With the first pick in the 2010 NFL Draft, the Seattle Seahawks take Ndamukong Suh.
by DJ C-Raig on Dec 5, 2009 9:05 PM PST
Email
Print
Yes, it should happen.
If Seattle threw need to the wind and traded two picks for Suh, I would be only slightly disappointed. That feeling would quickly be dashed upon the rocks of my swelling glee. In my opinion, Seattle should sacrifice another year in order to obtain a once in a decade or two talent, and take the next step in creating a young, hungry, and eventually elite Defense. Suh is another piece to the D-Hawks (as we will come to be known) and should be embraced.
What do you fellas think? Should the 'Hawks ignore common sense and snatch this Portland, OR native who is knifing into your backfield before you get out of the shower in the morning? Or should we take the cautious path and keep our picks; drafting the highest talent available with the intention of fulfilling our immediate needs?
93 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Agreed
Our defense would improve significantly (assuming of course that Suh is the real deal and performs very well).
But we also really need a QB lol.
Maybe trade low first + second for a high first rounder for Suh? That’d keep intact our high 1st round pick for a QB.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
If anyone would take a 1st and 2nd
It would probably have to be our high first. But even then I don’t see it happening. Maybe we could trade our first, second, and Branch.
I'm confused
A tree branch or Deion Branch?
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
I'm hopeful but not optimistic
The teams likely to be picking first need Suh as much as we do or more. Cleveland and St. Louis might be looking at a QB like Clausen. They’re probably our best bet for moving up. They could presumably move back to our spot, get extra picks and still get their guy.
CLE is probably a better trade partner than STL though. Just on principle STL probably doesn’t want to deal within the division. Then, taking Suh and maybe a 2nd round QB (Colt McCoy?) but living through another year of Bulger/Boller might be worth it. Not only would Suh be good in his own right. He might make Chris Long look like less of a bust. Tampa is probably the longest shot. They might be attracted to the extra picks, but Suh is probably the best value pick at #1 you could ever hope to get. That guy is practically bust-proof with no injury or character red flags. Only the potential for freak injury likely stands in the way of immediate dominance.
Right now I’d say that a) we need to be in lose now mode to get ourselves into the top 5, and b) we need to be rooting for CLE losses. The problem with b) is that CLE will be dipping into the same GM candidate pool as we will.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I would disagree.
Hypothetical draft position and players in the draft: Seahawks draft 8th, Locker and Clausen declare.
1. Suh 2. Berry 3. Clausen 4. McCoy 5. Okung 6. Bradford 7. Dez Bryant, Mays (Raiders), Some LT shoots up, etc.
Would you rather have Suh for $65 million (Stafford is $72 million)? OR would you rather have possibly Locker for $35 million (Monroe $35 million) and possibly Dan Williams or Charlie Brown (decent DT or LT) for $14 million (Oher $14 millin )? Suh is good, but we’d be getting two quality players and have enough money to sign a Colin Cole-caliber free agent.
My draft board for us is something like this (as of last night), but very much subject to change:
Ndamukong Suh
Sam Bradford*
Gerald McCoy*
C.J. Spiller
Eric Berry*
Jonathan Dwyer
Jahvid Best*
Dez Bryant*
Is it me or does your list look LOADED?
I’d take any of those guys.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I wouldn't go after Spiller, Dwyer, or Best.
Those guys are game-changers, but we can contend without a top RB. We can’t contend without a top QB. Indy, NE, SD (sorry LT), AZ are all division leaders or better without a top running game, but nobody is going to make the playoffs without a top QB. That said, I’d still be open to Suh or Berry as QB-alternatives.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2009 5:18 AM PST up reply actions
I hate to say 'look at this one game',
but look at Adrian Peterson last night against Arizona. Of course, look at Forsett against Arizona a few weeks ago.
Even an elite RB can have no effect whatsoever.
And Peterson is elite as you can get. Forsett did look good against Arizona though, so late round picks can still produce against ‘elite run defenses’, though on any given day anybody can do anything.
It’s not a strong point, but it’s just another point I think when comparing whether or not to draft Spiller at 22 or Charlie Brown at 22.
First, there are only going to be 2 or 3 QB's with 1st round grades
And in order they are Locker, Clausen and possibly Bradford (provided his shoulder checks out), this according to a survey of scouts and personnel men done by the Charlotte Herald recently, http://www.heraldonline.com/247/story/1790160.html, and before yesterdays games when Locker went VROOM, http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/gamecenter/recap/NCAAF_20091205_CA@WA/lockers-fivetd-effort-helps-washington-upset-no-19-cal, and McCoy and Tebow sputtered.
McCoy, Tebow, Pike, Canfield, Snead, Keenum, Ponder, and super soph Mallett all carry 2nd round or lower grades. Therefore, Locker will declare, and assuming Bradford checks out, they and Clausen should go in the top 10. Too many really bad teams need QB’s who can start as rookies. I believe when said and done, Seattle will wind up picking at about 10 and won’t have a shot at one of those QB’s without trading up. I agree with LantermanC that we’d be better off long term as a team if we not only NOT trade up for a QB, but in the event Bradford falls to us with our first pick, trade down and get back our missing 3rd rounder, or another 2nd rounder. While there may be a limited number of truly elite players, as in all drafts, this one should be deep with very good talent through the first 2 days (3 rounds). I’d rather trade down and get 4 or 5 picks in the 1st 3 rounds than sign an expensive QB in the top 10 that forces our hand.
Well said, I wouldn't mind trading our later 1st rounder or our 2nd rounder (or even our first overall pick), provided
A) a guy we really want isn’t there (Dan Williams, Terrance Cody, a LT, Greg Hardy, Carlos Dunlap, Griffen) and a comparable talent isn’t there.
B) We are high on a number of guys in the 3rd round.
The Seahawks don't have a 3rd rounder in 2010
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
I wouldn't be against that at all.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
I'd make that deal
According to FO, 1st round QB has a ~50% bust rate. WR is also ~50% and OL is between 40 and 50%, IIRC. Those are presumably the areas the team would be addressing in the 1st round. Suh might be the safest pick in the draft. If he stays healthy, he will dominate in the NFL, everything considered, I’d give Suh about a 75% hit chance of realizing his NFL potential. With two first round picks, its not likely the Seahawks will get two pro-bowl players. I’ll admit this is fuzzy math, but two 50% chance prospects have a combined 75% chance of producing 1 or less “hit” picks. So there would be a decent chance that the Seahawks would end up with 1 good player either way, and would you rather have that one good player be Suh or CJ Spiller?
The offense needs an overhaul and trading for Suh would set the team back close to a year, but pass rushing DT is a need for the Seahawks and Suh is the best pass rushing DT to come out in a very, very long time. Suh is the kind of player that could complete the Seahawks defense, and allow them to focus more heavily on offense in future offseasons.
Let's put it this way
Would you trade two first round picks in the same year for a rookie Warren Sapp?
’Cause I would.
I'd rather have
an elite or Pro Bowl caliber QB and wait on finding a suitable DT (even if he’s not Sapp) rather than use a No.1 overall on a DT.
Best DTs in NFL right now in my opinion:
Albert Haynesworth 1.15
Tommie Harris 1.14
Kevin Williams 1.9
Jamal Williams 2nd round Supplemental
Vince Wilfork 1.21
Clearly this shows that dominant DTs are generally found early in the draft, but we’ll be drafting in spots like these (mid-first +/- 5 picks) for at least 2-3 more years. I’d take my chances on a high quality QB-heavy draft and see if we can address DT with a future 1st rounder, especially since our defense has more individual talent right now than our offense.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 6, 2009 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
Nope
I wouldn’t trade two 1st round picks at #10 and #20 for Albert Haynsworth, because those two picks could get you rookie Jared Allen and Chris Johnson. And there’s no guarantee that Suh or McCoy are the next Warren Sapp. Trading into the top 5 for other than your franchise QB, like the Jets did with Sanchez, never happens. Never. No one positional player, outside of QB, is worth the cost. Trading from 15 to 10 isn’t nearly as expensive, so much more likely to be feasible if the planets are aligned.
Michael Oher fell last year. And he was "guaranteed" to be top 5.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 6, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
And Crabtree fell to 10th
But in all seriousness, the lower we pick, the less likely a falling star will reach us.
I really dislike the mentality of
“we should lose” for a better draft pick. Seriously, it defeats the purpose of fandom and why wouldn’t you enjoy the games you can watch right now? It seems backward and counter-intuitive to be pleased at your own team’s loss.
