Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

    Seattle 5-9
    St. Louis 1-13

    It should follow that the Rams have further to go to become a playoff contender. Well... maybe not.

    There are a lot of similarities between these teams in terms of roster turnover. However, I believe that the Rams are a year ahead of Seattle in this process.

    At QB, the teams are similar. Both are at a point where a "QB of the future" must be found. However, in the Rams case, Bulger's fate is pretty much sealed. Seattle, on the other hand, will likely rely on a 35 year old Hasselbeck for another year.

    At WR, the Rams have purged their roster of the aging vets they relied on, and have started the process of developing a young WR corps. Seattle's top 3 WRs will be 29 (Burleson), 33 (Houshmenzadeh) and 31 (Branch) when next season starts. They need to begin planning for the future.

    On the O line, the Rams let Orlando Pace go and have drafted his replacement. The Seahawks will have a similar decision to make with Walter Jones, and will have to consider using their first pick in 2010 to draft his replacement.

    On defense, the Rams youth movement is in full swing. With the exception of Leonard Little, the Rams' starting unit is very young. Seattle, on the other hand, has several key parts that are aging rapidly (Kerney, Trufant, D.Grant).

    Even in the Front Office, the Rams have made their changes, while Seattle is in the process of finding a new GM.

    It isn't unsual for a team that has had success to try to hold on to their veterans for one more run at the playoffs. The downside is that a veteran roster can age rapidly, requiring a quick purge and a difficult reload process.

    The Rams have started that journey.

    Seattle soon will as well.

  • #2
    Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

    The Seahawks may have been holding out hope that they were a few veterans away from contending, but they should be seeing now that their team is breaking down, and they have a lot of rebuilding to do. I think they are almost locked into a LT with one of their first picks, given their offensive line woes as of late.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

      personally i hope it takes them a long, long time to rebuild

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

        IMHO Seattle needs to start their rebuilding process by bringing in a new headcoach 1st and foremost. I know Mora has had only one season at the helm but the guy is a stiff. So on second thought.... the longer they hold onto him the better for us.
        sigpic :ram::helmet:

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

          IMO Seattle should keep their old players and not worry about rebuilding. I'd like that.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

            Originally posted by laram0 View Post
            IMHO Seattle needs to start their rebuilding process by bringing in a new headcoach 1st and foremost. I know Mora has had only one season at the helm but the guy is a stiff. So on second thought.... the longer they hold onto him the better for us.
            No. Fire him and hire Mangini

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

              Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
              Seattle 5-9
              St. Louis 1-13

              It should follow that the Rams have further to go to become a playoff contender. Well... maybe not.

              There are a lot of similarities between these teams in terms of roster turnover. However, I believe that the Rams are a year ahead of Seattle in this process.

              At QB, the teams are similar. Both are at a point where a "QB of the future" must be found. However, in the Rams case, Bulger's fate is pretty much sealed. Seattle, on the other hand, will likely rely on a 35 year old Hasselbeck for another year.

              Except that the Rams do not have even a moderately acceptable #2, a young QB, or a grisly veteran to hold the reigns while a young guy learns. Seattle has Seneca Wallace, who has played well in a number of games. Bulger will simply cost too much to keep next year, but Hasselbeck will still be a Seahawk while a replacement is found.

              At WR, the Rams have purged their roster of the aging vets they relied on, and have started the process of developing a young WR corps. Seattle's top 3 WRs will be 29 (Burleson), 33 (Houshmenzadeh) and 31 (Branch) when next season starts. They need to begin planning for the future.

              Except that any one of those older receivers would be the #1 threat for the Rams. The Rams WR's may be young, but that does not mean they are any good (and they are not).

              On the O line, the Rams let Orlando Pace go and have drafted his replacement. The Seahawks will have a similar decision to make with Walter Jones, and will have to consider using their first pick in 2010 to draft his replacement.

              Good point here. Although, the rest of Seattle's line looks a lot better to me than the Rams line (excepting Justin Smith).

              On defense, the Rams youth movement is in full swing. With the exception of Leonard Little, the Rams' starting unit is very young. Seattle, on the other hand, has several key parts that are aging rapidly (Kerney, Trufant, D.Grant).

              Except that Seattle has a good young DE Jackson and a future star rookie at LB, along with Tatupu and a couple of pieces in the secondary. The Rams do not have a pash rush at all, Atogwe will either require waaay too much money or leave (leaving nothing to speak of in the secondary), and they have no answers (other than Laurinitus) at LB.

              Even in the Front Office, the Rams have made their changes, while Seattle is in the process of finding a new GM.

              Another good point.

              It isn't unsual for a team that has had success to try to hold on to their veterans for one more run at the playoffs. The downside is that a veteran roster can age rapidly, requiring a quick purge and a difficult reload process.

              The Rams have started that journey.

              Seattle soon will as well.
              You make a couple of good points, however, your optimism is unbridled.
              Last edited by WhinerFan; -12-23-2009, 06:04 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                With an uncapped season in 2010, Seattle will not be a year behind for long. Most likely, they'll make all the moves the Rams made this past season but they won't have a salary cap limitation. Sadly, that's an instant equalizer. If the season is uncapped, the number of available free agents will be very limited as teams will be able to keep more of them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                  Originally posted by RebelYell View Post
                  With an uncapped season in 2010, Seattle will not be a year behind for long. Most likely, they'll make all the moves the Rams made this past season but they won't have a salary cap limitation. Sadly, that's an instant equalizer. If the season is uncapped, the number of available free agents will be very limited as teams will be able to keep more of them.
                  Another very good point. Although, they will be less able to get the FA's they want, and I do not know how much more they are willing to pay for them than, say, Dallas.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                    Originally posted by WhinerFan View Post
                    Another very good point. Although, they will be less able to get the FA's they want, and I do not know how much more they are willing to pay for them than, say, Dallas.
                    Everyone is going to have a difficult time signing free agents if it's an uncapped season. Guys like Brandon Marshall, Tony Scheffler and Thomas Howard (all people wanted) will all most likely be resigned because they'll get another season of being a RFA (just like Barron).

                    If 2010 is an uncapped season, the rebuild is going to be almost impossible to implement. The Rams could very easily go into the season with $20+ million in unspent salary cap because there just aren't players available worth locking up. If Seattle dumps a bunch of older veterans because there are no cap implications, they really aren't a year behind in the rebuild.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                      I notice Hasselback being a little lame---ESPN says he still hasnt recovered from his back injury--perhaps. Yet with most back injuries, you just are not the same and likely his career is winding down. If Seattle is wize they ought to try and trade up to get a chance at the new crop of QBs

                      Vetrans Help--if memory serves when Jacksonville started as a new team in the league--they got as many vets as they could--had a good immediate impact but languished for a long time afterward. Not sure if the reasons for the Raider's meltdown after their last superbowl appearence was an all investment in vettrans or just Al Davis.

                      Personally I think it wise for the Rams to build from within. Gear more to longterm success then a quick splash. Plus acquiring Vetrans doesnt guarrentee good team chemistry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                        First of all, I wouldn't bet the farm on the prospect of an uncapped year. My money's on the issue being worked out before that happens.

                        However, even if there were to be an uncapped year, that does not mean that (a) the players Seattle needs will be available, and (b) they'll sign with the Seahawks instead of some other team.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                          Originally posted by AvengerRam View Post
                          First of all, I wouldn't bet the farm on the prospect of an uncapped year. My money's on the issue being worked out before that happens.

                          However, even if there were to be an uncapped year, that does not mean that (a) the players Seattle needs will be available, and (b) they'll sign with the Seahawks instead of some other team.
                          The same is true for the Rams or do you think the Rams already have enough talent that they don't need to add any free agents?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                            Originally posted by RebelYell View Post
                            The same is true for the Rams or do you think the Rams already have enough talent that they don't need to add any free agents?
                            You need to read the initial post again.

                            I never said the Rams had enough talent. What I said is that, unlike the Seahawks, the Rams have (1) purged their roster of older, declining, veteran players (i.e. Pace, Holt, Bruce) or will do so soon (Bulger, Little), and have (2) started the process of grooming young replacements (i.e. J.Smith, D.Avery, B.Gibson, C.Long, J.Laurinaitis). Seattle is still trying to hold on to the past, and its going to hit them very hard (much like it hit the Rams).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Forget the Standings. The Seahawks are a Year Behind the Rams.

                              WhinerFan,

                              Your post about the Rams poor QBs and the weakness of the Rams WRs are really a related matter. Better QB play, and some health, would most likely produce similar results for the Rams WRs as compared to the Seattle WRs. I also don't think Burlson or Branch would be a #1 on the Rams. Though Haz might be, he wouldn't be for long, he's getting old, which was kinda of what the original post about the talent levels on these two teams was about.

                              As for the OL, you said "alot better". Maybe better as a whole, at this moment, but I would much rather be in the Rams predicament than Seattles simply because of the upside of their youth. And I most certainly would consider Brown the better C and they have a young future LT.

                              Sure Seattle has some strength advantages, for instance the LBers. But really, the original post seemed to be about where they're going, not where they are. Who can project what next year will be like, we do know however that the Rams have young unproven players and Seattle has alot of aging vets.

                              One last thing, overlooked is that Seattle doesn't have a SJ. And no, Fossett isn't close. They gotta still find one of those, a LT, a QB.

                              The Rams needed to rebuild. They've got a plan, cleared the structure and started pouring a new foundation. Seattle is still looking over planning documents and haven't pulled a permit yet.
                              Last edited by Richbert88; -12-24-2009, 02:03 PM.
                              Semper Fi!

