Seahawks Insider

Morning links: Tatupu visits New Orleans

Post by Eric Williams on Feb. 14, 2012 at 7:23 am with 50 Comments »
February 14, 2012 7:23 am
Seattle Seahawks Lofa Tatupu (51) celebrates scoring a touchdown on an interception return with teammate Junior Siavii (Ted Warren/AP).

It appears former Seattle Seahawks linebacker Lofa Tatupu is healthy and ready to play some football again.

According to Jason LaCanfora of NFL.com, the 29-year-old linebacker visited the New Orleans Saints on Monday. Tatupu sat out the 2011 season after he asked for and was granted his release in Seattle after refusing to take a pay cut during training camp.

Tatupu had surgery on both knees during the offseason leading up to the 2011 year, and had been dealing with injuries the last few years. So the hope is that Tatupu is finally healthy. And if that’s the case he can certainly help a team.

Elliot Harrison of NFL.com provides a nice wrap-up of the Seahawks 2011 season.

Jim Corbett of USA Today takes a look at possible landing spots for Peyton Manning, and the Seahawks are on the list: Corbett: “ Manning could consider the NFC West the path of least resistance to the Super Bowl by comparison to the NFC East and AFC East. Offensive coordinatorDarrell Bevell worked with Favre with Green Bay and the Minnesota Vikings and would tailor the offense to Manning.”

Bucky Brooks of NFL.com pegs Ryan Tannehill, Brandon Weeden and Brock Osweiler as potential fits at quarterback in Seattle.

Pete Prisco of CBS Sports takes a look at a key offseason question for all 32 teams. Not surprisingly, the question for Seattle is who will start at quarterback in 2012. Prisco: “You have to think the Seahawks will make a move to bring somebody in, whether through the draft or free agency? Neither Tarvaris Jackson nor Charlie Whitehurst looks like the long-term starter.”

And if you didn’t know already, Sports Illustrated unveiled its 2012 swimsuit issue today.

Categories:
Morning links
Leave a comment Comments → 50
  1. RDPoulsbo says:

    New Orleans is probably a good place for Tatupu. Their LBs are terrible, so he has a good chance to start again.

  2. It seems Lofa has been around forever. It’s amazing that he’s not even 30 yet. I wish him the best (unless he ends up in Dallas, Pittsburgh or Minnesota).

  3. Dukeshire says:

    I’ve read that Bevell / Favre connection as it would relate to Manning, before. I don’t understand it at all. The two have nothing to do with one another. Minn and Favre’s Packers ran a vey similar offense. Manning’s Colts were another animal altogether.

  4. I agree. I haven’t understood it either. All they are is two great QBs with something left in their tanks (if Manning is healthy) at the end of their careers. After that, the comparisions end. Two totally different systems and two totally different style of QBs.

  5. Nice clip of Tannenhill in his bowl game last year (almst 10 minutes). Each play is only his pass attempts (or run plays). Good view.

    Keeping things in context, which most people don’t like to do, it’s a game they lose to a superior opponent who will later go undefeated the following regular season, in addition to the fact that these type of throws weren’t made by a 5 year NFL veteran, they were from a kid who had played QB in college football for only a few months. Keeping all of that in mind, I came away impressed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXDEzCf3C7Y

    It’s like watching his whole game in a fraction of the time!

  6. SeahawkFan12 says:

    Once again, Bucky Brooks spews excrement disguised as football “journalism”. Brandon Weeden would be a terrible fit since he makes horrendous decision under pressure and will be Favre’s age by the end of his first contract (yes, that’s an exaggeration). Brock Osweiler is younger and less accurate, but he is tall. So I guess he’s got that going for him. If Tannehill is available in the second, I’d have no problem taking him to learn under Peyton Manning. Tannehill needs at least 3 years to develop and needs a proven winning QB–not another backup-turned-overpaid-starter or TJACK–to learn under.

  7. Here’s another entire Tannenhill game [bowl game] (vs. a solid NW team this past year – went into Lincoln and beat Nebraska too. I know Nebraska isn’t the team of yesteryear, but that was a good/solid NW team this past year).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js5si7nyzSE

    He’s gotta make that catch at the 2:24 mark (regular play, all QBs have drops, etc.) and then for 3 plays total in a row… drops.

