HawkShack.com

Again, I apologize for the messed-up format. Pass blocking grades for our guys through Week 15

Player Games Pass Grade

1 Charles Cross 14 82.0
2 Kenny McIntosh 4 77.9
3 Brady Russell 4 77.4
4 Jalen Sundell 2 74.5
5 Zach Charbonnet 14 72.5
6 AJ Barner 14 67.0
7. Abe Lucas 5 66.2
8 Jake Bobo 14 65.7
8 Laken Tomlinson 14 65.7
10 Connor Williams 9 62.3
11 Olusegun Oluwatimi 5 56.6
12 Anthony Bradford 11 53.0
13 Christian Haynes 8 51.9
14 Mike Jerrell 4 49.1
15 Kenneth Walker III 10 48.6
16 George Fant 2 44.7
17 Noah Fant 11 41.6
18 Stone Forsythe 6 41.3
19 Pharaoh Brown 12 40.9
20 Sataoa Laumea 3 (Damn low)

Is Lucas not included?
I was pleasantly surprised by Sundell as I expected a real disaster but he held up well. He had a few mistakes but it's a learning curve for him. The RBs are doing a pretty good job with their assignments.

NorthHawk wrote:Is Lucas not included?
I was pleasantly surprised by Sundell as I expected a real disaster but he held up well. He had a few mistakes but it's a learning curve for him. The RBs are doing a pretty good job with their assignments.

Nice catch! I don't know how my copy/paste omitted him. He's played in 5 games and has a pass blocking grade of 66.2, or fair. I've since edited the OP.

Obviously, unimpressed by Laumea. Did last week destroy his score, or has he been this bad all year? I thought he was doing well before the GB game. Damn, I am so tired of these continuous oline woes.

It was Sataoa's 3rd game, a bit early to be closing the book on him. Here was his breakdown (from Seahawkswire) after the Cards game:

Seattle Seahawks rookie offensive guard Sataoa Laumea made his second consecutive start in Sunday's 30-18 Week 14 victory over the Arizona Cardinals. With regular starter Anthony Bradford on injured reserve (IR), Laumea continues to be the coaching staff's choice at right guard ahead of fellow rookie Chrisitan Haynes. The rookie blocker was stellar, not spectacular, showcasing growth compared to his debut performance versus the New York Jets last weekend.

Pro Football Focus credited Laumea with allowing just one pressure in pass protection. He also wasn't whistled for any penalties (he was penalized for two infractions last week) en route to earning a pass-blocking grade of 60.7. Laumea helped create a secure pocket for starting quarterback Geno Smith, who wasn't sacked all afternoon and completed an efficient 24-of-30 passing attempts for 233 yards, one touchdown, and zero turnovers.

If Laumea struggled in any area, it was occasionally as a run blocker. His PFF run-blocking grade was a lackluster 53.3. On tape, he missed a few opportunities inside. Luckily, the Seahawks still managed to rush for 176 yards and two touchdowns through Zach Charbonnet's 134-yard, two-score effort.

Laumea continues to showcase weekly growth. Sunday's performance was overall very encouraging with room for improvement. Laumea remains Seattle's best option at right guard, and barring injury, he'll make his third straight start against the Green Bay Packers in Week 15.

We all know the GB game was a step back, but it's not the whole book on him. I think a lot of how he performs has to do with who he's lined up against, Kenny Clark and TJ Slayton got the better of him, let's see how much he learned from it.

The offensive line is a mess, we all know that, and I'm not making any excuses. But as far as Sataoa Laumea is concerned, in addition to this being just his 3rd game, we have to acknowledge the fact that our starting center, Olu, left the game early after just 11 plays to be replaced by rookie Jalen Sundell, 3rd on the depth chart and almost no game experience. Having those two playing side-by-side is a bit of a case of the blind leading the blind. It was a tough situation for both of those players to have been put in.

River Dog wrote:The offensive line is a mess, we all know that, and I'm not making any excuses. But as far as Sataoa Laumea is concerned, in addition to this being just his 3rd game, we have to acknowledge the fact that our starting center, Olu, left the game early after just 11 plays to be replaced by rookie Jalen Sundell, 3rd on the depth chart and almost no game experience. Having those two playing side-by-side is a bit of a case of the blind leading the blind. It was a tough situation for both of those players to have been put in.

Yes, lined up next to is nearly as important a part of the equation as lined against.

River Dog wrote:The offensive line is a mess, we all know that, and I'm not making any excuses. But as far as Sataoa Laumea is concerned, in addition to this being just his 3rd game, we have to acknowledge the fact that our starting center, Olu, left the game early after just 11 plays to be replaced by rookie Jalen Sundell, 3rd on the depth chart and almost no game experience. Having those two playing side-by-side is a bit of a case of the blind leading the blind. It was a tough situation for both of those players to have been put in.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yes, lined up next to is nearly as important a part of the equation as lined against.

Plus, about 1/3 of the offensive snaps was taken by the backup quarterback Sam Howell. That, too, can have an effect on an offensive line's performance if the QB doesn't make the right reads.

Like I said, I'm not trying to make excuses. None of those guys had good games. I'm just pointing out the factors that could influence individual performances.

