Seahawks Insider

Hawks release LB Buchanon, sign TE Marshall and DE Mayowa

Post by Eric Williams on May 13, 2013 at 5:25 pm with 19 Comments »
May 13, 2013 5:27 pm

The Seattle Seahawks announced this afternoon that they released linebacker Ramon Buchanon, and signed tight end Victor Marshall and defensive end Benson Mayowa.

Marshall and Mayowa recently attended the team’s rookie minicamp as tryout players.

Marshall is a local product out of Juanita High School in Kirkland. He caught 40 passes in 2009 while at Simon Fraser University, and had 10 receptions in 2010 for the University of British Columbia.

At 6-4 and 235 pounds, Marshall ran a 4.66 40-yard time and posted a 32-inch vertical jump at the NFL regional scouting combine in Los Angeles in January.

Mayowa played in 45 career games at Idaho, collecting 67 tackles (47 solo), 11.0 sacks, 11 forced fumbles and three fumble recoveries during his four-year career for the Vandals.

At 6-3 and 236 pounds, Mayowa also was one of the top testers at the NFL regional combine at the team’s facility in March. He ran the 40 in 4.65 seconds and had a 38-inch vertical jump.

Buchanon was signed on May 10 after agreeing to terms after the NFL Draft on April 27.

Categories:
Cuts and waivers
Leave a comment Comments → 19
  1. Sekolah says:

    I suspected that Buchanon wouldn’t be around long. 215 lbs. at LB isn’t exactly what one would call “prototype”.

  2. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Not much of a scheme guy, however I found this article very interesting.
    I would like to here from our scheme experts- Dukeshire, Stevos, ect… regarding this.

    http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-breakdowns/2013/5/13/4320540/defining-the-seahawks-defense-an-introduction

  3. GeorgiaHawk says:

    “Hear.”

  4. GeorgiaHawk says:

    I didn’t know this until now.

    “The 4-3 defense, with four down-defensive-linemen and three linebackers, was first developed in the 1950′s under legendary coach Tom Landry, who conceptualized it mainly to stop Jim Brown.”

  5. GeorgiaHawk says:

    How about if we go back to the Tom Landry’s days and call the

    Sam-Mike-Will
    Sarah-Meg-Wanda.
    Lol.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/09/08/how-sam-mike-and-will-became-football-positions/URHq2XoAdviKJYZLQfbKNK/story.html

  6. Dukeshire says:

    That’s the short history of the 4-3. However, some give Bill George of the Bears or Gerrard Ramsey of the lions credit. Think of this: on those NY Giant teams, Landry was the DC, Lombardi the OC under Jim Howell. Pretty good.

    Regarding that article, it gives a nice overview taking some key talking points from Carroll’s Nike football lecture from several years ago. I do have a couple issues with it however: 1- In an Under front the NT is *not* a 2 gap player. He is a 1-tech that is responsible for the A gap to the closed side. 2- The LDE is *not* playing a 4-tech position. He is either 5-tech (the RT’s outside shoulder) or playing a 2 gap position right on the RT’s helmet (this is where Red plays, typically). 3- The Leo position is designated as such only in a Under front.

    In any case, pretty well done.

  7. GeorgiaHawk says:

    That’s why it would be great to see you doing some scheme diagrams for us here on this blog Duke.
    I try to understand your stuff but sometimes I get lost, so it would help to see some diagrams with it.

    Anyways, thanks for the insight.

  8. bird_spit says:

    I second that Georgia.

    I have been a reader on this blog a long time, and I think Dukeshire would make a great guest columnist …even if its a YouTube on scheme… I would like to reference it.

  9. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Sandpoint- I’m going to See Mt Rushmore for the first time in about a month. When I get there I want to see Easley, Jones, Largent and Kennedy on it.

    No flying under the radar this year.

    http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000169174/article/seattle-seahawks-voted-by-readers-to-win-super-bowl

  10. GeorgiaHawk says:

    Btw-Dave Boling had premature speculation today.

  11. ChrisHolmes says:

    @GeorgiaHawk Thank you so much for that link! That is one of the coolest things I’ve read this offseason. I really enjoy in-depth analysis like that.

    I thought I had a decent understanding the defense and what PC was doing with his, but that article was illuminating and made me realize I didn’t have a clue. Mixing 1-gap and 2-gap techniques… Pete’s defense is a total hybrid. No wonder it gives teams fits.

    What I liked reading about most is how *clear* Pete’s vision for the defense is at EVERY POSITION. He knows exactly what *type* of player he needs at all eleven spots. They all have a defined skill set and purpose in mind. That’s awesome.

  12. Sekolah says:

    I simply cannot believe this continued speculation that Spencer Ware even potentially makes Robinson expendable THIS YEAR. Sando frustrates me at times. Where is all of this HIGH speculation coming from? Bevell’s system doesn’t utilize the FB much – yeah, ok, I understand that – but that doesn’t mean Seattle can’t carry two FB’s, especially if one of them is a converted RB and you can tote the ball in certain situations.

