Where Do Real Offenses Come From?

We Seahawks fans are a unique breed. We're still riding high on the memory of 2005's Super Bowl offense, that unstoppable smashmouth machine. The reliable running game that defensive coordinators feared, the sharpness and zip of Matt Hasselbeck's play as he threw without duress, the favorable job the defense enjoyed of merely keeping opponents from outracing Seattle's points total. All enabled by a once-in-a-decade peak of skill and chemistry along the offensive line, complemented by an elite runner and a 6th-round quarterback obtained in trade. The Seahawks were catapulted to the top of the conference on the backs of that historic line, giving the team an aura of invincibility and the 12th Man the first taste of nation-wide respect they'd experienced in twenty years.

So why would we desire anything else? Why would we care how other teams get along? A lot of us honestly don't even watch non-Seahawks football. I hadn't until 2009, when I started suspecting that Seattle's QB issues were independent of the other problems on offense. I started researching the history of playoff teams, especially those who repeat. I learned a lot from draftniks who observe the draft tendencies and priorities of teams that succeed (and those that don't). I built a picture of which positions build off each other and which ones feed into which. And I came away with an inescapable conclusion.

Seattle's 2005 offense is a weird outlier. It's an exception to the rule. Most playoff offenses don't hinge on the offensive line nearly to the degree that the Seahawks' did that year. Some Super Bowl offensive lines have even been downright mediocre. But almost every single one of them is led by a great, and usually first-round, quarterback.

Which has no small amount of pertinence to how Seattle goes about rebuilding. Quarterback first, or everything else? Draft a QB early or later? If there's a debate raging stronger than Matt Hasselbeck, this is probably it.

Pyramid of Value: The Offense

When it comes to evaluating a player's worth to a team, I have trouble breaking players down into just "sign" or "don't re-sign". It isn't that simple. Some players' value depends on scheme, others' on age, others on price, still others on the talent around them. Some guys need further time to grow, others have injuries to heal from. It also matters how important the player's position is, and how hard the position is to fill. There are plenty of players whose worth to a team isn't summed up in "he's good" or "he's bad".

After thinking about it a while, I decided to try sticking players into a five-tiered system of value. Here's how it works.

Tier 1: Must-keep. Productive, play-making, plenty of mileage left, and difficult or impossible to replace. Getting rid of them would be insane. (Example: Mike Williams)

Tier 2: Should-keep. Guys who are not necessarily world-beaters or irreplaceable, but are decent and contribute to an important spot and would only turn a mild hole into a gaping one if released. Also for over-performing role players. (Example: 2010 Ben Obomanu; 2009 Rob Sims and Josh Wilson)

Tier 3: Expendable. Good for depth or able to benefit from better health, a role change, or further development. Otherwise, quite replaceable. A Tier-2 player could find himself here if he plays a crucial position that demands better-than-average play.

Tier 4: Rookie pass. Rookies who haven't found their way into Tiers 1 or 2. No rookie is a bust after one season.

Tier 5: Should replace. Busts, non-contributing depth, and expensive underperformers. The team would most likely benefit from replacing them.

The biggest X-factor here is new offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell and how he views our personnel. He is supposedly going to retain much of Seattle's scheme, but judging from his time with the Vikings, he's also likely to emphasize the run game, call plays less rigidly, and get creative with his weapons. And as usual, Carroll's competition mantra makes it harder for almost any player to lock down a spot on the roster, which might drop a few players down the pyramid a bit.

And here is how I would rank each incumbent offensive Seahawk from the 2010 season...