Friday practice report: Hawks ready for Cowboys
Posted By Eric Williams on October 30, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Share this
The Seahawks worked out for about an hour and a half this morning in preparation for the team’s game against Dallas inside the team’s practice facility in Renton.
The team announced that linebacker Lofa Tatupu has been officially placed on the injured reserve after having surgery to replace a torn pectoral muscle, ending his season.
“I knew for a couple days it was coming, so I was prepared for it,” Mora said. “It’s unfortunate, but you’ve got to just keep marching on.”
Cornerback Marcus Trufant has been placed on the active roster, filling Tatupu’s spot.
Here’s the injury report.
For Seattle, C.J. Wallace (hamstring) is out. Sean Locklear (ankle) did not practice, and is listed as doubtful.
Matt Hasselbeck (ribs), Robs Sims (ankle) and Patrick Kerney (groin) all practiced and all are probable for Sunday.
For Dallas, CB Allen Rossum (hamstring) is out.
NT Jay Ratliff (knee) was a limited participant in practice and is questionable.
And RB Marion Barber (thumb), S Gerald Sensabaugh (thumb) and LB DeMarcus Ware were full participants in practice and are probable.
Mora said the plan for Trufant is still to play in the team’s nickel package in passing situations, and Josh Wilson will get the start at cornerback.
“We have a plan in mind, but it could change as we go,” Mora said about Trufant’s situation. “The one thing we don’t want to do is come out the game saying we wish would have played Tru more. So we’re very conscious of that.”
Mora went on to say that Trufant had a good week of practice and feels good.
As far as the offensive line, the starters are Damion McIntosh at left tackle, Rob Sims at left guard, Chris Spencer at center, Max Unger at right guard and Ray Willis at right tackle.
Mora said that Steve Vallos will be the backup for the interior positions, but he did not give a backup for the tackle spots, saying that he had confidence both tackle would make it through the game OK, including the team’s fourth starting tackle this season in McIntosh.
“We’ll deal with it if it comes up,” Mora said about the backup plan for tackle. “I mean we have a plan, but we’re not going to have to use that plan. We’re going to have five guys in there, and it’s going to be consistent, it’s going to be great.”
Super Bowl 43 - Steelers didn't have a good OL.
Super Bowl 42 - You're right, the Giants had a good one.
Super Bowl 41 - Jeff Saturday probably should have been MVP of that game. He is/was a stud Pro Bowl Center. Manning was flanked by two solid guards (at least above average) and Glenn was one of the better LTs in the NFL (played in the '05 Pro Bowl). This line was definitely an asset.
Super Bowl 40 - This line, led by Alan Faneca, was definitely well above average. This line had 2 players play in the Pro Bowl (and in the season before, the Steelers had 3 players from their OL play in the Pro Bowl).
Super Bowl 39 - If I remember correctly, this line was solid. It may not have been great, but it wasn't merely "average."
Super Bowl 38 - See above comment regarding Patriots and SB 39.
Super Bowl 37 - That Bucs OL sucked and I had no clue how they pulled it together and played that well down the stretch. No inclination they would pull it together they way they did. They weren't that good. They weren't very good early in the season, nor the season before or after. But I do remember how great they were down the stretch. Very confusing. I would give anything to type this about our OL at this point next year.
Super Bowl 36 - Same old Patriots above average OL (did have a Pro Bowler in this season).
Super Bowl 35 - Odgen is/was one of the top 3-5 OL in the history of the league and he was in his prime. The rest of the line wasn't a liablity.
Super Bowl 34 - Pace is/was one of the top 3-5 OL like Odgen. And the rest of the line was good.
Super Bowl 33 - Broncos had 3 of their OL make the Pro Bowl. This doesn't sound average to me.
The pattern is that teams who win the SB usually have a good OL. I would go so far as to say that more teams have won the Super Bowl with a crappy QB than teams that have won the SB with a crappy OL. So, pabuwal, I have to wholeheartedly disagree about the last 10-11 Super Bowl winners not having very good offensive lines.
And even if we could get an average OL... that's fine... but I am a firm believer in having that one offensive lineman who needs to be great... that one guy, surrounded by average players... who you know you can run behind on 3rd and 1 and you're going to make it. The closest thing we have is Ray Willis. That's not bad, but it's certainly a far fetch from having Hutch to run behind. Walt was a better overall player, but Hutch was better on 3rd and 1. Together they were unstoppable in '05.
Pab... remember that we have 2 Number 1's next year... That alone will provide a unique position for bartering (up, down,etc)... I just can't believe we'd throw away the opportunity to solidify the OL after this season...... The Hawks need to sell tickets ongoing, if they miss this unique opportunity, Rusk will be gone in a heartbeat... I'm sure he knows that..
"BobbyK's thoughts on the draft really look pretty plausable" I agree, but I'd be a lot happier with Bobby in Renton than the circus clown that's currently there.
