Sunday, March 27, 2011

Carroll: Stacy Andrews Moving to Right Tackle

At the NFL owners' meeting, Pete Carroll said that Seahawks lineman Stacy Andrews will compete for the starting right tackle position in 2011:

"Stacy is a legitimate factor at right tackle. That is his natural position. We brought him in to play right tackle and when Max Unger got hurt, it necessitated the move right away and he didn't get a chance to play right tackle. ... That's a spot that Stacy will compete at. That to me is an exciting opportunity. His body type and his mentality and his background, even though he played guard at Philadelphia, he really is a natural tackle. Hard-working guy and all that kind of stuff. We'll see how that works out."

This is good news for me, and not just out of a desire to replace Sean Locklear. Andrews was a disappointment at right guard, but that's because his size and talents don't fit right guard. They fit right tackle, where he started - and prospered - for the team who drafted him in the fourth round (Cincinnati), earning a franchise designation in 2008. Once he was traded to the Eagles after a severe injury, the Eagles insisted on starting him at guard, where his height has negated his leverage against effective 3-4 defensive tackles ever since. Fred Robbins and Richard Seymour gave him particular trouble last year.

Carroll's quote indicates that Seattle, rather than also mis-judging Andrews, saw the proper fit for the guy and played him out of position for a reason other than "we're desperately experimenting". The best solution for right guard in 2010 ended up being Mike Gibson, who has fought his way up the depth chart but still remains good depth rather than a good starter.

Andrews, who was obtained from Philly for a seventh-round pick, could end up bouncing back and providing a good in-house solution for an aching problem on the offensive line. He has that potential; most people don't realize that he was solid in Cincy and traded because of injury. It would behoove Seattle to try and reduce Andrews' large salary, the factor that truly endangers his tenure with the Seahawks, but reducing bloated contracts was one of John Schneider's greatest successes in his first year with the team.

I suppose the move could also be Pete Carroll trying to jack up Andrews' value for a potential trade, but after Andrews' reputation the last couple years (whether unfair or not), I can't imagine Andrews being heavily sought after.


  1. Yeah for some reason this gets me excited about the possibility of Andrews having some success. He was basically a healthy scratch for the last few games of the season so you kind of forget about him, but it would be nice to see him at tackle, where he is most comfortable and his body type is ideal.

    Question - what were your thoughts on Polumbus? He seemed to be a good depth player at worse at T or G when guys went down - will the Hawks re-sign him?

  2. I hope they re-sign him, but I can see another team offering him a starting job.

  3. Yeah - too bad we gave up a sixth rounder or something like that for him last year.

  4. This is definitely good news. You could almost hear Andrews saying "Put me at tackle" when he lined up.

    I'd keep Polumbus too. He proved he was a solid player.

  5. I'm not convinced Andrews will prosper at RT, but he can't be worse than he was at RG. And I doubt he could possibly get blown up as much as Locklear did. Getting bull rushed by 265 pound DEs like Atkins will get you dismissed in the NFL.

  6. It's worth noting that Locklear played guard in college and was drafted by Seattle to play RG, only getting moved to RT due to injury of Floyd Womack in preseason. He clearly played well enough, but pass blocking has always been his strength (relatively speaking) and run blocking a weakness. With Walt and Hutch on the left, that was OK. Not OK with the revolving door since. Seahawks clearly tried trading Locklear last off-season, but scrapped that when Unger went down. So, it's all Unger's fault. Had he stayed healthy, Locklear would have been traded for a pick next month, and Andrews would have played RT. Given the plan to play Andrews at RT, it makes me doubt Seattle spends pick 25 on Carimi or any of the other OT's tht might still be available. I think a DT or DE falls in our lap, we trade down, or they go with Mallett.

  7. I guess I'm not as optimistic about Locklear as you, rowbum. I saw him getting beaten off the edge a lot by speed rushers, and he is a penalty machine. I doubt we would have gotten any trade value for him, though that hope might well have been part of the justification for acquiring Andrews.

    I agree that we don't go RT at #25, but for different reasons. It's just insane to go for a RT that high in general, a tremendous BPA loss and waste of a first-rounder. Good starting right tackles can easily be found as far down as the fifth round. Left tackle is a harder job and a premium position, meriting first-round consideration, but not right tackle. No way.