Poll: Draft Strategies

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2008 2:33 AM PST Comment 16 comments

So I know we've had a bevy of different opinions when it comes to how we should draft this off-season, but since they've all been scattered among different posts, I'd like to know how many people feel a particular way. I set up the poll using what I thought were the most frequently voiced opinions, but I may have missed a couple seeing as I've pulled two straight all-nighters and am approaching insanity. So feel free to post any other opinions that aren't on the poll.

Also, it would be great for people to post why they voted a particular way, just so we could get some reasoning.

Poll

How should the Hawks use their early round picks in the upcoming draft?

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I went with drafting at positions where we currently need help.

Because as much as I love Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy, I would hate to pay big money for a QB and give him limited offensive weapons and a weak O-line. That’s how you get guys like David Carr. Matt Ryan has Roddy White and Michael Turner, and even Joe Flacco has Derrick Mason, who’s having a very good season. John Carlson is not enough.

A good O-lineman like Oher who could perform at a high level for at least a decade would be great, as would a Safety who could make receivers scared to come across the middle.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2008 2:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would vote for a Hybrid vote.

I voted ‘Draft on Potential, regardless of position (highest ceiling in future)’, but what I really meant is if Oher isn’t available, then Crabtree (if he’s still in the draft), and then perhaps McCoy or Bradford, since I belive both will make excellent NFL QBs. I mean, say for some reason Rey Maluaga becomes a consensus top 3 pick, and he ‘falls’ to us at 5, I still wouldnt’ take him obviously, unless we for some reason between now and the draft switch to the 3-4.

This mock draft probably isn’t reliable (http://newnfldraft.com/) but it has all four of the guys I mentioned being gone in the first 5 picks along with Alabama’s LT. If this happend, I have no clue who we’d pick. Mays does not seem like a Ruskell guy, and I don’t know if Monroe is in the same class as Oher, and I hate picking guys just a few picks later that are definitely worse.

by LantermanC on Dec 7, 2008 9:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Hm.. I didn't read the question the way it was presented, but rather the way I thought it was asked...

I guess it applies to all rounds. As much as I’d like to draft solely on potential, we have several positions that I think we just don’t need to draft at, such as LB (if Hill stays), DE, and even CB. We don’t really need help at RB, but you can always get a good RB in the 3rd round if you’re lucky, so I wouldn’t be opposed to it.

by LantermanC on Dec 7, 2008 9:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Oher or Crabtree in the first round would help our offense tremendously right off the bat.

by aerozeppelin on Dec 7, 2008 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Michael Oher

Everyone seems high on this guy. I remember reading this article a couple years ago: The Ballad of Big Mike. Good to see he turned out. The best part is when he takes an opposing end and drives him over the fence surrounding the field.

Let's get those green gloves going.

by BUCKETSinSB on Dec 7, 2008 6:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Draft a Tackle?

I just don’t agree with the sentiment that you HAVE to draft a quarterback now with a top 5 pick when you have a good quarterback already. It almost seems like the whole “usher Krieg out of town” scheme again. How many times did they try to replace him, 3 times? Stouffer, McGwire, Mirer, and it took us UNTIL Beck to have a viable option at qb again. Give him time in the pocket and he will be fine. Be careful what you wish for.

Maybe John could look into a stat of the top 10 tackles in the game right now and see how many were top ten or first round picks and are on the team that drafted them, and compare it with the top 10 quarterback in the game right now that were top ten or first round picks and are on the team that drafted them.

My point is you can get a quarterback later or through free agency that can be very good and lead your team to the playoffs or Super Bowl, but great tackles are drafted and rarely, RARELY are ever allowed to leave the team that drafted them.

by gbutlerii on Dec 7, 2008 4:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

it's fun to speculate

but the speculation is probably premature. Beck is only 34 so the real question is about his back. If we want a new QB to spend two years on the bench then there doesn’t seem to be any rush to draft one this year, unless that back is in real rough shape. Seems to me that’s for highly paid professionals to determine within the organization and we can speculate but we just don’t have the information that they have to make that decision.

