Friday, April 22, 2011

The Mallett Ultimatum, Part 2: Too Many Holes?

Part 1 of the Ryan Mallett series can be found here.


In typical fashion, much of the sports community is only now taking a fair look at the Arkansas signal-caller and judging him in the light of actual NFL attributes. He's a polarizing figure, to be sure. All it takes in this reactionary pre-draft environment is one notable writer or reporter to laud a guy, and suddenly everyone starts jumping on board. ESPN ran a front-page piece on him this week. Phil Simms pumped up the guy. Jon Gruden hosted a whiteboard session in which Mallett blew Cam Newton and Andy Dalton out of the water in a demonstration of his grasp of pro-level offensive concepts. And now Greg Cosell, a knowledgeable scout and draftnik, is tweeting about him in the context of actual NFL offenses.

With the hype machine finally swinging in Mallett's favor for once, expect a resurgence of his draft stock. Some draft experts will keep Mallett in Round 2, but I'm fairly sure they'll be proven wrong on draft day when some desperate team reaches for him.

And it's not insane to say that said team should be the Seattle Seahawks, even despite rumors that they're not interested. (Rob Rang claims they still are.)

Which is why, when our little draft team traded up from #25 to #15 to select Mallett in the Mock Three Twitter draft, we raised a few eyebrows. Several people asked why, Adam Wright of Seahawks Talk thought it too costly, and a couple guys said we could have waited until the #57 pick to grab him, if not the third round.

Most of the rest of you just say - rightfully - that the team has too many holes to fill and can't afford giving up a second-round pick to trade up.

Here's part two of my defense.


Holes on the Team

People say that Seattle lacks the offensive talent to protect or enable a rookie quarterback. They're not exactly wrong. It could be worse; we have our franchise left tackle, some decent receivers, a determined pair of running backs, and possibly a solid center and right tackle depending on how the front office plays its cards. But much of this talent isn't translating to a cohesive offense, and other offensive positions (guard) remain gaping holes that may leave a rookie QB exposed.

So if Seattle were to sacrifice a second-round pick to trade up in the first round, they'd need a strong justification. Let me offer one.

Have you ever noticed how defenses tend to stack and crowd any offensive line with Matt Hasselbeck behind it? The amount of pressure Seattle's O-line has endured the last few years is above NFL norms. Teams commit heavier blitzes against the line, choke Hass's throwing lanes, and jump receivers' routes. This hasn't been a rule, but a noticeable trend for sure. They know Hasselbeck can't punish pressure by throwing over the top of this raging swarm; he doesn't have the arm. So defenses can pile on the pressure without risking much. This isn't anti-Hasselbeck bias; it's how the NFL works against any weak-armed QB.

Many folks don't notice the difference because they don't watch other teams. Defenses don't dare pull that crap against Drew Brees. He'll rip the top off your defense. They don't try it against Peyton Manning either; his system is built to defeat pressure with his quick reads and quick throws (system built around QB, not the other way around). The jobs of their offensive lines are much easier; the pressure they have to contend with is both lighter and more tentative because of the downfield threat.

Allow me to hypothesize: what if Seattle's holes could be filled in somewhat by relieving the pressure? What if the Seahawks deployed a strong-armed QB who deterred defenses from crowding the line and forced them to back off? An arm like Ryan Mallett's could accomplish this, to an extent, almost by default. And it's not just his arm strength. If Mallett were an empty cannon, I'd be concerned. But unlike some such players, he has the accuracy and the experience reading and adjusting defenses to enable that gun of his. A QB with those tools can pick apart even tight defenses with his arm strength and game savvy, and can do so consistently enough to base an offense on it. Defenses will back off accordingly to defend that deep game.

How much better might Chester Pitts, Max Unger, and Stacy Andrews look without having to contend with blitzers every other play?

How much more running room might Marshawn Lynch have with defenses stacking the box less often?

How many more yards might deep threats like Deon Butler and Ben Obomanu rack up with a QB who can take advantage of their deep-threat skill sets?

