JAGs like Moffit, Bailey Bowie. Long shot college converts like Gilliam, Lewis. SPARQ converts like Sweezy, Soko and Cable’s guys like Britt, Glow and Poole.

    If anybody here is confident regarding their OL preference (Size, SPARQ, production etc.), I can not truly see the hard irrefutable evidence supporting it.

    To me, drafting OL by the Seahawks looks like “a work in progress”. It looks like they do not have a clear cut specification and strategy. They have tried various options and seem to end up with hits and misses all over the board. If you take Okung, the 6th pick of the 2010 draft, out of the equation (we won’t be picking a top 10 OT in the neat future), the rest shows no clear path to nailing our next picks.

    I have no idea how the Seahawks FO sees their OL draft history. If they feel they have found something they can base their future picks on, I hope it works.

    If they look at the line now and see 2 UFA college converts (Gilliam and Lewis) as the only 2 solid players they have today and just one top pick that they would like to replace (Britt), they may try something different this year.

    It would not be a bad idea to try and anticipate “something different” with those picks this year.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Okung would’ve been highly regarded via SLA.

      They clearly like athleticism, tackle experience, length, run blocking skills. They have a way of doing things — I don’t see why people think they are going to change.

      • EranUngar says:

        I do not know about “people”, I think they have been changing all along. They started picking the best guy on the draft and ended last year with a bunch of red shirts in the 3rd day.

        Every NFL team loves athleticism, length and tackle experience. It’s also easy to want Tunsil.

        It gets less clear when you pick late. For example:

        At what stage do you value technique (Martin) over raw untrained physicality?

        When does a very solid guard become a better option as an NFL guard than a long project Tackle?

        Could a college center become a better option at center then a convert?

        Should we keep the sparq DL coverts pipeline going?

        Is there a message to be heard regarding college converts like Gilliam and Lewis?

        “I don’t see why people think they are going to change” – Maybe because it has not been working that great? We suffered from OL problems last year. It looks like we need to start all over again with 3-4 players playing a new position or new to this OL. There is ample room to question their way of doing thing? (not by us, by them…)

        • Rob Staton says:

          I don’t see an issue with what they’ve been doing. It’s one bad year as far as I’m concerned and that can be rectified this off season.

        • Steve Nelsen says:

          Poor quality offensive line play is an issue all around the league; not just with Seattle. Their are not enough quality linemen for 32 teams (in much the same way as there are not 32 NFL-caliber starting QBs).

          Seattle is approaching the O-line challenge creatively; trying to find overlooked or undervalued talent. They haven’t hit on an All-Pro yet like they did at QB, CB, S, and LB. But, the play of the line after the bye last year is encouraging.

        • CHawk Talker Eric says:

          “Looking at the above, it’s hard to say that a clear pattern appears.”

          You speak about their OL draft history as if that’s the only position they’ve drafted. None of those draft decisions you gave were made in a vacuum. SEA had other positions to attend to, meaning their decisions regarding which OL to select, and when to select them, were made in the context of that year’s team, that year’s draft class, that year’s cap, etc.

          That’s why it looks like a “work in progress” – not because JS/PC don’t know what they want or how to get it, but because every draft is different, every team is different, every year is different.

          “JAGs like Moffit, Bailey Bowie”

          Of course they’re JAGs. They were drafted in R3, UDFA and R7, respectively. The R3 spent on Moffit hurts more than the others, but then that was an attitude problem that Moffit had, not a lack of ability. This should be a cautionary tale to those who want SEA to draft Nkemdiche.

          “they may try something different this year.”

          This strikes me as rather condescending to JS/PC. To me it implies you think they don’t have a clue as to what they’re doing when it comes to drafting a certain position.

        • Jarhead says:

          There is CLEARLY an issue with what they have been doing. It is glaring! They haven’t drafted one well rounded upper third guy since Okung. This is what is frustrating for fans like us. What they are doing is not working. Leading the league in rushing when your QB consistently rushes for 600 or 700 yards in a season on scrambles out of the pocket is such a poor indicator of run blocking quality and how good our line was. Oh and the lead back was Marshawn Lynch who wrote the book on yards after contact. This is an argument that we will never win with the other side. The other side loves SLA and thinks that is best indicator of a guys ability to be a good blocker, whereas feel the best best indicator or being a good blocker is actually being a good blocker. I have said all along that this isn’t about predicting what the Hawks will do, it is about saying what maybe they should do because what they are doing is not working. Part of me hopes we get Ifedi, and then we will see a flame out like Christine Michael. But even the I told you so won’t save our Line when we keep wasting high picks on these guys who have all the measurables but can’t line up and block a doorway

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            So you’re saying the 4 straight payoff appearances, the 2 NFC Championships, the back-to-back Super Bowls and the one World Championship = “what they are doing is not working”???

            Oh-kay.

          • HI Hawk says:

            It’s a draft blog, not a fantasy draft blog. I think complaining about what they will do without even seeing what they end up doing is fantasy whining and not constructive toward draft debate. Rob is slanting his analysis toward what the Seahawks will likely do, not what they “should” do in some fan opinions. “The other side” know they like athletic linemen, guys who have played multiple positions and have aggressive attitudes. Lamenting that fact, or the fact that “the other side” aren’t listening is flat out irrelevant and wrong.

            “The other side” all know a very good college guard without plus athleticism could work out as an NFL guard. Of course “the other side” all know that – we aren’t the decision makers though, we’re just fans. “The other side” remembers Steve Hutchinson. Does that mean this version of the Seahawks front office would draft him? Probably not, so while you are moaning and whining the conversation on who would be a good fit for THESE Seahawks isn’t going anywhere. Right or wrong, I doubt PC would have drafted Hutch, no sense lamenting the facts.