That said, I voted for need. This team has the potential to be really good in 09 and 10. Add a great o-lineman and a safety. And get a coaching staff that knows what century it is.

by Snuffleupagus on Dec 7, 2008 7:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't mind drafting a quarterback and have him sit on the bench for a season or two.

by BrianL on Dec 7, 2008 10:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Same, but like a lot of other people

I wouldn’t want to spend $8 million or more per year on Bradford or McCoy and have them sit for a year or two (actually one year is fine), rather get a Oher and then either a Flacco-type at the beginning of round 2, or a Chase Daniels type at the beginning of round 5 or 6?

by LantermanC on Dec 8, 2008 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

If Ruskell plans to do a draft and sit, I would take a guy like Nate Davis or Cullen Harper,

maybe even Chase Patton. Someone available like 3rd round or later who has upside but wouldn’t kill the team if he doesn’t pan out. Speaking of upside, how many teams are going to be suckered in by Josh Freeman’s freakish measurements?

Can't wait for Ruskell to knock this one out of the park.

by abender20 on Dec 8, 2008 2:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a fan of both Davis and Patton actually. Davis might go in the 2nd (just rumors)

But Patton probably won’t go higher than 5th, and since Frye isn’t capable of being either a backup and apparently doesn’t have the potential to be a starter, we need a new #3 QB.

by LantermanC on Dec 8, 2008 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I’m just saying that Beck is only 34. so in two years that’s 36. In and of itself that’s hardly career endingly old. So the idea that we need a QB is based on the fact that Beck’s injury history effectively shortens his career such that 36 is the effective end.

I’m just saying that we don’t know that that’s true and that the team’s doctor’s are in a much better position for that.

So if we draft a QB next year or the year after he can still sit for two years if Beck starts till 37 or 38 years old.

by Snuffleupagus on Dec 8, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I like this point of view personally

It’s clear to me that Hasselbeck is on the mend, and the team intends to allow him to heal, which in my opinion means that they are going to continue to ride him next year. Does that mean that we pass up on the opportunity to get a great future QB? No. But if we do go that route, don’t we miss out on a potential player that can contribute now and in the future.

I think OL is the best of both worlds, it’s been a weakness of ours.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Dec 15, 2008 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I typically like Best Player Available

But I really feel we need to go OL in the first round. As much as I like a lot of the exciting skill players this year (Bradford, McCoy, Crabtree), the bust risk is a problem. These guys have fanstastic stats, but none of them face elite defenses and there are some height problems, etc. I think when you have a high high pick it is much more safe to pick a lineman that can shore up our good but occationally questionable OL for the next 10 years. We can probably come up with a future QB in the 2nd round (I know that John pointed out how many of the great QBs are from the first round, but I feel this class is so deep that it could work out).

by Dedalusson on Dec 8, 2008 7:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I don't know that the QB position is all that deep this year.

At least not at the peak, where there are usually a few first round talent guys, especially if McCoy goes back to Texas. However, I do agree that there is a good crop of solid second tier dudes.

Can't wait for Ruskell to knock this one out of the park.

by abender20 on Dec 8, 2008 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I went for BPA

.. but I have hesitations in drafting Crabtree. Although I would loveee to have an elite WR on our team.

I am pretty high on Bradford, but I just really am not sure if this is the year we go for a QB or not. I think Hasselbeck still has time.

I have doubts because of one thing, how many more opportunities will this team, with this core group of players have to select this highly in the draft? Probably not many.

So does an impact defensive player, like a DT help us more? I personally feel like this team still has the talent to win NOW, and not just 3-4 years down the road. Would passing up on a player who can contribute now be costly? Considering this is undoubtedly a rare chance for this team to choose this high.

I guess I feel with the players on the board that an OL would be very helpful for now and the future, which is something I think we should entertain, rather than just settling for a developmental QB who we will have to pay big money to sit on the bench, behind another QB we are paying big money for as well.

An OL would give us good depth and versatility along the line, and would still allow us to build for the future. I’d like to see an impact DT, but I still don’t feel comfortable with that.

My draft would go

OL
S

and then after that it’s BPA with an emphasis on WR and Dline.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Dec 15, 2008 3:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs