Field Gulls: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: The Record of Wrongs: Vanderbilt Commodores

Minnesota's Loss Could be Seahawks Gain

The 2009 NFL Draft class exemplifies Cade Massey and Richard H. Thaler's findings about the NFL draft. It has very little elite talent. There is no quarterback as good as Matt Ryan. No tackle as good as Joe Thomas. No defensive end as good Dwight Freeney or even Gaines Adams. No running back as good as Ladainian Tomlinson. No Safety as good as Laron Landry. In short, it sucks. Perfectly in accordance to Massey and Thaler's study, the talent gap between the expected top ten picks and picks 54-64 does not justify the salary gap between the top ten picks and picks 54-64.

In 2009, losers are extra screwed.

Seattle needs a fall guy. The Vikings are a team built to win now in desperate need of a quarterback. Desperate, you say? Tarvaris Jackson just played himself out of ever starting again, in front of his home crowd, in front of the nation; for a coach who lacks confidence in him, for a coach without firm footing, for a coach employed by a GM known to make splashy trades. Rick Spielman traded a first round, two third round and swapped sixth round picks with the Chiefs to acquire all-world defensive end Jared Allen. One might think it worked. Allen played superlatively and the Vikings made the playoffs. Minnesota didn't actually play any better this season than it did last season. In 2007, it tallied a 5.5% DVOA. In 2008, that edged up to 6.8%, but both were 14th overall. For that one player that didn't push Minnesota over the top, the Vikings mortgaged their future, but don't tell poison-Spiel.

So what's stopping Spielman from throwing good money after bad? Certainly not sense, but maybe politics. Things have been chilly between Spielman and Seattle GM Tim Ruskell ever since Spielman signed Steve Hutchinson to a poison pill laden contract that made a Seattle counteroffer functionally impossible. If the two can holster their pistols, Ruskell can exact some revenge.

Today's meltdown earned the Vikings the 24th pick in the NFL draft. That's a bit of a no-man's land for a team desperate for a quarterback: Too late for the studs, too early for the second tier. The antiquated, but presumably still in use NFL draft chart assigns that pick 740 points. Seattle's 4th overall pick is worth 1,800 points. It would take Minnesota's entire draft and then some to match Seattle's first round pick alone. That's enough to make a dumb man giddy, but also fatuitous and outrageously optimistic. Instead, let's say Seattle trades down for Minnesota's 1st, 2nd and 4th round pick. Recent history would imply that's a bit conservative. Research would imply that could be the move that takes Seattle from screwed to contender.

0 recs  |  Comment 113 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Im all for that

Sounds good to me but what do you think the likelihood is of Minnesota depleting their draft again?

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 5:58 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Also,

How many teams are looking for RBs? Do you think we could get a top prospect in rounds 2-3?

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I guess,

But judging from teams success and curent running backs, one could assume which team will pick running backs.

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I could guess, but it would be foolish.

It’s before the end of the playoffs, before the deadline for draft declarations, before free agency, before the combine…and the thing you want me to predict is assembled from dozens of changing interdependent parts. It’s possible, assuming Seattle is actually in the market for a running back, which I don’t think they are, that Seattle could draft a back in the second or third round.

by John Morgan on Jan 4, 2009 6:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyways

I hope the Vikings do trade up to our pick, not only would this give us more picks, but it also gives us more money to spend in FA.

Oh and on my last post, current*

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I don't know...

I don’t think I’ve heard of a team trading down from 4 to 24…4 to 10 or 4 to 15 maybe, but from (what is in the minds of many) a first pick to a last pick of the first round, seems a bit drastic. I’d almost need another 1st rounder from the next year.

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 6:23 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Maybe

Maybe we could trade down to 8-10 and then trade with the Vikings for their 24th pick?

How many times have teams traded down from the 20’s to top 5? Minnesotas 1st, 2nd, and 4th from this year and their 2nd from next years maybe?

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well

Maybe not the 2nd from next years thats pushing it..but their 1st, 2nd, and 4th pick is realistic as John has stated.

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is one of those "sounds awesome" ideas...

that probably has absolutely no shot of happening in real life.

Not that I don’t pretty much agree with your overall thesis about the quality of players in the draft and Minnesota’s desperation. In fact, I would be pretty upset if I was a Vikings fan, wasting a talent window for NFC success with Tarvaris Jackson as your quarterback.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Jan 4, 2009 6:30 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

That massive trade like the proposed sure worked out for Mike Ditka and the Saints, didn't it?