    Terrible throw at 6:12 (kind of like the 3 pick-6s that Jackson should have thrown this past season that the defenders didn’t catch; Polamalu was one and then one each in the AZ games).

    Another terrible one given the game situation at 6:35.

    7:19 – you can’t do that (game situation). Lack of QB experience. Reminds me of a Locker play against Neb. last season (and I liked Locker – took him for the ‘Hawks w/no regrets in the Insider mock last season).

    What’s up with the idiot A&M WRs running out of bounds late?

    Good game. Again, taking things into proper context, I’m starting to develop somewhat of a mancrush on Tannenhill. Of course, If I’m seeing/projecting what Mike Sherman got to see everyday, I doubt Tannenhill makes it past the Dolphins if they fail to land Flynn or Manning.

    If we do go with Tannenhill, I think he needs to start from day one simply for developmental purposes (you learn more from doing than watching). T-Jack is a waste of a year and Tannenhill won’t be ready as a 1st year starter in 2013 if T-Jack is allowed to waste an entire season (again, learn more from actual doing, not watching)… It’s not that Tannenhill wouldn’t have a great run game to depend on. He would. In addition to a good OL/WRs/defense. That’s the PERFECT recipe for going with a rookie QB and putting him in the BEST possible scenario to succeed. If we don’t sign Flynn, this is where I’m starting to hope we go…

    At home w/a sick, sleeping kid so I’m going to keep checking out Tannenhill film (you tube) in the meantime.

  8. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Unfortunately I doubt Tannehill will be available in the second round.

    Some are saying that he will go between 5-10 in the first round.

    Imo- Tatupu would be wise to hang it up. Hasn’t the concussions taught him anything. I hope this is not a case like so many other players where they stay in the game too long because they need the money.

  9. RDPoulsbo says:

    I keep seeing Weeden as rising and even in the top 5 QBs to draft. Come on. Who really thinks a 29 year old rookie QB is going to be one of the top 5 QBs taken in next year’s draft? Even if he’s decent, by the time he’s fully integrated into any system he’ll be on the downside of his career.

  10. Lofa is less than a year older than Weeden. lol

  11. “I’ve read that Bevell / Favre connection as it would relate to Manning, before. I don’t understand it at all. The two have nothing to do with one another.”

    I don’t think they’re comparing QBs. The point is that Bevell has demonstrated he can tailor his system to a veteran QB.

  12. He really didn’t tailor anything to Favre though. He simply had Favre run his system, which Favre was a master at; it was a perfect match. I have no doubt that he wouldn’t be able to change things to work well with Manning though. But it’s not the same as not having to really change anything, as w/Farve (if that makes sense?).

  13. I am still wondering why Osweiler has all of a sudden jumped up as this great guy. Nobody talked about him as a player during the season but now that it is over. “OMG this guy is awesome”

    I don’t remember him being anything but average. I think Foles has be better arm and a better feel for the game.

  14. Palerydr says:

    The Hawks will not draft Tannehill or Weeden, Osweiler on the other hand is intriguing. He’s unique a quality that Pete looks for tall, mobile and can make the NFL throws. I would think that he could go in the 2nd but more likely the 3rd. I also see them looking at Kirk Cousins in the same rounds. I think 1 of those 2 will be drafted by the Hawks depending on who they value more when the pick comes up.

    Bobby your disdain for Jackson overrules rational thought just because you want them to start a rookie over Jackson doesn’t mean it will and almost certainly will not happen.

    right now I see the Hawks doing this
    Resign Lynch
    resign Red or someone who can replace him Avrill/williams?
    draft a DE/Pass rushing DT in round 1
    LB/QB in rounds 2 and 3
    too cloudy to predict at this time for the rest as it will depend on who they do resign. I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time :)

  15. “The Hawks will not draft Tannehill…” that seems about as “rational” with any certainty as my disdain for Jackson, unless, of course, you have been meeting with Schneider and Mr. Happy and know how they personally feel about him. If Mike Sherman is sold on Tannenhill, there’s no way Tannenhill will even be around by the time we pick (unless they have signed Flynn or Manning).