I'm not saying that a QB will turn everyone into Pro Bowlers. Some of these players' struggles are purely their own. I am hypothesizing that a rookie QB with a good arm and quick read could take some pressure off the talent around him, improve them from "awful" to "serviceable enough to delay replacing". That's how good NFL offenses tend to work. Offenses have to scheme and tweak to accomodate a QB with limited arm strength, while big-armed QB's demand less and could be thought of as "lower-maintenance". (Seriously, give Greg Cosell's Twitter stream a follow. It's great stuff.)

That's my hypothesis. We'll see how valid it is.


Trading Up

No, quarterbacks do not bear the entire burden for an offense's success. I know at least one reader who's getting sick of me "blaming Matt Hasselbeck" for everything, and that would be unjust. In reality, I'm just emphasizing elements of offensive play that we don't always consider (how a QB helps the offense), while setting aside those we already know (how they help the QB). Of course a first-round guard would help. But because of the two-way dynamics between a QB and his surrounding talent, I simply believe a fresh quarterback would help more.

Seattle will need quite the quantum leap in the first round to trade ahead of the QB-needy teams best positioned to take him - Jacksonville, Miami, and possibly Minnesota. This would demand our first- and second-round pick. For a team loaded with holes and lacking a third-rounder, that's admittedly a heavy trade. (And to be honest, any team without a franchise QB is at least a slight threat to take the guy, including second-round teams looking to leapfrog us. Never say never.)

But here's how it could be justified: if a QB can improve the talent around him, the resulting boost in production could have the effect of drafting multiple starters in one pick. That would mitigate the loss of the second-rounder. Unlike some, I do believe there's talent on this offense, perhaps waiting to be "unlocked" in a manner similar to how I "unlock" half my pantry by buying a gallon of milk. It's a necessary ingredient to all the Tuna Helper and other quick dinners I have in there; without the milk, it's all pretty bad.

This trade-up is certainly high-risk and high-reward. Rob Staton is all for the idea; Danny Kelly is more conservative. I find myself somewhere between the two. If Mallett busts, you're out two starter picks, not just one, and the image of this front office suffers accordingly (GMs' images are most connected to QB handling). If it pans out, though, it becomes a bold risk that makes them look like geniuses. Like most risks, a trade up for Mallett would be judged by its outcome.

We're talking a franchise-altering move here - the quarterback and leader of the team. There is no greater need on this team. It's so bad that other positions are suffering for it. You've got to factor that in when you talk about holes on this team.


Conclusion

Trading up for Ryan Mallett has to be at least a consideration. It would be a massive gamble, but I don't see it as unjustifiable. Obviously your opinion on this will be a synthesis of several elements, such as your opinion of Mallett, your value of a late second-rounder, and your views on the importance of the quarterback. But it also has to be mentioned that should Mallett experience the late rise that I expect, or if there's an early second-round team trying to move up for him, an expensive trade-up might be Seattle's only option to effectively fill this hole. #25 is no man's land for QB's this year, too low for the big four and too high for the third-tier guys like Kaepernick, Dalton, and Ponder - who, if history is any indication, won't do much anyway.

Not every rookie quarterback immediately makes his team better. I believe Mallett can. He's not a finished product by any means; he'll need time to develop his delivery, footwork, and decision-making. His mobility is probably fixed. But he'll be able to buy himself a lot of time, both in the pocket and in his development, with his accurate cannon arm and his ability to read coverages and run his offense. Those particular tools are huge for a QB stepping onto the field for the first time.

I know John Schneider just got done practically waving the #25 pick over his head saying "come and get it" to the second round teams. That could be honest, or it could be smoke and mirrors. There's no benefit for a GM who advertises his team's draft plans that blatantly. Yes, our front office was fairly transparent last year with its eventual picks, but that was with two high first-rounders that were hard to mess up. This year's #25 is less viable. Also, Schneider has never had either the opportunity with Seattle or the need with Green Bay to address the QB position in the draft like this. His approach here is still largely a blank slate.