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Jan 4, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If Brad Childress is kept on,

and it would be ridiculous if he was, he might be fearful enough of his job security to try and go all out for the one superstar player that could put that team over the edge. I can only imagine he’s pretty desperate to keep that job.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 4, 2009 9:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If AP isn't that superstar

Hand him over to us w/ Hutch back, you can have half our damn draft. They need a trent dilfer or better to just not ruin games.

by vanrijn on Jan 5, 2009 7:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not being well-versed,

I’d think that McKinnie, Hutch and AP qualify as bona fide superstars.

We’ve got the downwardly mobile Walter Jones and…umm…?

There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

by misterjonez on Jan 5, 2009 9:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

To clarify

I wasn’t saying AP was the only star on the team. I was saying that when your geared towards the run with the best (arguably) young back in the game, your not going to throw your draft away for a “top” QB that hasn’t even proved they can manage a game, as that is all they need; someone that won’t lose the game for them. That D and running game are pretty impressive.

by vanrijn on Jan 6, 2009 9:05 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That pass D is atrocious

And it’s still odd they thought a good DE would automatically transform their back 7 into competent defenders.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 6, 2009 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Love the provocation, John

Excellent hypothesis and very buzz-worthy. Revenge would be so goddamn sweet!!

I doubt however that A) Spielman and Ruskell could even share a phone line, let alone a deal structure after the Hutch heist, and B) that we could get enough 1st round value at their 24 slot to part with #4. I imagine the Vikes looking to Alex Smith (!@#$) or Gus Frerotte next year.

Who else desperately needs QB’s and could be trade bait? A case could be made for the Jets..

by swamp_fox on Jan 4, 2009 6:34 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I don't see this happening.

However, perhaps the Eagles? They love linemen, and both of their starting tackles are FAs after this season, both are old, and both suck. More importantly, they possess two late first round picks. Just throwing some ideas out.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 4, 2009 6:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Oh, we're talking about QBs

Personally, I feel that any GM that drafts a QB in the first round of this draft is unforgivably stupid.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 4, 2009 6:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

If Mark Sanchez is still there in..

The 2nd-3rd rounds, I wouldn’t mind the Seahawks picking him up. But his Rose Bowl showing is probably going to boost his draft stock dramatically. We will see at the combine I suppose.

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hes not coming out

If he waits till next year he will be the number 1 pick.

You may gain some yards on the ground, but eventually Lofa will end up biting you in the ass.

by Scruffy Lefty on Jan 4, 2009 8:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

ive read that

and I know. The best quarterbacks are chosen first (Surprise huh?). But this post contradicts with that post you told me to read. One is saying Seattle has a rare chance at getting a very good QB, but this one is saying we should trade down because players picked in the top 10 are worse.

But I do agree that we should trade down, there are several positions we need to address.

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 7:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Keep in mind this was written before we won our way out of a Top-3 pick.

the underlying point is sound, though. If you’re in a position to take a good quarterback early, you should think about it long and hard.

by BrianL on Jan 4, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There are no good QBs in this draft.

I’m afraid I didn’t make myself clear. I’m not opposed to the idea of drafting a QB early, but I am in this specific draft because of how overwhelmingly poor the top QB prospects grade out.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 4, 2009 7:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Why are people so down on Bradford already?

My only qualms with him is that his supporting cast is so good, it’s hard to tell how good he is… but Carson Palmer still turned out ok. I don’t see anything wrong with his arm strength, accuracy, or decision making.

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 8:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Because

The latter two traits are easily disguised by surrounding talent, and the first is virtually irrelevant in the NFL. I’m being conservative, because I absolutely hate Bradford, Stafford, Daniel, Tebow, and just about every QB who declared.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 4, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I hate Stafford, Daniel, and Tebow, but I like Bradford.

Though I’m not sure if I like him more because the alternative QBs are terrible.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Jan 4, 2009 9:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Amazing

We are all experts… good thing the Giants and SD, Pitt did not listen to this type of garbage.

Why, if Sanchez came out this year, would his value not be worth a #4 and a year to mature… the same for Bradford, Colt, Stafford. I guess playing their senior year will help… Cantwell and Harper sure don’t think so. To be honest, Oakland even looks setup well.

Great teams have great QB’s… not great lineman. Say hello, Minnesota and Dallas.