  16. Dukeshire says:

    Bobby beat me to it, and he’s exactly right. Bevell didn’t taylor anything, it was essentially the same offense. Whereas what Indy ran with Manning was very different than either GB’s at Minn’s. Indy ran, basically, their entire offense out of 3 formations. Bevell’s WC background has a different personnel package for nearly every down and distance. Two very different approaches.

  17. Dukeshire says:

    xcman – Every year, after all the games have been played, someone like Osweiler starts getting irrational traction. I saw McShay yesterday kicking the guy, and for some unknown reason, people put stock into his opinion.

  18. Dukeshire says:

    Kicking? That should read *jocking* the guy…

  19. RDPoulsbo says:

    Seattle will need to trade down if they want Tannehill. 11/12 is way too high and he certainly won’t be around in round 2. I’d just as well hope they get top talent to help with non-existent pass rush. After Seattle, Cleveland still has another pick if they don’t get RG3 (or Washington acts irrationally if they lose out on RG3). Denver will have an interesting decision to make as well.

    Osweiler is interesting, but people seem to be falling in love with his physical measurements and forgetting just how raw he is. He hasn’t played football for very long and I think it’s a valid question to wonder if he’ll be able to grasp an NFL playbook.

  20. chuck_easton says:

    If Lofa truly is healthy again and he has the fire to play then I wish him the best. N.O. would be a great landing spot for him and I don’t think we play them in the next couple of years so we can root for Lofa the person and not feel like we’re rooting against the Seahawks.

  21. Osweiller is like the only guy I can’t stand – I will be mad if they draft him before the 5th round.

  22. Palerydr says:

    That’s just me looking into my crystal ball Bobby. If they sign Manning/Flynn I still look for them to draft a QB. Schneider values QB as trading chips for draft picks. I expect them to possibly draft a QB every year. If I were to look I’d bet that’s exactly what the Packers did while Schneider was there. I’d also bet they swung and missed more often than hit but it only takes 1 hit to make that investment worthwhile. Osweieller/Cousins will both require time to develop as rightfully pointed out, Osweiller has very little football experience. I believe we all can agree Pete wants a game manager from the QB position albeit one who can make plays to win a game in the 4th quarter which our current starter lacks the ability to do.

  23. When has Schneider viewed QBs as trading chips? Who has he personally traded for picks at that position? I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just curious. All I have known of him is trading for Whitehurst.

    It’s funny that people think Pete only wants a “game manager” when the only time he’s ever won a legit (NCAA or NFL) championship is when he’s had a Heisman Trophy winner at that position. Unless your name is Tim Tebow, I think most of us can agree that a QB good enough to consistently win on last drives of the game would also be good enough to win early in the game too (and not need as many late game heroics).

    Looking at the last two drafts, it seems to me that Schneider and comPete have traded away about as many draft picks as they have gotten back in return.

  24. RDPoulsbo says:

    BobbyK: Pete constantly talks about wanting a QB who’s more like a basketball point guard (distributing the ball to playmakers) than a QB who’s a point man (the focal point of the offense). He’s been saying that long before T-Jax was ever considered. It’s something he stressed with Matt in 2010 when he first came to Seattle. Matt actually had the ability to put games on his shoulders and win unlike T-Jax so I believe him when he actually says that.

    If that’s indeed his philosophy, they aren’t going to overpay or reach for a QB in the draft. It certainly rules out Manning because he’s the extreme of the point man type QB.

  25. GeorgiaHawk says:

    If Pete Carroll is serious about wanting a QB who’s more like a basketball point guard (distributing the ball to playmakers) than a QB who’s a point man (the focal point of the offense), imo, we will most likely have to wait for the next regime to come in and try to make the Seahawks into a Super bowl contender.
    Let’s see, that would be around the year 2016.

    Well, at least we may have a shot at Max Browne by then. Lol.

  26. Dukeshire says:

    That’s interesting. I never saw Hass as the type that could put a team on his back. In fact, I think he was at his worst (forcing balls, poor decisions, running himself into sacks) when he felt he had to carry the club. Conversely, when he spread the ball, took completions under the coverage, and otherwise managed the game plan, as much patience as that can take.