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • RamDez
                                The Rams Will Win The West
                                by RamDez
                                The Less Things Change, The More They Stay The Same:
                                By Rams Nation's AvengerRam

                                As a loyal fan of the Rams for over a quarter-century, I could have easily reached this conclusion solely with my heart. Fortunately, the same conclusion also results from objective analysis of the facts at hand.

                                The starting point of this analysis is an undeniable fact: the Rams were the better team in 2003. Not only did they have a better record (12-4 to 10-6), they scored more points (447 to 404), allowed only one more point (328 to 327), had more takeaways (46 to 28), a better turnover ratio (+7 to -1) and more sacks (42-40) than the Seahawks.

                                So, I ask… what has changed since then that would cause me, or anyone else, to conclude that the outcome will be different in 2004? The answer again is simple: in the aggregate, virtually nothing has changed. The teams enter the 2004 season with rosters that are not markedly different than last years’ versions. Consequently, when fan loyalty is taken out of the equation, the only logical conclusion is that the Rams will reign supreme again.

                                On offense, the Seahawks begin the season with the same starting lineup as last year. In fact, the team has not added a significant offensive player to the roster, either through free agency or the draft. So where will the improvement come from? Seahawk fans might suggest that key players like Matt Hasselbeck will progress and become elite players. But isn’t that what they said about Koren Robinson? You remember Koren, right? The guy who had a break out year in 2002, was on everyone’s “next big thing” list for 2003, only to fall from grace in a year marred by drops, internal disciplinary actions and an overall downturn in productivity. The bottom line is that the progression or regression of players cannot be predicted with any accuracy, and therefore cannot form the basis of a logical prognostication.

                                Stated another way, while the Seattle faithful may hold out hope that last year’s lineup will produce greater results on offense in 2004, its just that… hope.

                                By contrast, the Rams are objectively likely to improve on offense. They, like the Seahawks, return with all eleven starters. However, at the same time, they have addressed the offense’s biggest problem of the past two years – depth behind Marshall Faulk. By adding rookie Steven Jackson, rated by most as the top running back in this year’s draft, the Rams now have a far more talented understudy than Lamar Gordon and Arlen Harris to take over if Faulk cannot stay healthy (if he can, all the better). Jackson can also be a significant upgrade in the Rams’ short yardage and red zone running game, as he is a bigger, more powerful back than anyone on last year’s roster.

                                Thus, the Rams offense, which outscored the Seahawks by 43 points last year, has added a blue chip running back, while the Hawks merely hope for improvement...
                                -05-28-2004, 12:45 AM
                              • r8rh8rmike
                                Chris Collinsworth: Seahawks Are Wanna-be's
                                by r8rh8rmike
                                Chris Collinsworth, as he usually does, called it as he saw it during the Seattle/New England game. In the last few minutes of the contest, he called the Seahawks “wanna-be’s”, because they couldn’t come through with a win against an elite team. I give credit to Seattle for hanging around with New England, but winning, as opposed to hanging around sets good teams apart from great teams. If the “wanna-be” comment wasn’t enough, Collinsworth also joked that Dan Klecko could start at wideout for the Seahawks after the defensive lineman made a first down catch while playing on offense. The sarcastic statement could be close to the truth after another game of multiple drops by Seattle receivers.

                                The once heralded #1 defense in the NFL gave up 30+ points for the second straight week, making that 4.3 PPG number after weeks 1-3 look like an aboration. Looks like Seattle is good, but not THAT good.
                                -10-17-2004, 04:11 PM
                              • RamDez
                                Seahawks are happening in Seattle
                                by RamDez
                                Seahawks are happening in Seattle
                                By Lori Shontz

                                Of the Post-Dispatch
                                10/09/2004
                                Coach Mike Holmgren (right) has had a steady rebuilding plan, which has ended up paying dividends for QB Matt Hasselbeck (8).
                                (Otto Greule Jr./Getty Images)







                                It wasn't that long ago that on the entertaining Underground Seattle tours, which take tourists under the city to see the old city, now buried by a series of natural disasters, that guides used the city's professional football team as a punchline.

                                Oh, Seattle's had it's share of disasters Earthquakes, fires . . . Seahawks.

                                Quarterback Matt Hasselbeck, who arrived in town for the 2001 season, had no idea such jokes were being told. "That would hurt my feelings," he said. He meant it. The one-liner didn't make him laugh.

                                The fact is, Seahawks jokes wouldn't get much of a laugh anymore.

                                The Seahawks, who went to the playoffs as a wild card team last season, are returning five Pro Bowl players: Hasselbeck, running back Shaun Alexander, offensive tackle Walter Jones, offensive guard Steve Hutchinson and special teams star Alex Bannister. Their defense, anchored by former Rams lineman Grant Wistrom, is ranked No. 1 in the NFL.