Do I think it likely that Schneider will do this? Honestly, no. But I don't think it's impossible, either, nor would I complain if he did. Wes Bunting points out that Seattle is one of three teams doing thorough homework on Mallett. Michael Lombardi of NFL.com expects Mallett to be gone before #15 (he's a good fit for the established offense in Minnesota), but still thinks that Seattle could be interested, although Doug Farrar thinks the mobility issue makes Mallett a schematic misfit. I'll post soon on how I think Pete Carroll's offensive vision fits into all this.


This is what I keep coming back to: when I look at almost every QB in this draft, I see talent buried amidst the dysfunction, schemes, and uncertainty of a college quarterback. When I look at Ryan Mallett, I see the NFL peeking out. That's the undeniable difference for me, and it's all the upside I need. Seattle has to consider the guy, and shouldn't be shy about securing him. If you think a guy is a franchise quarterback, there's no better player to reach for.


To be continued...

18 comments:

  1. I have to admit to being behind the idea of trading up for Mallett. I know he's not mobile, but I'd love the Hawks to have a strong-armed, big play QB. If it worked out it'd be well worth 2 picks for me, although I do see why the FO might be more concerned with the implications of such a move not working out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perfect analogy with the milk...hate having to resort to totinos pizza (sounds good at first, hurts in the end) when I realize everything I really want to eat requires just one ingredient that I don't have.
    Maybe Mallet can just let Tate run wherever he wants to and hit him with a strike when he gets open...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mallett vs. Bradford on Monday night football for 1st in the division! That would be awesome I think!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, that was a tough read. There is so much wrong With this train of thought I don't even know where to start.

    First off, Pete is a defensive minded coach and will stack the box just like any other team, do you think he say's hey they're QB has a weak arm so lets stack the box? No he (like every DC) does it because they think they can get to the QB before the receivers can get open. So don't you think he would know that is why other DC's were doing it? Why would he start Matt all year when Charlie is known for his strong arm? Why would he announce Matt is the top priority to resign?

    What happened to Chicago early in the year when they're O-line was struggling? Teams stacked the box on them continuously, one of those teams to do it? The Seattle Seahawks. Do you think we and the other teams thought Jay Cutler has a weak arm?

    It wasn't until they got they're running game going that teams backed off and don't forget the bears had one of the best defenses in the league.

    Our defense was ranked around 30th out of 32 teams and our running game was right there with it. The receivers were all new to the system and not one was a starter here or anywhere else before being our starters last year.

    Its completely ignorant to ignore the worst defense, running game and possibly the worst group of WR's not to mention an O-line that had to keep TE's back just to provide even average pass protection and say the defenses stacked the box because of Matt.

    Matt's passer rating goes up in blitzing situations and he is one of the better QB's in the league against a blitz and reading defenses, but you ignore that and all other factors and try and pin the blame on Matt anyway. Sorry but ignoring is a form of ignorance.

    Who is it you think Mallett's quick release is going to be going to? Because the only people that have been open early are defenders.

    Do you really think if this were even close to true, you would be the one to notice it? What is it you think DC's do? You think they are coming on here for tips?

    Let me paint a scenario for you.

    Matt has been very public about the fact he wants to come back and the majority of Seattle fans want him back. So if Pete and John used both our first and second picks, when we don't even have a third in this draft to select Mallett, a guy with known character and leadership concerns and ignored the gaping wholes, how do you think the fan base would view that?

    Now lets take it one step further.

    Mallett beats out Charlie by the end of training camp and opens the season on the road in San Fran and then Pittsburgh, two very tough defenses and gets the confidence knocked out of him and goes on to have a horrible season, while Matt goes to the Niners and throwing to VD and Crabtree while dumping off to Gore and they're defense keeps games in check and the Niners crush us twice on they're way to winning the division.

    You think this fan base turned on Tim Ruskell for the hutch debacle? Just wait to see how fast they turn on Pete and John.

    You ever notice its the same teams that can't find a QB over and over? Smart organizations understand you need to create an environment where a QB has a chance at success. If you don't do that, you will likely be just another team that just seems to always take the wrong QB.

    You desperately need to go back to your drawing board because your idea on how to build a team is exactly what causes GM's and coach's to be out of work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you really deleting posts that don't agree with your view or is it just the ones that completely derail the idea?

    ReplyDelete
  6. DC's would throw the kitchen sink at Mallett unless our O-line, WR's and/or running game dramatically improve. It would likely lead to his frustration and losing his confidence.

    Why did every team stack the box against Chicago when Jay Cutler is known for having one of the strongest arms in the league?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Matt is one of the better QB's at reading defenses and his passer rating goes up in blitzing situations. But you think that DC's ignore that and stack the box anyway?

    DC's stack the box and blitz because they think they can get to the QB before the receivers get open and with our receivers known for not having speed and our O-line that had to hold TE's back just to even be close to average, we were sitting ducks for it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The O-line could not form a pocket and that is why we had to keep Te's back to help block, but that also meant we had less of a threat down field due to fewer targets and allowed defenses to keep they're LB's up, who normally would stay in coverage.

    If you want to nail it down to a single issue its the lack of a pocket.

    Our defense was ranked around 30th out of 32 teams and our running game was right there with it. The receivers were all new to the system and not one was a starter here or anywhere else before being our starters last year.

    You can't ignore the worst defense, running game and possibly the worst group of WR's not to mention an O-line that had to keep TE's back just to provide even average pass protection and say the defenses stacked the box because of Matt.

    Who is it you think Mallett's quick release is going to be going to? Because the only people that have been open early are defenders.


    Let me paint a scenario for you.

    Matt has been very public about the fact he wants to come back and the majority of Seattle fans want him back. So if Pete and John used both our first and second picks, when we don't even have a third in this draft to select Mallett, a guy with known character and leadership concerns and ignored the gaping wholes, how do you think the fan base would view that?

    Now lets take it one step further.

    Mallett beats out Charlie by the end of training camp and opens the season on the road in San Fran and then Pittsburgh, two very tough defenses and gets the confidence knocked out of him and goes on to have a horrible season, while Matt goes to the Niners and throwing to VD and Crabtree while dumping off to Gore and they're defense keeps games in check and the Niners crush us twice on they're way to winning the division.

    You think this fan base turned on Tim Ruskell for the hutch debacle? Just wait to see how fast they turn on Pete and John.

    You ever notice its the same teams that can't find a QB over and over? Smart organizations understand you need to create an environment where a QB has a chance at success. If you don't do that, you will likely be just another team that just seems to always take the wrong QB.

    Your idea on how to build a team is exactly what causes GM's and coach's to be out of work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Boom! That just happened!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't like making guarantees, so I rarely do it, but I guarantee that Seattle WILL NOT trade up for Ryan Mallett.

    Would I do it? Sure. No way it happens in reality though.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hate all this "trade our first and second to get Mallett" shit!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't delete comments. You're getting flagged as spam repeatedly, don't know why.

    Your "environment for QBs to succeed" argument isn't really supported by established history. Joe Flacco, Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, and Sam Bradford were all drafted by teams with limited surrounding talent, and all have succeeded. I can see how common sense would lead to thinking that everything else needs to be in place first, but you need to understand the impact of QB play on the offense and not just the converse.

    You're continuing to operate from the assumption that Hasselbeck's passing capabilities are having zero effect on the situation. You also rate our skill position players far lower than I do. As long as we disagree on these crucial points, we're going to remain at an impasse.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Every guy you just named would be a top pick in this draft and every one had extremes we don't. Freeman benefited from a better defense, better WR core (some think Mike Williams will be a repeat pro bowler) and running game in Blount, he also was brought into one of the easiest schedules and didn't beat one team with a winning record, you can do the same breakdown for each and that still doesn't factor in a new system and 284 transactions.

    Freeman is also a freak and in no way can you compare his mobility to Mallett.

    DC's drool over the thought of playing against a rookie and look for weakness's like O-lines in flux, we had 11 or 12 different line combinations last year, that would be the definition of flux and the only way you can prevent them from stacking the box and sending blitz's is with a receiver core that can get open very quickly or a running game, two things we had none of and when your defense sucks you are forced into passing situations.