I go back to the old saying the O-line is the engine of the Offense.
It affects scheming and play calling because of the limitations or if good opens up the playbook for varied blocking schemes. But if they can't do the basics then it's up to the QB to make things go and from that viewpoint Geno has been doing very well.
Regarding Howell, the backups rarely get a chance to practice with the 1st team so I don't expect much from him coming in cold. An older veteran backup might have a better chance because of experience.

NorthHawk wrote:I go back to the old saying the O-line is the engine of the Offense.
It affects scheming and play calling because of the limitations or if good opens up the playbook for varied blocking schemes. But if they can't do the basics then it's up to the QB to make things go and from that viewpoint Geno has been doing very well.
Regarding Howell, the backups rarely get a chance to practice with the 1st team so I don't expect much from him coming in cold. An older veteran backup might have a better chance because of experience.

I'm reminded of how Baker Mayfield started for the Rams after having been waived by the Panthers on the previous Monday and with just two 10-play periods with the offense during one practice, started and performed almost flawlessly. You can't expect that out of a 2nd year player.

As well, McVay is a master of his Offense and knows how to limit the scope of plays to be most effective.
In that case it was a huge advantage to have an Offensive minded Head Coach.

NorthHawk wrote:As well, McVay is a master of his Offense and knows how to limit the scope of plays to be most effective.
In that case it was a huge advantage to have an Offensive minded Head Coach.

Very true. But there's other stuff, like communication with the receivers, with the center, learning the hand signals from the OC, etc, that has to occur during practices and meetings, which makes what Mayfield did amazing. It was like he'd been playing with them all season.

Anyhow, sorry to divert the thread.

I'm not particularly enamored of McVay myself. He seems ok, but he didn't win a Super Bowl until he traded for a QB he didn't develop that was already Pro Bowl quality. Bill B shut his offense down to the tune of 3 points in the Super Bowl.

I think the O-line being as important as it was back in the day is not a modern concept. I think you need a decent O-line, but there are so many protections for QBs and the passing game that you don't need the O-line to be quite as good as the days when the defense could destroy your QB. QBs had to be really, really tough back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s or opposing defenses would brutalize QB. That required some great O-lines like you saw in Dallas, Frisco, and Washington. Run game was far more important then as passing was so dangerous.

Modern game is different which is why the O-line and running back positions have been devalued with QB the ultimate position now.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm not particularly enamored of McVay myself. He seems ok, but he didn't win a Super Bowl until he traded for a QB he didn't develop that was already Pro Bowl quality. Bill B shut his offense down to the tune of 3 points in the Super Bowl.

I think the O-line being as important as it was back in the day is not a modern concept. I think you need a decent O-line, but there are so many protections for QBs and the passing game that you don't need the O-line to be quite as good as the days when the defense could destroy your QB. QBs had to be really, really tough back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s or opposing defenses would brutalize QB. That required some great O-lines like you saw in Dallas, Frisco, and Washington. Run game was far more important then as passing was so dangerous.

Modern game is different which is why the O-line and running back positions have been devalued with QB the ultimate position now.

Just an FYI with no particular statement to make, as of Week 15, PFF has the top 10 offensive lines ranked, in order, the Eagles (12-2), Lions (12-2), Broncos (9-5), Bucs (8-6), Bills (11-3), Packers (10-4), Commanders (9-5), Chiefs (15-1), Vikings (12-2), and Panthers (3-11).

Where are the Seahawks? We're ranked 29th, and that's up one spot from the previous week.

River Dog wrote:Just an FYI with no particular statement to make, as of Week 15, PFF has the top 10 offensive lines ranked, in order, the Eagles (12-2), Lions (12-2), Broncos (9-5), Bucs (8-6), Bills (11-3), Packers (10-4), Commanders (9-5), Chiefs (15-1), Vikings (12-2), and Panthers (3-11).

Where are the Seahawks? We're ranked 29th, and that's up one spot from the previous week.

Thanks for the info. I have not noticed that O-line quality is what separates the winners from the losers. It's never a bad thing to have a good O-line even in the modern day, but it isn't the era of the Hogs or the Dallas O-line in the 90s. And given the tight salary caps, something had to give and that was the O-line. You can't pay all these skill positions huge money and expect to have a top flight O-line as well like you could in the pre-salary cap era.

Which is why if I were designing an O-line strategy, I would build one side really strong, the left. I would also have focused less on a right tackle and more on a high level left guard. If you get one side of your O-line solid in the modern day, you can have a little leeway with the other side. But this strategy of trying to draft two quality tackles while treating the middle of your line like its a joke with low draft picks and converted D-lineman is a dumb strategy even in the modern era.

O-line more than any other unit needs to play together and build communication. If you can do that with at least one side of your O-line, then you can play the draft new guy game or sign someone cheaper on the other side. But leaving the middle of the line a joke of low draft picks and constant rotation is one of the worst management errors I've seen from Schneider and Pete Carroll. I'm hoping Schneider shows he is not following that strategy as it's a bad one. Who cares how good your tackles are if a DT is ripping through the middle of your line creating holes for the backers or your guards can't handle inside stunts.