I'm thinking we'll pick up a corner, a linebacker, a safety and three mediocre OL at the end of the draft come April.
Bobby, the line CAN be fixed in one year, but that depends on a lot of things going our way: Evans being willing to sign here, ditto College (or however his name's spelled), drafting low enough that we can get our stud OT, and still, with all that, we'll only have one decent back up T (willis)...Suppose Barry's available, but our first choice at Tackle is gone...do we go with BPA, or need? Suppose that Jake Locker declares, and we get Barry with our first pick, and Locker's still there when we have our second, do we pass on him? Would a draft of Berry, Locker and a second round LT (assuming we get what we want out of FA, despite other teams desires) work for you?
wulf - don't get soft on me:) YOU, more than anyone on this blog, including myself, were psycho about adding to the OL last off season. I remember the posts. And nothing has changed, except ANOTHER wasted season thanks to our OL sucking donkey crap.
I do have one thought will the seahawks bring in free agents for LB dept?
LOL, Bobby, not getting soft, just looking at reality...if Evans IS the best available G, it's a fairly safe bet that we WON'T be the only team bidding for his services...We could end up with another Deilman fiasco on our hands...Do I blame Ruskell for that one? Not at all, he offered more than SD did, the guy just wanted to stay with his team. We CAN get it done in a year, but lots of things have to go our way...Would I pass up on Berry AND Locker to do it in one? Ask me that ten times, and I'll have ten different answers...(I DO think that Locker will go back for his senior year, though) If we can only get one good guard in FA, would I pass on Berry to get two tackles and a G in the draft? I would definitely consider it. If we can't get ANY of the good FA linemen? You bet, linemen with our first four picks...
BobbyK - When you make a general statement about the o-line like "they sucked" what are you basing it on? The fact that they played well enough to propel an offense to the Super Bowl? That it didn't have 3 prow bowlers? And if so, how then are teams winning Super Bowls with lines that "suck"? Let me answer that; they aren't. And if the argument can be made that they are, isn't that an inditement of the Seahawks coaches and front office? Why then in god's name are you willing to give Ruskell another contract? Can we please move on from this for a bit. There is a game this weekend you know.
The '06 through this years line have all "sucked." The run blocking has been sub par in each of those seasons and I think you'll have to agree. In each year, I have had no confidence in our unit on 3rd and 1. With the exception of the '07 team, who did well in pass protection, all of the other offensive line play from all the other years with respect to pass protection has been below average. In conclusion, when you can't run block very well and can't pass protect very well, that's what I consider bad.
And please don't ask me why I think Ruskell should get a 1 year extention. I have no basis for this and it's embarassing to admit. I have no defense. My only stipulation in his 1 year deal would be that he can be shot if he doesn't fix the OL.
Locker sucks. Almost as much as this current o-line we have. I can tell you what happens if MacIntosh or Willis get hurt, Unger will be playing tackle and Vallos will be in at guard in his place.
If Ruskell is still the GM when we draft next April it doesn't matter about two 1st round picks, he'll blow them. That guy cannot judge o-line talent and I still think he looks down on offensive linemen and that guards are a dime a dozen. Since his contract expires at the end of the season, and this team is going to picking about where we did last year, I'm hoping there is a good chance they tell him to hit the highway and will bring in a good GM this time who will weed out the deadwood Ruskell drafted/signed and get this team back on track. It's going to take more than one off season though.
BobbyK: "My only stipulation....."
~~~~~ LOL!!!!! ~~~~~
There are quite a few quality players scheduled to become FAs this upcoming off-season. Yes, some will get franchised, but many won't.
We are going to have cap dollars to play with (and reasons stated before). And with three high picks, we have a chance to get a few impact players.
I think it can/should get fixed in one off-season. There's no reason we can't be a Super Bowl frontrunner in '10.
If the Jahri Evans at RG situation becomes another Kris Dielman, it's not the end of the world. And if Daryn Colledge stays in Green Bay to play LG, it's not the end of the world. There are plenty of other options. Marcus McNeil is a good, young LT and is going to be a FA. I suspect he'll be franchised though. There seems to be three good guards who will be available in the draft. I'm certain they will be there when we make our Denver pick and our second rounder. And between Okung/Bulaga, one of them most certainly will be there when we pick with our own first rounder.
And if we do get "burned" by the FA OL, we can use FA dollars on the other positions so we don't have so many needs besides the OL. Aaron Kampman would look great at LDE. There also seem like 4 guys who play FS who will be available.
Locker does not suck. He's not ready for the pros, but he does not suck. His tools are outstanding, and if he declares I can just about guarantee that some team is going to draft him in the first round on his potential. If Josh Freeman gets drafted in the first round, Locker doesn't? Preposterous.
But I don't think he'll declare.
Right now I'm watching the Indiana at Iowa game. Iowa has an offensive LT (#79 Bryan Bulaga) I really like. Quick feet, good balance. Might be avaliable in the second round.
Seahawks fans became really spoiled by Walt and Hutch.