  27. GeorgiaHawk says:

    That’s true for the most part about Matt, however their was glimpses of him putting the team on his back. The Redskin playoff game in 2005 for example after Alexander went down.
    But he was ( imo )more a proven game manager, so why didn’t Carroll see that? And instead he goes after a potential game manager that had already proven he wasn’t one?

    Mind boggling!

  28. GeorgiaHawk says:

    there was

  29. RDPoulsbo says:

    I would say pretty much all of the 2007 offense was put on Matt’s shoulders when the running game went into the tank and he had good results. I’d say the Saints playoff game is a good example of putting the team on his shoulders in more recent years. He was pretty much hit and miss in the last few years as he didn’t exactly have any weapons or protection in the last couple years either. That’s not to say he didn’t have his judgment errors because he certainly did.

  30. Matt carried this team in ’07 as far as he could, but that was it. He was very, very good then. He wasn’t good enough to carry a team ala Manning or someone great like that. However, he’s not a pile of something, as we have now either. Matt was never great, but he was definitely good enough in his prime. I don’t see Jackson getting there, even with superior surrounding talent (as he’d need, since he sucks with all things being equal).

  31. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Again, we wouldn’t be having these discussions if the FO would have resigned hasselbeck and moved up to draft Locker last year, or choose Dalton or Ponder instead of reaching for Carpenter.
    Head scratching!

    Hope they get it right soon!

  32. Dukeshire says:

    Matt walked for two reasons: 1- He didn’t accept their contract. And 2- This is a complete rebuild and a huge part of that is getting younger.

    Sorry fellas, but there is nothing more tiring than beating this long dead horse. Whether Seattle would had done better or worse with or without Hass last season is nothing but conjecture. Let’s go ahead and turn the page.

  33. We need to figure out how to get the number one pick next year. The kid has Seattle ties. I’ll bet he’d love to play for Pete again! I think we could survive another year of T-jack. Or better yet, maybe he can figure out how to make himself eligible just after the 11th pick this April. :)

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/matt-barkley-posts-picture-valentine-just-sad-200820878.html

  34. Palerydr says:

    OK Bobby I went and looked it up turns out I’m pretty much wrong. If my timeline is correct the Packers drafted a QB in 8 of the 12 seasons he was part of the organization. Of those 8 2 were traded Ty Detmer and Mark Brunnel. The only other 2 notable QB’s drafted were Rodgers and Flynn the rest didn’t play any significant time. It appears my theory has more holes than a termite infested rowboat.

  35. GeorgiaHawk says:

    There is nothing more tiring and/or ignorant than to twist this qb thing into ” it was all about Matt, so now that I dont’t want to hear about it anymore I will call it a dead horse, so let’s all move on. Lol.
    I for one never said it was all about Matt! It was about having a plan to replace him, and so far that plan has not worked out for two years going on three.
    Hopefully the FO will get it right soon, and I have faith that they will, however you can twist it all you want, but so far it hasn’t worked out very well at the qb position for us, and you can’t blame that on Hasselbeck not accepting a one year take or leave it contract, and you can’t blame some fans for speaking out about it until the FO can find a replacement that is better than a dead horse solution.

    In other words, this will not go away until we get a better qb! It just won’t. And rightfully so.

  36. Palerydr says:

    Speculating on what Matt Hasselbeck would or would not have done is just a sure way to get your blood pressure up do yourself a favor and “fahget about it” in my best NY accent.

  37. Dukeshire says:

    Georgia – No one, certainly not me, even insinuated you were saying this is all about Matt. But look, simply because you (or I) don’t know what their plan for the future of the position is, doesn’t mean they don’t have one. What is clear, is that after extending only 2 year deals to each CW, Jackson, and Hass, they don’t (didn’t) regard any of them as the future. In addition, the effort to rebuild this team began on the offensive line and in the secondary, for good or ill. And it appears they didn’t wish to begin the process at QB. If your issue is how they are constructing this thing, then that’s another story, and one worth discussion.

    As for the dead horse issue, that’s one of questioning whether they would be better last year if Hass was here or not, and I stated that pretty damn clearly. It is absolutely irrelevant to the direction of this team, now that he’s gone. Now, if Hass goes on to play another 4 or 5 years of productive football, and Seattle is still renting middling QBs, 2 years at a time, then that would be a different story. But comparing Hass and Jackson in these hypothetical ways, is silly and has been hashed and rehashed again and again with nothing new to inject into the conversation.