Hasselbeck will not be playing football in five years. There has NEVER been a QB like Ryan before.

Lets live a little… it is way too early to have this conversation… but let’s at least be open minded.

ok, rant done.

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 8:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Please ignore

uncalled for rant… thx

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 8:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, that.

Bradford is looking better because of how awful his peers are, sort of like Alex Smith during 2004.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 11:32 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

"players picked in the top 10 are worse."

I didn’t get that out of this post.

What I read was; “the talent gap between the expected top ten picks and picks 54-64 does not justify the salary gap between the top ten picks and picks 54-64.”

I think there is a difference there. John is talking about value for money spent on first round players.

by Jo-Jo on Jan 4, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

So putting it bluntly

The top 10 is worse. According to Cade Massey and Richard H. Thaler.

by Seahawks CHS on Jan 4, 2009 10:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bluntly...

The overall financial value of a top 10 pick versus that of picks 54-64 is what we’re talking about. Picks 1-10 are still better than picks 54-64, they just cost more than they are worth as the talent gap is not as wide as it typically is due to the weak draft class. So they are not worse, they are less advisable picks because there are financial constraints a team has to factor into their process.

by vanrijn on Jan 5, 2009 7:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I understood the article

to be in reference to all drafts, not just ’09. But I digress… Payten Manning makes more money than Tom Brady… the talen gap is probably not that great… does New England care?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

*
There is no quarterback as good as Matt Ryan. No tackle as good as Joe Thomas. No defensive end as good Dwight Freeney or even Gaines Adams. No running back as good as Ladainian Tomlinson. No Safety as good as Laron Landry.

Matt Stafford/Sam Brandford
Michael Oher/Andre Smith/Eugene Monroe
Brian Orakpo/Michael Johnson
Chris Wells/Knowshon Moreno
Taylor Mays/William Moore

It’s ignorant to make this statement

In short, it sucks

Prior to:
1) The end of the college football season
2) The deadline for underclassmen to declare
3) The combine
4) Team workouts

by ACassel on Jan 4, 2009 7:36 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I agree

In hindsight, it’s very easy to think that players like Matt Ryan and Joe Thomas were considered “elite” prospects in college simply based on their NFL performance. These players, even based on their college performance, were not expected to play that well in the NFL. Same thing goes for this NFL draft. There are tons of talented players out there, and they all have a fair chance of becoming elite NFL stars in the future.

In other words, it’s incredibly difficult to judge overall talent of the draft.

by aerozeppelin on Jan 4, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't think Ryan would be that great to be honest.

I thought he’d be fairly good, like top 10 QB in his peak years (and that’s yet to be seen, but seems likely at this point), but I certainly didn’t think he’d be this good this quick.

Same for Thomas.

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 8:33 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Joe Thomas was expected to be very good. Even the year before he was drafted,

there was a good deal of buzz around the Big Ten about just how good he was. After his last year, it was clear that he would be the first o-lineman off the board.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 5, 2009 9:25 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

Mario Williams ascended during those, all the way to the 1st overall pick ahead of Reggie “college god” Bush and Vince Young.

His NFL play has been pretty damn good too.

by cashless on Jan 4, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think watching a football game is a great way to asses a players talent

but what do I know. I’m just some guy who comments on blogs.

by Jo-Jo on Jan 4, 2009 9:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I love it.

Like to see how fast players can run, how much they can bench, even what their wonderlic tests are.
It’s more fun for the NBA though, because you get these small guys with 40+ inch verticals, or you get everyone with body fat % under 6% and then you have Kevin Love at 12+% even though he lost 15 or so pounds in the 2 months prior to the fat test.

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 10:10 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I enjoy watching it

As a guy who still plays a little, it’s fun to see how freakishly athletic and strong some of these guys are. But I agree with you BrianL, it’s not exactly a football assesment.

by Jo-Jo on Jan 4, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The combine is fun as a reminder that these men are absolute monsters.

It’s fun to watch, and it’s entertaining to see just how useless the average person would be against these guys. I would never, however, make my picks solely on a 40 time.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 5, 2009 9:27 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Scouts do not grade any quarterback, tackle, defensive end, running back or safety potentially eligible for the 2009 NFL draft

at the same level as Matt Ryan, Joe Thomas, Dwight Freeney, Ladainian Tomlinson or Laron Landry.