And if your team doesn’t play to win, talent evaluation and personal improvement are lost and for what? A 50% chance at one Pro Bowler?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
One could argue that rooting for a 'meaningless' win in the current year
will only hurt next year’s team, which still hasn’t been eliminated from the playoffs yet because their record is 0-0. You’re not guaranteed to get a better player in the draft, but you’re statistically more likely. And if that player is a franchise QB, then the difference between 7-9 and 5-11 doesn’t seem like such a big deal, or at least not to me.
One can root for a team to play well, get a few bad breaks and maybe a bad call here or there, play it’s younger less experienced guys more often (maybe give Obo and Jamar Adams some playing time) and lose a game 21-20. I don’t think that would be the worst thing in the world.
Agreed.
You play to make the playoffs, and win a Super Bowl. I’m sure the Pats would rather go 15-1 with a Super Bowl win than 16-0 and not coming away with anything. You don’t play for 5 wins, or 6 wins, or 7 wins, whatever. For the sake of wanting to see the most competitive and best football every Sunday, I certainly don’t want the Hawks to give up every game; but a high pick, especially if it’s a QB, gives us the best shot of turning that all around (though it’s less so nowadays due to the huge contracts).
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 7, 2009 9:44 AM PST up reply actions
Hmmm I see your point but
There’s still that good feeling that comes from a win. If it’s the last game of the season and my team is 4-11 but wins, I’m happy. If they lose I am unhappy. Sure, the next day or two I say “Oh well, better draft pick I suppose,” but I’d trade any kind of win for that blah consolation.
Perhaps I merely have less of the classic, competitive American mindset that often translates to “champions or bust.” I can be happy for my team even if they’re not number one or even top 10.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I think it was baby Jesus that said
“If you ain’t first, you’re last.” But I do agree with you – even though we have essentially no chance to make the playoffs, by no means do I want us to lose out. We’ve only really had 2, maybe 3 top-tier years from Hasselbeck and that’s about as good as it’s been at QB for us, so I’m just a bit anxious to try and get an elite QB.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 10, 2009 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
Mediocrity won't get the team anywhere
Seahawks are at a state of rebuilding. We need a franchise quarterback, left tackle, cornerback, etc. etc. A higher draft pick gives us a lot more room to find these commodities in the upcoming 2010 draft—which does have a lot of promising talent. Sure, we have two first rounders, but we have so many holes to fill that I wouldn’t want to trade both of them for a top-5 pick.
That said, winning right now doesn’t mean much other than an ego boost. Have you seen the Cards last night? Yeah, the tides has turned the they are now the undisputed leaders of the NFC West for probably a good amount time.
I'm not sure about a long time. Their defense did look good, but
if Warner gets turnover-itis or realizes that he’s 40, I’m not sure how effective Leinart will be. Granted he could be really effective, but it’s hard to stay on top for long in the NFL.
Plus Boldin probably won't stay there.
He’s got one more year on his contract but will likely want to leave after that; he’s made no secret of his displeasure that they won’t pay him what he’s worth.
Dockett as well.
He’s one of the biggest pieces of their defense. Apparently, he wants Albert Haynesworth money.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
Just greedy.
And it’s a power play to get the Tards to pay up. Otherwise, he’s out of there.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 7:55 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, he's not worth Haynesworth money.
It’s arguable whether Haynesworth is worth Haynesworth money….
Both of them are thugs
and thugs like to use threats to extort money from their victims.
By the way, did you see where Ochicinco was fined $30,000 for putting on a poncho and sombrero during a game? How is that more than three times worse than deliberately grinding your elbow into an opponent’s throat, with the risk of fracturing his windpipe? I guess thuggishness is inline with the image the NFL wants to present, but clowning around is not?
Yeah that news made me speechless.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 9:55 PM PST up reply actions
Well Chad also gets fined more for being a repeat offender
But the fines are ridiculous in and of themselves. Football’s supposed to be about having fun, and Chad isn’t offending or showing anyone up, just being an entertainer. Der Fuhrer should be glad to have such a commodity in a league that’s really short on superstars right now.
by miracle_max on Dec 10, 2009 11:26 PM PST up reply actions
I'm still in the "more picks" camp...
We could realistically grab a trio like….