                                Although the Rams are the defending NFC West champions, the Seahawks are considered the team to beat, and they are also wearing the label "legitimate Super Bowl contender."

                                All this from a team whose road record over the years has been another surefire laugh line, a team that had never quite captured the heart or mind of its city. Rams defensive end Bryce Fisher, who grew up in Seattle, is typical. He and his friends grew up rooting for the Raiders because the Seahawks were so bad.

                                But for Sunday's game against the Rams at Quest Field, coach Mike Holmgren is expecting that the sold-out stadium full of screaming fans will be one of his team's advantages.

                                "It's kind of like when it first happened in St. Louis," Wistrom said. "How fired up everybody was, how new it was to everybody. And the energy that you can feel. It's very exciting to be a part of something like that again, where everyone's appreciated and fans are fired up about it. All everybody wants to talk about is the 'Hawks right now."

                                In this, his sixth season in Seattle after 13 successful seasons at Green Bay, Holmgren has finally put the Seahawks where he always believed they could be.

                                "If the organization is willing to stay with you - if they believe in you, first of all . . . and they give you enough time, you should be able to improve," Holmgren said. "And they have done that with us. Now we have pretty good depth, our money situation's in pretty good shape capwise. Hopefully we can keep this thing going and get into the playoffs again."
                                ...
                                -10-10-2004, 02:17 AM
                              • RamDez
                                Seahawks-Rams matchup huge on a number of fronts
                                by RamDez
                                Seahawks-Rams matchup huge on a number of fronts

                                By CLARE FARNSWORTH
                                SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

                                KIRKLAND -- Watching the St. Louis Rams kick the gold dust out of the ***** in San Francisco on Sunday was like watching what the Seahawks did to the once-proud ***** the week before at Qwest Field.

                                It also prompted similar questions. Are the Rams (and Seahawks) that good? Or is it that the ***** are that bad?

                                These twin conquerors collide Sunday in an early season biggie in the NFC West. The defending division champion Rams are 2-2 and need a victory to climb above .500, while the 3-0 Seahawks can open a 2 1/2-game gap with a victory.

                                "It's obvious San Francisco is having some problems," All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson said yesterday, when the Seahawks resumed practicing after having the previous four days off during their bye week.

                                "But St. Louis is a good team. They're the best team, in all aspects of the game, that we'll face so far."

                                That's more than locker-room talk the week of a big game. Despite their 1-2 start, that included a squeaker over the Arizona Cardinals and an overtime loss to the New Orleans Saints at home, the Rams are winners of the NFC West three times in the past five seasons and runners-up the other two.

                                Three reasons the Seahawks should be concerned:



                                <LI>For the offense: The Rams' defense ranks 27th in the league and former coordinator Lovie Smith is now the head coach in Chicago. But the Rams still have safety Aeneas Williams and defensive end Leonard Little -- two players who have given the Seahawks fits.

                                Williams had a career-high eight solo tackles against the Seahawks last December in St. Louis. Little had two sacks, six quarterback pressures and a forced fumble against the Seahawks in Seattle last year, and eight tackles, one sack and a forced fumble against them the year before, also in Seattle.

                                "Their speed and their scheme," Hutchinson offered when asked what most worries him about the Rams' defense. "They like to bring pressure from a lot from different looks, and they have speed -- even their nose guard is fast."



                                <LI>For the defense: The usual suspects. Torry Holt. Marshall Faulk. Isaac Bruce. Mark Bulger. Orlando Pace. Between them, they have been to 17 Pro Bowls and accounted for 279 touchdowns in their careers.

                                "They're well-rounded. They have a lot of weapons," defensive end Chike Okeafor said. "We've just got to be disciplined, but still try to create havoc and turnovers."



                                <LI>Intangible: The Seahawks are 0-5 after their bye weeks under Holmgren, including a 35-13 drubbing at the hands of the Packers in Green Bay last season that followed a 3-0 start.

                                Three reasons for the Seahawks...
                                -10-07-2004, 12:17 PM
                              • r8rh8rmike
                                Rams Favored Against Seahawks
                                by r8rh8rmike
                                If this year has shown us anything, it’s that anything can happen. Here we are again with a huge game against Seattle. A win and we’re back in first place with a chance to control our own destiny. A loss and we’re two games behind, in trouble and in need of help to win the division. They’re up, we’re down. So what’s going to happen? Both teams have looked good, and both teams have looked woeful. Depending on what teams show up to play, we could have any number of outcomes. Considering what has happened the last two weeks and how things look on paper, it’s interesting that the Rams are a slight favorite this weekend. Good omen or bad?

                                I honestly don’t know what to make of this game, but nothing would surprise me.
                                -11-10-2004, 12:57 AM
                              Working...
                              X