There’s no reason to believe the three remaining bowl games, the NFL Combine or individual team workouts will change that. Some draft classes are weak others are strong. It’s not a crapshoot. Scouts did not need the Fiesta Bowl or the NFL Combine to know last season was a very strong class for running backs or that 2007 was a very strong class for wide receivers. This is not considered a strong draft class, and unless a team is in search of a linebacker, a wide receiver, a tight end or a cornerback, there’s not a lot of elite talent available.

by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

One mistake

Stafford probably rates as a first class quarterback assuming he declares. I’m really on the fence about the guy.

by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Can we say John support

a WR @ #4?

It is what it is...

by kidder95 on Jan 5, 2009 11:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If Seattle can't trade out of the #4 pick

It might make sense to draft Crabtree. He’s possibly the best talent in the draft, presents a need, is fit for any system and…oh yeah, but if Seattle is taking a deep threat at wide receiver, it better confront the fact that Hasselbeck has no deep pass.

by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If Seattle can't trade out of the #4 pick

I’d rather not take Crabtree.
The approach I would take is to take Andre Smith or one of Stafford or Bradford if they are available. Other than that, Oher maybe?
I’d rather trade down though if at all possible. But I didn’t realize that Bill Bavasi caught on with the Vikings.

by PascoJoe on Jan 5, 2009 1:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Right, some drafts are deeper than others in certain positions

However, that doesn’t directly imply that the entire draft is weak.

As for this draft, the QB position looks by far the weakest. Unless McCoy and Bradford declares, it looks like Stafford is the only “franchise” QB prospect.

by aerozeppelin on Jan 5, 2009 5:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Every scout agrees on that?

I find that hard to believe.

by ACassel on Jan 5, 2009 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Also

5) The Senior Bowl

by ACassel on Jan 5, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Random question/assessment?

so if a QB has a low completion percentage like John Parker Wilson, that probably means he won’t be any good in the NFL. Sort of like a minor leaguer in baseball having a low average? If he can’t take advantage of worse competition either through decision making or accuracy, he won’t do it against the big boys.
Same for INTs. if he has a high (obove 15) amount in college, then he will never be good in the NFL, sort of like strikeouts. If someone K’s a lot in the minors, he probably won’t be good in the majors.
Accurate assessment or no?

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 8:18 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Interceptions are not a good statistic

Too small sample; too dependent on surrounding talent. Stats wise, starts, completion percentage and I look at sack rate, but only with a mind to surrounding offensive line talent.

by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

While not infallible...

I’m partial to QBs that put up big time numbers from mid-tier schools against decent competition. Phillip Rivers was a guy that I was very high on because he played on a very mediocre NC State team with mediocre talent surrounding him yet put up great numbers. While there certainly have been exceptions (Palmer, P. Manning), I’m inclined to steer clear of any QB from the monster college programs. For instance, Miami produced Jim Kelly, Vinny Testeverde, and Bernie Kosar when they were an up-and-coming power but once they were an established powerhouse they produced Steve Walsh, Gino Toretta, and Ken Dorsey.

Of John’s list from one of his other blogs – Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Jason Campbell, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Carson Palmer (why is Campbell on this list?) – I would only classify Palmer as being from a monster program.

by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think you're making an error in logic

You’re comparing an extremely small group of schools (“monster programs” excluding Auburn, Boston College, Mississippi and Cal, each very big programs) to every other college program. It’s all but impossible for ~10 schools to produce the quarterback talent of 100+ schools. I would guess that applies to every other position as well. Surrounding talent is a tough thing to factor in, but I wouldn’t shy away from Mark Sanchez because of his program.

by John Morgan on Jan 5, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well...

It’s a case by case thing, certainly, but I would shy away from Mark Sanchez because the Trojans are a victory and stat machine. Along this same thinking, I wouldn’t have drafted Carson Palmer (and considering he went to Cincinnati I was confident that he would bust), but I also wouldn’t have drafted Matt Leinart, Rex Grossman, JaMarcus Russell, or Vince Young off the top of my head – I understand the jury is still out of some of these guys.

Perhaps to clarify, I’m just more skeptical of a QB that puts up monster numbers at a monster school (say, Bradford) versus a QB that puts up monster numbers at traditionally weak school (say, Chase Clement). I’m not saying Clement is going to be an NFL QB and Bradford isn’t (I would want to watch a lot of tape on both before I made a judgement one way or the other) but I am more impressed with what Clement did at perenial doormat Rice than what Bradford did at perenial powerhouse Oklaholma.