    You can look at BMW and say, hey he looks good and I don't doubt he will be, but last season was his first year on an NFL field in three years and he was learning a new system and working with a QB he had to learn chemistry with and before he went down for three games he was starting to look like a star, but that was with Matt throwing to him and placing the ball in locations that he could use his body, something Charlie never was able to do, did you notice he disappeared in games Charlie started? You also have to consider that newness of being back on the field was related to some major screw ups in dropped sure TD pass's on multiple occasions along with other miss haps.

    You can review all our receivers and you won't come up with one that would have been a starter on another team. They were thrust into action because of lack of a better player.

    Truth is when you break down all the factors Matt had to go up against with all new receivers, no TE (one of his favorite targets) an OC that never tried to fit his game plan to his players but rather tried to force the players to fit his play book, no running game and a defense that forces you into passing situations, all circling around a new play book and an O-line that couldn't form a pocket, Matt did pretty darn well and it is reasonable to think if we could have established a pocket or maybe even a running game, we could have looked much better as a team. The defense could have easily provided a couple wins on they're own but rather they were busy all season putting us 8into passing situations.

    Having a strong arm won't deter DC's from blitzing you, Jay Cutler proved that beyond any doubt when he was sacked by the Giants 9 times and the by the Seahawks 7 times in back to back games. You have to have the other part of that arm and that is the receiver who can be at the end of the pass and there still has to be enough time for that receiver to run deep, even if coverage sucks.

    When you try and simplify all our problems down to one player, you can only do that by ignoring everything else. It either says you don't understand the game of football or you are on a witch hunt for Matt.

    Football is the example of a team effort. Not the other way around as you like to put it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jeez, please stop posting as Anonymous, it is easy to put your name to your posts.

    Brandon, first, of the QB's you listed in your response to Anonymous, while I think they are all good, they only have one playoff win combined, and playoff wins count for more than anything in my book.

    Second, our WR's can not beat good press coverage (see the Chicago playoff game), so Mallett making them better with his arm is a bit of a reach. There is also quite a bit of film on Mallett struggling against pressure, so why would the NFL decide that he shouldn't face the same type of pressure in the pros?

    Third, with the throwing motion being so much more polished for Mallett then Kaepernick, I can see wanting to trade up for him. However, I will counter with the fact that we may be able to trade back and get an extra pick while drafting a guy who has as good an arm as Mallett in CK. With his ability to scramble, it's an excellent reason not to lose our second and actually pickup a third by not doing what you are advocating.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Annonymous = Lostlobos. Clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Nah, Lobos has a different tone.

    BASF: Obviously Mallett will get pressure, though perhaps not the high amount Hasselbeck gets. DC's will send rushers at Mallett thanks to his lack of mobility, but if they fail, they'll pay. Kind of a boom-or-bust prospect. Some DC's play that way, some don't.

    The thing is, I'd rather have that problem than Locker's or Kaepernick's problems. There's no point in being able to dodge sacks if you're not accurate enough from the pocket to put together a drive. It isn't just Mallett's arm strength that threatens defenses; it's his arm strength COUPLED with his football IQ, experience, and accuracy. That's the package that succeeds in the NFL, and no other QB in this draft has it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Glad I found your blog. I am not a seahawks fan, but I like it anways.

    I myself am running a new blog, and I just released a Mock Draft of Round 1.

    Please Check it out @ http://tigerreport.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow, there is a lot of hostility on here. I can see both sides of the argument, Brandon's and Anonymous's. I think Anonymous is ignoring Brandons points because he has something against Brandon himself or is so in love with Matt that he fails to see what most everyone else sees, that Matt is a legend here in Seattle but it's time to look for a new leader because his play has declined to a point that it's not worth it to keep him, at least that's the way he comes off to me. Great read Brandon and I for one am in the minority who hopes we do pick up Mallett on Thursday.

    ReplyDelete