            There are a lot of ways to win and the Seahawks are doing a lot of winning by forcing Russ to earn his paycheck and compensate for a porous pass blocking group.

          • Canfan says:

            They haven’t had a #6 pick since Okung either.

    • J says:

      I’m sure if we picked at number 6 overall again we’d go with one of the top offensive linemen again. We can take okung out of the picture because that was a outlier. Hopefully it is not a position we’re going to be in for a long time.

    • J says:

      I agree they’re not locking herself into a clear pattern. Rather they react to the board. We’re not picking a lineman high every year just for the sake of doing so. Some years more value was on the board.

  41. John_s says:

    JMarcus Webb is a Seahawk

    • franks says:

      The Justin Britt of Chicago and Paul Mcquistan of Oakland comes home to Seattle to do what he does.

    • dawgma says:

      Great, another gigantic plodder from the ‘matador’ school of pass protection. Seems like their scouting process still utterly disregards a prospect’s performance in 45-50% of the game.

      I’m sure that will continue to work just as well as it has historically: not very.

      • HOUSE says:

        Not the OL I was hoping we’d sign… We’ll see what he does, but expectations are obviously going to be tempered.

        Could this mean Gilliam moves to LT and Webb plays RT? I know he played RG last year, but I already think Glowinski (I shouldn’t assume) is the shoe-in for RG.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        Webb and Sowell are, at the very least, healthy camp competition. At the most, they’re in the mix for RT, LG and backup-swing (Bailey). And they’re cheap. Not sure what the problem is.

        • franks says:

          The problem is we just signed 2 more of the exact type of lineman that hasn’t been working out. Better than nothing but by no means”good.”

          • HOUSE says:

            Agreed…

          • franks says:

            Remember when McQ did everything he could possibly do to get benched, and every week he was still starting? He could do no wrong. I don’t trust Cable as an evaluator.

            • Robert says:

              What drove me nuts, is they never gave him any TE help via chip and release blocking to simultaneously help McQ slow down the rush AND create a target for Russ that would cause LBs to hesitate with their over aggression in run defense vs Beast.

              • franks says:

                Don’t remember that Robert but could be… Do remember mcq continuing to start on the outside despite himself, right next to Zach Miller.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            And yet both cost less than our punter Jon Ryan. If neither work out, no big deal. They’re no worse off than they were without them. Buuuuuut, if either or both work out…

            New team, change of scenery, change of scheme, change of coaches. Just because a player wasn’t so great with one team doesn’t mean he won’t improve with a different one.

            • franks says:

              The risk is one or both of them suck, make the team anyway and start all season despite doing a terrible job, because cable likes their attitude.

  42. Naks8 says:

    One thing I keep thinking about is the mental aspect of the game. In my opinion at least half of the game is mental.

    The Hawks like to bring in guys who are competitive and mentally tough. They need to be mentally tough because everyday you are competing against or with the best defense so you have to be able to be willing to get better everyday instead of losing confidence when you fail or get beat. You see it all the time where players with great athletic ability lose confidence and become a shell of themselves like Alex smith/David Carr/Ryan leaf/etc. when I thought about who we drafted and who is successful on our team you find guys with chips on their shoulders or that come from a lot of adversity so they have the mentality that they will succeed no matter what. Sherm/Baldwin/kam – drafted low so always proving against the doubters, earl lost game to Crabtree in college but went on to become a stud, Irvin over drafted and homeless. Russell too small, etc. these guys all have some common thread of succeeding despite the neigh Sayers.

    I was trying to look up info on the background of laraven Clark, but looks like always was a prized recruit and always started. I’m not sure if he had to fight for where he’s at or if he was always just given it. Shon Coleman fighting back from cancer seems like someone who had to work through adversity to get where he is. That seems like the kind of guy we target. Not sure what ifedi’s background story is

    • Trevor says:

      That is a big reason why Shon Coleman has been my top choice since Rob first hi-lighted him. His background and style of play screams Seahawk to me. I know Ifedi may have more upside but with Coleman you know he is going to bring it everyday and that is what I want in the guy protecting the franchise (Russ).

  43. nichansen01 says:

    What are the chances we sign Brandon Thompson after signing Sealver Siliga?

    Rubin, Siliga, Hill, Thompson, Francis, Alexander and a rookie is a good competitive group of defensive tackles in camp.

    • nichansen01 says:

      Hamilton, not Alexander

      • C-Dog says:

        Now the Alexander Hamilton song is stuck in my head.

        I think there’s a chance they still add another vet DT, although, with this draft emerging, loaded at DT, it could come after the draft is done.

        I think Siliga could legitimately take over as the starting NT, or battle is out with Jordan Hill. I think there might be a lot of folks not factoring in Hill into the equation, but Hill is a NT, as well, and filled in nicely for Mebane for a game or two last year. The question over Hill has always been health.

  44. Trevor says:

    Rumor is the Jags took Beachum because they are considering releasing Joeckel. If they did would he be a guy to consider? I have not really followed his career but he was a high pick and maybe just needs a fresh start.

    • Rob Staton says:

      A classic case of a player who won with technique in college and didn’t have the physical quality to handle the edge in the NFL.

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      Where’d you see that one Trevor? All the buzz around Beachum to JAX is that he’s meant to be in competition with Joeckel for LT and the loser at LG.

      • Trevor says:

        On Walter Football not sure if it was Pauline or one of the other guys. It said they my take Ol with their 2nd pick in the draft and cut Joekel now that they have Beachum.