This is just one factor that I’ve come to consider as I’ve watched QBs come out of college with lots of fanfare. When I say “monster school” I mean perenial powerhouse that benefits from a regular recruiting advantage (there are more than 10). As I said, it’s not infallible, but it does indicate a likelihood that the QB in question is surrounded by superior offensive talent. When a lesser school that wallows in mediocrity or worse sudden pops up with with 8-5 records and some bowl wins I’m going to eyeball the key players on that team (Ray Rice with Rutgers, for example).

Obviously that are a lot of other factors, but I’m trying to keep this to a reasonable length.

by Azimeir on Jan 5, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

At the time

Palmer was the QB at USC his surrounding offensive talent was pretty awful. He had no running game until his final year, and his WR talent was pretty piss poor as well.

You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.

by bluemax on Jan 5, 2009 4:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Completion percentage, yes. INTs, most of the time.

Matt Ryan had a LOT of INTs in college, but they were attributed to a less than stellar receiving crew, and him forcing things due to usually playing from behind. So he’s kind of an exception to the rule.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 4, 2009 9:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You know what would be funny?

If some team like Detroit or Oakland was the worst team 5 years in a row. Because they’d have such massive contracts bogging them down every year, that the NFL would HAVE to have ‘slotting’ or some way to lower the amount of pay of the top 10 picks.

by LantermanC on Jan 4, 2009 10:13 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Honestly, they should do that anyway.

There’s got to be some way of making sure that high draft picks pan out before they’re given a contract big enough to straightjacket a franchise.

by djafrot on Jan 4, 2009 11:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think trading down would be interesting

I can’t say I like trading that far down

but having 3 high end picks like that would be nice.

I was thinking that possibly Jacksonville or San Fran would be interested in a player like Bradford, Stafford, an OT, or Crabtree and we could trade down to the 8-10 spot and get one of their 2nds, so we would then get the 8th or 10th, and then 2 top 10 2nd round choices.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Jan 4, 2009 11:55 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Michael Oher looked great against Texas Tech

and has the kind of freakish raw talent of a Walter Jones or Jonathan Ogden. When does everyone think he’ll be taken? Cause so far I’ve heard everything from top 5 to around the 20’s. I think it would be foolish to take qb in such a weak class when we could fill a more pressing team need

by ciarannh on Jan 5, 2009 4:57 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

He's my current fav. pick

Guy has the ability, I think the question is his dedication.

by vanrijn on Jan 5, 2009 7:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, Oher's been compared to Pace/Jones in terms of talent and domination...

But I honestly wouldn’t mind if we got Andre Smith either, just for his run-blocking alone. You have to see it to believe it. On the flip side, I would cry if we drafted Eugene Monroe.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 11:37 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The value of the Combine...

I’ve gone to the last two Combines and am planning to again this year. I’ve heard GMs like Rod Graves and Jerry Reese say that the most important thing about the Combine is the ability to scout and talk to those kids from smaller schools who might have crappy film (or no film at all),. Getting a closer look at the Jahri Evanses and Tim Hightowers of the world.

by Doug Farrar on Jan 5, 2009 7:51 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

and of course, getting Chris Henry drafted in the second round by Tennessee.

Combine was good for that too.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Jan 5, 2009 9:29 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think the problem a lot of people have with the Combine

is that while the information gathered and opportunity to speak with the potential draftees can be useful to the GMs and scouts, the mainstream media seems to generate a lot of strange/faulty conclusions from it.

I’m not debating its usefulness to the GM and scout types, but it annoys me when ESPN or KJR pick up on an athlete’s 40 time and use that as the end-all reason to draft/not draft a player.

by BrianL on Jan 5, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I noticed that John Morgan (as well as every other NFL analyst guy)

almost disregards 40 times and focuses more on the inital 10 or 20 yards. I’m not sure if they even kept track of this 10 years ago, but obviously one can see why they woudl now, since nfl players almost never run 40 yards, and if they do it’s rarely in a straight line in full sprinter form.