I'm not sure if any NFL team ever had two HOFers playing side-by side through their prime years, maybe a few, maybe none. That's what the Seahawks had and we need to accept it was a rare, rare event that is nearly impossible for any GM to plan or repeat. All the best GMs draft guys year after year they hope might be another Walt or Hutch, but it rarely happens. Face it, there is a lot of luck involved.
Our offensive line will be very good again. Healing the players we have, developing the players we have, and adding a couple new good players can produce a top notch offensive line.
In the years we had Walt and Hutch, did you notice that Other Teams won the Super Bowl every year? Why? They had offensive lines that were inferior to ours, but they were better teams top-to-bottom. Our defense is not superior top-to-bottom to the one we had in 2005. Improve a few positions (including but not only offensive line) a couple more steps and we will be back on top.
As the injuries heal and this starts to happen, I think Ruskell's overall plan is going to start looking pretty smart.
I meant to say: "Our defense is NOW superior top-to-bottom to the one we had in 2005."
and the only way to judge the team Ruskell built is comparing it to the team we had in 2004.
The Raiders come to mind with Upshaw and Shell on their left side.
Super Bowl winners are good top-to-bottom or else they wouldn't have made it that far. They are usually good at all positions.
We all have different philosophies on how we would build a winner. Mine is franchise QB and good OL. From there, I'd mix and match with trying to be good all over but realizing it can't always happen. I just don't think you can skimp.
No matter how hard we try, we'll never have a left side better than Walt/Hutch, but that doesn't mean we can't get good players. And we certainly can improve from the right side of what we had in '05. And the natives are going to come out in full force with their hatchets on this one, but Robbie wasn't a "real" Pro Bowler all by himself in '05. He was an above average C who played on a team who had a runner with great stats and road the coattails of Walt/Hutch and Shaun's numbers to the Pro Bowl. He was a fine player and I'm glad he was on our side (the continuity was huge b/w our linemen) but if he would have played the exact same way that year for a 5-11 team, there's no way he would have sniffed the Pro Bowl. Kind of like Tez in the 90s. That guy was the best for a period of time but he never got talked about like he would have if: A. He played in New York or: B. The Seahawks would have won. And I'm used to people taking what I say and using it in a way that I didn't mean, so I'll wait for the "I can't believe you think Robbie sucked" comments and know there's no way in hell I thought he was a bad player.
I've been watching the Iowa game to see Bryan Bulaga and he looked fine (so did their RT). I'd love to have him at LT in '10. I only saw it on commercials of the Nebraska game though so it's not like I watched his every snap.
"Super Bowl winners are good top-to-bottom or else they wouldn't have made it that far. They are usually good at all positions." That is in direct conflict with your Super Bowl champions o-line break down above. And speaks to my points earlier in reference to that list.
Bobby, I don't think we need much in the way of "building"...The D is pretty much there, (we'll always be a piece or two away from perfection) The Receiving corps is there, the QB is there, the backfield is an unknown...the only place where we need a lot of work is the O line...
I really hate the zone blocking system. I would rather the Hawks bring in bigger, drive blocking O linemen and have them take tighter splits.
OT Trent Williams, Kyle Calloway, Bryan Bulaga
OG kMike Lupati, Jon Asamoah, Mitch Petrus
center JD Walton, Ted Larsen
I'm hoping with all this talk about the o-line, the line we are going with tomorrow comes with some attitude. Maybe DMac brings some Nasty and it will rub off on Sims and Spencer and co. (for the record, Willis already has plenty of Nasty) and we can suprise some people. If they can knock the Cowboys off the ball a little and have a little running room, it will open the seams for the receivers and Matt and the offense could enjoy some success. Of course, the Defense will need to play with some serious enthusiasm. A couple TO's and a bounce or two our way and this could be a turning point. We're as healthy as we'll probably be all year(Locklear not withstanding) so there's no better time than now to start turning this around. Kool-Aid............ Anyone???????????
One writer writes that most SB winners the last 10 years didn't have very good OLs. My analogy was to dispute that you DO need a good OL. But most SB winners are USUALLY pretty good all around.
USUALLY
Not sure what part is isn't understood? Every team in the history of mankind has had strengths/weaknesses... but the champions normally have more strengths than weaknesses and the weaknesses usually don't suck that bad (but some do). And, no, I'm not going to define "suck."
All I know is that I'd rather have a good OL than a good group of LBs, DBs, WRs, etc. I'm not going to do the reseach to dispute, in the last 10 years, who had good units of this or that of the teams who have won SBs.
Ahh, f-it... lets just get slaughtered tomorrow and draft some DBs and LBs next April. That would be fun.
I wonder what's going to happen today? We're going to "upset" the Cowboys? We're going to get slaughtered? At least we don't have to wait too much longer to find out.
What's not clear was the point you were trying to make. Arguing that you need to be strong on the line (either offense or defense) is a bit like arguing the sun will rise in the east. No s**t.