ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando

Carl from Corona, Calif., writes: Will the Seahawks' change in schemes help them to avoid a repeat of the injury plague they experienced last year? Will their conditioning improve and will this decrease injury? Why do I ask?

Zone blocking will produce a better running game and dampen the pass rush. Also, as linemen take an attacking approach they are less likely to get injured as well. The combination of a better running game, and going downfield on pass plays more frequently, will reduce the vulnerability of receivers going short or over the middle.

On defense, the play-fast approach and attack mentality should produce fewer injuries. Better conditioning should lead to fewer injuries as well. Your thoughts?

Mike Sando: There's no question Jim Mora is reemphasizing the conditioning aspect. He even runs with the team sometimes. It's a huge point of emphasis this offseason. Better conditioning can help, for sure, but one question to ask would be whether conditioning or schemes played into the Seahawks' key injuries last season. I do not think they were big factors.

Patrick Kerney is one of the best-conditioned players on the team. His injuries had nothing to do with conditioning. The knee injuries Deion Branch and Nate Burleson suffered likely had nothing to do with conditioning or schemes. Receivers tend to be in terrific shape. Walter Jones' knee wore down after a dozen years in the NFL. That tends to happen.

The Seahawks probably will not suffer as many key injuries this season. Once that happens, I'm sure we'll hear about how better conditioning made the difference. I tend to think Seattle will suffer fewer injuries anyway.

---

Jon from Omaha writes: Love your coverage of the NFC West, Mike. Die-hard Niners fan here! Shaun Hill needs to be put on the map. I know he has started only on the tail ends of the last two seasons, but the offense ran much better both times. He is 7-3 as a starter, can run, can move, has a strong arm, accurate. I know only people reading your blog and 49er fans are aware that Hill can get the job done for us [and also that Alex Smith should not be considered a bust under the circumstances].

So, if you are asking what we would like to see covered, maybe something about Hill, a full on stat line of what he has done as a starter and how he is the favorite this offseason so we can end the '49ers don't have a QB' idea.

Mike Sando: Thanks, Jon. I'll be visiting the 49ers on Tuesday and hope to catch up with Shaun Hill while I'm there. The "strong arm" part of your analysis might not fit Hill, but the other things you mentioned are harder to dispute.

While Hill seems well-suited to handle the current situation, I do think he would have a better chance for success if he were already named the starter. I felt the same way about Alex Smith last offseason. Uncertainty at quarterback isn't a good thing even if we fully acknowledge the special circumstances of this situation, namely that the team needed to give Alex Smith a chance to compete for the job in exchange for a reduced salary.

Teams generally prefer committing to a quarterback and then letting the quarterback take command of the team.

One thing about the 49ers: They have not had strong and vocal advocates for their quarterbacks. They have changed offensive coordinators frequently. They have had defensive-minded head coaches. Mike Nolan wasn't as sensitive to the position as he might have been if his background had been on offense. Mike Singletary has spent most of his career trying to crush quarterbacks -- first as a Hall of Fame linebacker, later as a defensive assistant -- not groom them.

---

Xpollolocox from parts unknown writes: Both the Niners and hawks have big "ifs" this year. The Niners have young players who, if they step up, will make the Niners a good team that will compete. The Seahawks' key vets got injured last year, and if they can bounce back from those injuries, they will be a team that will compete. So, which situation is better? Which team do you think will be able to step up? Which situation would you rather have as a coach or owner?

Mike Sando: I think the quarterback situations in both cases are the key variables, moreso than younger players stepping up for the 49ers. Shaun Hill is 29 years old. Matt Hasselbeck is 33. Hasselbeck has proven he can take a team to the playoffs. I would rather have a known playoff quarterback than an unproven one, even if Hasselbeck has some injury concerns (mitigated somewhat by his performance so far this offseason). The Seahawks are an older team on offense, though.

---

Greg from Seattle writes: Hi Mike, great piece on the Niners' OL. You bring some compelling points to the table that I'm surprised Joyner overlooked. I guess that's one of the concerns with his metrics. Anyway, I had a few questions as you get to visit the Niners:

• How does Scott McKillop look? I was recently looking over his combine numbers as compared to those of James Laurinaitis, and was surprised by how similar they are. McKillop is an inch shorter, but they were the same weight at the combine and McKillop was better in the 40, bench, both jumps, and virtually equal in the three-cone. Given those figures, and his performance on the field, is it reasonable to think that he would have gone much higher if he'd played at Ohio State, for instance?
  
• How does Jason Hill look? We've heard a lot about Morgan, and I know Hill was banged up at the most recent OTA, but where do you think he fits in the lineup? Are he and Jones battling for the slot receiver spot?
  
• How does Balmer look?
  
• Any indications on Michael Crabtree's work ethic and commitment? There were some very conflicting accounts on that prior to the draft.
  
• And, of course, how do the QBs look? Who do you think has a leg up, and what are the chances Smith will pose a serious challenge? Thanks!

Mike Sando: K.C. Joyner does good work. The first time I spoke with him on the phone, we must have gone on for 90 minutes before I finally just had to cut it off. He's the type of guy I can speak with for a long time. Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders is the same way. We are all trying to come at this stuff from different angles.

I'm convinced Joyner's metrics for offensive linemen can be useful. I like them. I also know it's tough to fully evaluate players on specific plays without knowing their assignments and what they were coached to do in a specific situation. I think this applies to the offensive line and th
e defensive backs more than players at other positions. Hopefully I was able to provide some context for the 49ers' running game.

---

Mackay from Pleasant Grove, Utah writes: Sandman, I have been thinking about Matt Leinart and his situation lately. Having been a starting caliber player once, and having lost it, and now having this time to work on technique, footwork, as well as work ethic, don't you feel he is going to be prepared when he needs to fill Kurt Warner's shoes?

You have said before that you are not confident that the Cardinals see him as their future, but I think they do. I think that letting St. Pierre challenge Leinart for the No. 2 QB is a great move. It will feed the competitive spirit of them both, as well as inspire Leinart to fulfill his potential.

If I had to choose between Leinart, Alex Smith and Vince Young, I would pick Leinart. I feel that he still has all that he needs to in order to become great. He is better fit for the offense that Whiz wants, and he is young enough to take the time to be groomed into everything. It seems to me that he has realized his errors, and is trying to make them right. I guess only time will tell, but you have to admit his is finally on the right track.

Mike Sando: I like the Cardinals' handling of Leinart. They made him the starter all last offseason and gave him every chance to blossom. He didn't hold up his end as well as they had hoped, so they went with Warner. As long as they had Warner as a fallback, they weren't going to play Leinart just because he had been a first-round choice. Backing Warner last offseason also gave Warner more incentive to change the things Arizona wanted him to change within his game.

I would also take Leinart over Smith and Young at this point in their careers. Smith's healthy problems are a concern. Young has his own issues. Leinart is in position to succeed when his time comes as long as Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston are catching passes for the Cardinals. Having an offensive-minded head coach should also help him.

Those things work in Leinart's favor, but he still has to play well. He didn't play well enough when given the chance one year ago, so concerns will linger until he erases them.