Do they do the same thing for bench press or other strength measurements? I know they reps of 225, but do they do something like max, or reps of 315 or 405, or max squats or squats of ~500? It seems like there are so many more ways to measure strength then just reps of 225, which is too light for an offensive lineman, and doesn’t tell you much since they have to push guys that are 300+ pounds sometimes, and obviously it’s even more weight since the guys are pushing at the same time.

by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 10:15 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ha ha

That’s a basic physics equation, and there is no way that force(basically) overrides actual football skill for most positions. It has it’s place, but no.

by cashless on Jan 5, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

as much as I hate the Stealers...

I’m glad Harrison won DOY over a Cowpuke.

/returns to actual age after kiddie rant

by Misfit74 on Jan 5, 2009 11:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

And while we're on the subject of WRs...

If we don’t draft Crabtree, I hope we pick up Hakeem Nicks out of North Carolina, because he looks like a monster but strangely, no hype at all. "In the Meineke Car Care Bowl vs. West Virginia he had 8 catches for 217 yards and a TD, including that amazing behind the back catch. Hicks set school records for career catches (181), career receiving yards (2580) and career TD’s (21). Only receiver in UNC history to have a 1000 yard season. Had 100 yards or more 5 times this season and 10 times in his career, led ACC and was 12th in the country averaging 94 yards per game. Only 3 year ACC player to have more receiving yards than Nicks is Calvin Johnson. "

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 12:31 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I haven't seen him on any mock draft thus far, but with those stats... it seems he would be a first day pick, no?

The only thing better than speculating as to what we’ll do with the #4 pick is imagining striking it rich with a late round pick.

Here’s a question, if there’s a RB who we think is good, do we draft him with a 3rd or 4th rounder. One guy I have my eye on is ‘Tyrell Sutton’, who can run, catch, and pass block. He’s a bit underesized, but I saw him in person last year against Iowa, and he was clearly the best athlete on the field. We’ll have to wait on the Mo situation.

by LantermanC on Jan 5, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Absolutely.

From what I understand so far, Nicks’ 40-time may hurt his stock, but some think he’s a first-round talent. We could have a chance at him in round 2 or maybe 3 depending on how things play out. I don’t know, though.

I love the idea of snagging a RB between rounds 2-4. There should be a few guys that can enjoy great seasons in that range a la Matt Forte, Slaton, or Choice, even. Prospects that look intriguing to me are Greene, Spiller, and Donald Brown. I don’t know enough about them specifically to have a favorite, yet, but Spiller has excellent speed and that is something we lack on offense overall and especially at RB. Even Forsett doesn’t have elite speed. I think Spiller could provide a similar impact to Chris Johnson, but a lot remains unknown about a lot of the prospects right now. For example, there are some that believe Beanie Wells will run a 4.4 (at about 235lbs!) and improve his stock. Change can happen plenty prior to the draft.

by Misfit74 on Jan 5, 2009 3:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Obviously few of us care about 40 times anyway

even ignoring the fact Hasselbeck doesn’t throw deep balls.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 7:25 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've seen quite a bit of Sutton, too, and he's a really fun guy to watch

I’m not following the draft projections very closely but I assume he’ll be a second-day pick due to injury and size concerns. But he had that wrist injury that was supposed to keep him out of the bowl game altogether and then he played with a cast-type thing on and still did his usual slashing around, catching passes, picking up blocks, and moving piles of defenders an extra yard or two. Injuries or not, he’s a tough kid.

Based on what he did in that Northwestern spread offense, he reminds me of the kind of guy Denver used to pick up in the 6th round every year. Stick him behind a zone-blocking offensive line, let him make his one cut… surprise! 1000 yards. Indy is another team he might be a good fit for.

by busplunger on Jan 5, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gosh, its really hard to say...

On one side, he isn’t even mentioned among the top prospects at WR between Crab, Maclin, Harvin, and Hey-Bay, possibly because of his program. That could make him fall anywhere from late second to late fourth. But scouts might catch on to the fact he looks a lot like a more durable Crabtree/Boldin and shoot up his stock to the point where he’s a late first a la Jerry Rice, because he certainly has the resume to do so.

But from what I’ve seen, this guy could be a goldmine even in the second round. He runs tremendous routes that gain separation quickly, magnet hands, strong jump ball ability, great size and strength, and is potentially a very adept YAC threat.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 7:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Back to swapping picks with the Vikings....

Interesting premise for this article. But it ignores somewhat another reality of the modern NFL: 1st year quarterbacks hardly ever succeed. At least that’s my perception and I suspect it can be backed up with data. That said, maybe there’s a ‘Halo Effect’ with Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco performing very well this year. But overall, statistically, a team with a ‘win now’ mandate is not likely to do it with a first year quarterback.