  38. Matt is gone. I realize this. But if the goal was to comPete this past season, I don’t understand how they couldn’t have brought him back. They brought in someone who isn’t a long-term answer so whether he’s younger or not really doesn’t matter. All they did was get worse, which still makes no sense if the goal was to comPete. Whether they had Matt at what he wanted or Tarvaris, they still would have been under the cap this past season so it couldn’t have been about the money either. I can see going with someone young who has potential, but we didn’t bring in anyone with any potential (I haven’t seen any, and you’d think they would have been smarter than me since they do this for a living). I am reluctant to move on simply because I don’t believe in free passes for people who do stoopid things. Granted, they have done enough in the grand scheme of things to improve the talent level overall, but I still want this most important position upgraded. I don’t like the “he would have gotten killed” argument for the first month either. It would have been more of the same that he’d been used to for years, but can you imagine how much better we’d have been off once this run game clicked? I firmly believe we’d have made the play-offs and towards the end of the season people talked about how one team you really didn’t want to face was the Seahawks. Who knew where we’d have ended up?

    Or perhaps we’ll sign Flynn and get a good pass rusher at 11/12 or sign one of the big money pass rushers and draft Tannenhill and it will all work out in the grand scheme of things even if we had to have a “throw away” season with Tarvaris as purgatory hell punishment for being Seahawk fans. Hey, maybe it’ll all work out in the grand scheme and we’ll all be happy in the end? I hope so! It could happen. We’ll find out in the next few months if there’s hope for the future or if we’re damned to more of not knowing what a Super Bowl win is going to feel like. That’s my take and nobody will tell me otherwise. They may tell me, but it won’t register in my head!

  39. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Palerydr- Words of wisdom!

  40. Dukeshire says:

    And to be clear, I’m not suggesting the issue of QB is not worth discussing, far from it. But the nonsensical conjecture of what Hass might have done here last season, is not. i.e., they would still be in the position the are now: looking to settle the position for the long term.

  41. Dukeshire says:

    Bobby- You don’t know that they got worse. That is simply speculation. And remember, they offered him a contract, and he passed.

  42. GeorgiaHawk says:

    BobbyK- I see this very much like you do, however I feel silly to admit it. Lol.

    Dukeshire- I am not going to talk about Seahawk qbs, Present, past , or potential future until after the draft. And that’s a promise.Lol.

  43. Another QB option to ponder, purely speculative of course. If Drew Brees gets franchised would we consider signing him and ponying up 2 1st round picks + big money??? There’s a way to rationalize this I’m sure.

    I doubt the Seahawks brass would do it but it might make sense for the 49ers as that apparent final piece. Not to mention how late they pick in the round.

  44. Dukeshire says:

    Georgia – You’ve completely missed the point, intentionally I suspect. Although I have no idea why.

  45. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Just joking Dukshire! And I see your point of the rehashelbeck talk.

  46. Dukeshire says:

    Whew… I was getting a bit edgy there.

  47. GeorgiaHawk says:

    guatape

  48. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Sorry. My bad. I was trying to google a place in Columbia that I wanted to visit but I forgot to get off this blog first. Wow! That’s a first!

  49. wabubba67 says:

    Osweiller is a bum! I moved to Arizona in July and nobody that I met in Tempe was sold on him as a quarterback in the PAC-12, nevermind the NFL.

    Furthermore, did any of you see ASU’s bowl game against Boise State? Specifically, when Dennis Erickson sent the punt team on an Osweiller was allowed to overrule his coach. He told the punt team to get off of the field to go for it on 4th and 10 (why Erickson didn’t call a timeout to stop it, I’ll never know, except I think that he had already mentally cashed in his chips at ASU)…the result was an inaccurate pass and an incompletion.

    Has a reputation around here for partying too much and caring about football too little.

  50. RDPoulsbo says:

    I only brought up Matt because PC was talking about his point guard type QB philosophy when he was QB and long before T-Jax ever came onto the scene. Had he started talking about that after Matt left, I would have just chalked it up to trying to defend T-Jax and never believed him. I did think it was the wrong move and still do, but there’s really no point in rehashing that argument all over again.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0