    Lynch + Turbin + Michael + Robinson + Ware = 5 RB’s. Probably 95% of the teams in this league carry 5 RB’s on their roster, every year. So where’s the problem here? Where’s the crunch?

    All I got to say is Ware had better have one hell of a camp. I hate to see the media build up expectations like these simply because of a numbers game. Mike Robinson is a pro bowl FB, an ace special teamer, and an integral presence within the locker room. How is it that all of this is somehow lost on an ‘expert’ like Sando or anyone else with close knowledge of Seattle’s roster? Madness, I say.

  13. hawkfaninok – thanks for the link, and I love Sando, but really? Spencer Ware could start as a rookie? I think he can, for another team. I see him fighting for a spot on a talented practice squad. Some team in need of a tailback, not a fullback, might snatch him up from waivers in August before their season starts. So, yes, he could start somewhere I guess.

    On Jesse Williams – I still wish I knew what the team doctors know about his knee… the ones who convinced 31 teams to pass on him. (?) If his knee doesn’t flare up and take him out, I think he helps at both DT and 5-tech DE, probably a better DT than Red ever was, and backs up at 5DE for Red anytime Red can’t go. I so hope that’s true. Of all the players on our D, Red is one who could not be replaced when we lost him last year, so the scheme had to shift when he was injured. I hope Williams might be the answer to that. (and who would imagine we could get that in the 5th round!)

  14. Nice to see Kenny Easley getting Mt. Rushmore nominations. I’m surprised Shaun Alexander is getting so many, and Dave Krieg is hardly mentioned.

    I think these three are locks: Largent, Tez and Jones. They played their entire careers with Seattle (yeah, I know Largent was drafted by Houston) and are HOFers.

    The fourth nominee is debatable: Easley, Hasselbeck, Alexander, Paul Allen, Holmgren, Zorn, Warner, etc.

  15. ha, Sekolah. looks like we were on the same thought on Ware at the same time. agree.

  16. I would nominate Chuck Knox, along with Kennedy, Largent, and Walter Jones. Easley too, but I might lean towards Knox, because Easley was only here 6 years and wasnt himself his last year, while Knox put Seattle on the map and made the world sit up and take notice for the first time. He created a winning, tough-guy attitude that was really noticed when he left and the franchise went through the Dark Ages under Behring where all we were known for was badass defense and the most pathetic qb play of all time.

    The problem with the voting is that most of the ones voting are under 30, and they dont have a clue how good Zorn and especially Krieg really were–and they are biased towards players they grew up watching.

    Dave Krieg was something to see, when he was hot he was as good as it gets and unbeatable; when he was off, he was very bad…but overall, he kept Seattle competitive despite having a dearth of talent around him in all but 3-4 years of his tenure. That guy could win with crap talent. He also won and did well playing for the Lions. There are still guys from that team that are still pissed Fontes kept playing Scott Mitchell instead of Kreig after Kreig took them into the playoffs. He had 13 TD passes and only 2 INT’s in 8 games for them…

    Curt Warner was a fine player, but again, six years is a short period of time. Same with Alexander, who had 6 good years for us.

    Hasselbeck, Warner, Krieg, Brian Blades, Jacob Green, Chris Warren are all fine players but dont quite make the cut for Mt. Rushmore IMO.

    Holmgren doesnt make the cut, despite taking us to our only SB so far, for several reasons. First, he wasted 4 years tearing a good team down and rebuilding it. Second, he lost the SB in part by “forgetting” about JOe J, third he was a lousy GM–his drafts sucked, and fourth, he went back on his words about learning from his mistakes and having made bad decisions and now talks like he was all that and a bag of chips.

    Holmgren won his one SB mostly on the backs of very talented assistants, yet takes most of the credit. He didnt get too far without all those guys who went on to be HC’s in the NFL.

  17. Ware wont beat out Robinson this year, but if he makes it to the PS perhaps next year. RB’s are a dime a dozen, and few teams use FB’s any more, so we have a chance to groom him on the PS for a year or two if he does well.

    Sekolah–as for keeping 5 backs, it wont happen. Seattle would have to drop someone from another position group to keep that many backs, and I dont see them dropping a WR–and they may keep 6 of those, necessitating another drop elsewhere–so that would mean dropping a roster spot from the lines, LB’s, or secondary. Who would you let go?!

    Its gonna be tough to decide which position groups get an extra guy, or if they go same as always. SOme talented young guys are gonna get cut and snatched up by other teams.

    IMO, backs are one area they should skimp on. I dont see Ware on the roster no matter what. They have too many issues on the lines, not to mention uncertainty at LB and a secondary so loaded its hard to cut anyone. Also, the WR depth is looking great too. So again, why keep 5 backs and lose a lineman or DB?!

*
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