We do seem to be signing a fair amount of depth rather than starters.
Might keeping us from drafting a 6th or 7 th round OL guy. Spend that pick on another position- WR, DL, etcMore fun, sure..but I just don't think for a second adding what equates to a backup (maybe?) Offensive Lineman moves the needle much and will keep us from drafting one if not two in the draft this year! That's all....
...but yes...fun, it is!
I wouldn't say he's a lock to make the team or start, but I wouldn't rule out the chance of either happening either. I don't think there's a current right tackle or guard on the roster that is light years better than Fluker to the point that you would say they're a lock to be in the starting line up. At the moment I would say most of the oline is a work in progress. Kindley, Hunt, Flowers, and Davis are decent or promissing intheir own rights, but none are yet to the point where they're unquestioned/undisputed starters in the NFL.Fluker is a big bodied guy who was drafted (in the first 1:11) to play Right Tackle. His drafting team quickly gave up on that idea, and moved him to Guard in his second year. He was starting, but he wasn't playing at a high end level, and the Chargers were already realizing they had a bust on their hands. He played a third year for the Chargers and then they cut him.
The Giants were next, where he only played in 9 games.
Then a couple of years in Seattle where he played Guard mostly when he wasn't fighting injuries...
Then on to the Ravens... again... fill-in starter and some injuries.
Anyone who thinks this guy is a starter... well... they are THE most optimistic Fin Fan that I have ever seen.
He's a 1M/year, break glass in case of disaster, player. Don't be surprised if he doesn't even make the team.
What if Pitts and Chase are gone at #6?We are not drafting Sewell. We have good young players that for the most part held their own last year. We already picked up a lineman earlier and Now fluker... kiss Sewell goodbye. We don't move behind Cindy and atl if we wanted him... I for one am happy about this. I'm all in for Pitts.
Trade backWhat if Pitts and Chase are gone at #6?
Then it should be waddle or Smith. We need playmakers. The whole football world knows that. Trying to rely on 3 receivers that can't stay healthy is not a recipe for success. All three of them equal 1 wrWhat if Pitts and Chase are gone at #6?
We do seem to be signing a fair amount of depth rather than starters.
And Fluck the zone scheme, I hate that flucking scheme...and Fluck the Diaz brothers too.Flunk you too!!!!!!!!!
Interesting how disappointed a lot of seahawks fans were that he went. Ravens fans seemed to be 50:50 on him going, but no great evidence he played badly. Much better run blocker than pass protector. Better RG than RT. Comp for Kindley or Hunt.
Seemingly a great locker room guy.
Coach I like the move people off the ball and let a good back do the rest scheme...seriously though..An RPO can run any OL blocking scheme. It can run inside or outside zone, it can pull OL and run sweeps, it can trap, etc. There's no limit to what an RPO can run. It's all just about the scheme of who is running it and what they want their run options to be...
Typically Zone schemes take on larger, stronger, and sometimes dumber OL and have great success - as long as the OL can get out of their stance. The Zone can definitely use a quicker OL, but the whole reason Zone became a thing originally was for larger OL as it suits their skillset.
The places I've coached and played that used offenses like the West Coast, Wing T, variations of the I offense, Power Wing, and Fly offense have typically had quicker OL and they often had someone pulling or trapping on the OL every play (Trap/Sweep/Boot/Reverse/Belly/Power/etc.
Blocking schemes that pull, trap, and have lots of OL movement typically want mobile OL in it.
IMO our OL is situated more for Zone than anything else. We don't see much pulling or trapping in our scheme.