So unless we think the Vikings FO is stupid, wouldn’t they be more likely to surrender a ton of picks for a proven QB rather than a rookie that could take 2-3 years to develop? It seems to be that this ‘proven QB’ would need to be a an above average aging QB on a team looking to rebuild. So now the million dollar question is are the Seahawks contenders next year or a team on a 2 year rebuild cycle? And, If the latter, could they take the Vikings to the cleaners for Matt Hasselbeck? Who else is out there that fits the profile of good aging QB on rebuilding team? Marc Bulger I suppose. But he hasn’t looked great the last couple years. Carson Palmer is probably still young enough to still be on top of his game in 2-3 years so the Bengals would be unlikely to trade him. McNabb’s name comes up every year but the Eagles are hardly rebuilding and I’d be suprised if he wasn’t an Eagle next year.

Hasselbeck could be worth a mint to the Vikings. Of course, this trade only makes sense if you believe the Seahawks are not contenders. I’m not sure how I feel about this. My gut says that as long as Matt Hasselbeck and Walter Jones are healthy and on their game, the Seahawks are contenders. But with Jones health in doubt, maybe the Seahawks should look to accelerate their rebuilding with a bunch of Minnesota draft picks PLUS their own #4.

And then when the Williams Wall is suspended for the first 4 games of ’09 because of Starcaps and the Vikings miss the playoffs next year, the Seahawks will have their 15 overall next year too ;)

by Keasley on Jan 5, 2009 2:05 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

except maybe from the Vikings

Hasselbeck is just one year removed from a season with a 90+ QB rating and almost 4,000 passing yards. Sure there’d be some risk for the Vikes because of his health. But if the back is healed, I don’t see anyone potentially on the market that would give the Vikings a better chance to ‘win now’ than Matt Haseelbeck (except maybe McNabb but he’s probably missed more games in the last 3 years than Matt).

by Keasley on Jan 5, 2009 2:22 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

that's true

and speaking to your above point, I have thought that Bulger could be a good fit there. The Rams are paying him a mint to suck behind a terrible line. I could more likely see the Rams cutting ties with Bulger than Seattle with Hasselbeck. I think we do have a good chance a contention next season. I hope we hold onto Hass.

by Misfit74 on Jan 5, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hasselbeck isn't going anywhere.

Not in this season, anyway. The Vikes, or any other team for that matter, could offer their next three first round picks and it still wouldn’t happen. Ruskell is in the final year of his contract, and getting rid of the most popular athlete in the region would be a one way ticket out of here.

by Fearless Frog on Jan 5, 2009 7:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

If Ruskell trades Ichiro...

I hope we get some young arms to restock the practice squad.

by busplunger on Jan 5, 2009 9:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How much would it cost us in salary cap to trade Hass?

I would think a ton, given that he’s got a couple years left at $10 million plus.

by djafrot on Jan 6, 2009 12:41 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Hail to the greatest Seahawk to ever live: Walter Junior Jones.
Start posting about the Seahawks »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Comcast NFL RedZone Moments from SB Nation

Music City Miracles
Tennessee Titans Red Zone Report
Bleeding Green Nation
Comcast NFL Red Zone stat of the week - Something doesn't have to give
Niners Nation
49ers Red Zone numbers: How effective are they?

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Defensive End
Jack22_small
Super Bowl XLIV Open Thread
Olympiabeer_small
My problem with the Colts winning-- the absence of immortality.
Small
Random Super Bowl Thoughts
Profilepic_small
Diamonds in the Rough
Jack22_small
"Pro Bowl" "Open Thread"
Seattle_seahawks_small
Pro Bowl Folly
Small
Kerney Retires?
Nielson_small
Replacing Matt Hasselbeck
Sketch_haggar_small
USC Recruiting 2002-2009 Offensive Line

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation

Niners Nation
Golden Nuggets: I promise
Acme Packing Company
Replay: Tracy Porter's Super Bowl INT Return
Revenge Of The Birds
Arizona Cardinals Weekly Flock

Managers

Image_114_small Shrug

Jj_flag_detail1_small John Morgan

Whiteken_small Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Small abender20

Authors

Vp081-c_small Christian

Small Doug Farrar

Dksbtwit_small Johnny Peel (DKSB)