DT McCoy
DE Derrick Morgan
QB Canfield / Pike
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
It's debatable...
what our greatest needs are (outside QB)…but either way, the pick should align with the value. If the next best player available is DE or DL…. the pick should reflect that.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Agree.
There are other ways to address needs. I will always be a proponent of picking players that have the most value OVERALL, not to the team.
If we have two stud DTs, and we came up on Suh with our pick, I’d either try to trade the draft pick for multiple picks (thus likely providing us more value) or drafting/signing Suh and trading away one of the current DTs for fair market value to fill other gaps.
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
But three stud DT's would make an awesome rotation
Nothing wrong with quality depth, I say. Go best player available, first, last and always.
You get talent where you can get it.
There’s always next year to add O-linemen
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Absolutely!
We didn’t NEED Shaun Alexander or Hutch when we drafted them either. You really must do one of two things in a draft.
1. Draft the guy who is highest rated on your draft board next….. or
2. Trade the pick to get into a position where your needs align with the picks value.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I could fucks with that.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
I think if the team favors a QB enough, we should do whatever it takes to get him.
Otherwise, Suh would be a fantastic idea – one I’d be on board with. I also love McCoy (Gerald).
Elite QB – Bradford
Elite DT – Suh, G.McCoy
Elite RB – Spiller, Dwyer, Best
Elite S – Berry
Elite WR – Bryant
If we get one of those guys I’d be thrilled. But, they are in the order I think they should be prioritized. Other needs: OT, DE, CB.
No need for Bryant. Plenty of WR options in later rounds.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
No way we need a receiver more than an O-lineman.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I'm in the camp that thinks, character concerns aside, Bryant could be a better prospect than any WR from last year's crop.
Including Crabtree.
I have no character concerns about him
He went to dinner, played video games, and worked out at Deion’s house – that’s not a violation for me, only for the NCAA. I’m more concerned about the time away from football
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 8, 2009 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
That wasn't even the violation.
The NCAA suspended him for lying due to thinking what he was doing COULD be considered wrong.
Corrupt institution, and a joke.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 8, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions
It's idiotic that you should be scared of revealing innocuous things like that.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 8, 2009 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks, guys. Didn't realize that any character concerns of his were such minutia.
THIS GUY (in Gruden-lingo) is a football player. I think he has a good chance at being the next truly elite WR. His pre-draft stuff could sway that opinion of him, but from what I’ve seen, he’s could be the best since Calvin Johnson.
If the playoffs started today, the pick you guys got from Denver would be #24 overall.
Denver is playing well and still has home games with KC and Oakland so it’s likely they will finish at least 10-6 and in the 5th spot in the AFC playoffs.
The 24th overall pick and an early 2nd rounder from Seattle would not be enough to trade into the Top 5 for a guy like Suh. In fact, such a trade probably would not even get Seattle into the Top 10.
This is my favorite website.
Precisely what I was going to say.
Currently the Seahawks would be picking somewhere between 9th-14th overall and 24th overall. That’s more than enough ammo to get into the top 5, especially since the Jets used their 17th overall pick and the 52nd overall pick, along with Kenyon Coleman, Brett Ratliff, and Abram Elam, to accomplish the trade.
The Seahawks might have to throw in a player to entice the deal, but they have players for whom teams like Browns, Chiefs, Lions, or Redskins could use.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 7, 2009 7:54 PM PST up reply actions
I really like the idea of the Hawks targeting Campbell in the offseason
Maybe even try and bring Zorn back at quarterback’s coach after he gets axed. They would then be in a very nice position from which to pick BPA. And if that means Berry at/around 10, boner.
I agree.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 8, 2009 4:04 AM PST up reply actions
I'd like to stabilize the O-line first.
Campbell has shown he’s capably of being an efficient QB who makes few mistakes (league low 1.2% interception rate last year) but also only a few great plays. However, with his O-line this season, he’s regressed and only seems to be throwing dump-offs and <15 yard throws even on the rare occasions he has time in the pocket. Still, the New Orleans game gives me hope and makes me think he can still be salvaged as a QB who can throw 18-20 TDs and 5-8 INTs with the right O-line.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 8, 2009 4:49 AM PST up reply actions
And regarding O-line prospects
there has been a lot of discussion around Rodney Hudson-OG-FSU. He has looked great in the couple games I’ve watched. I’ve also seen Mike Johnson from Alabama, another highly touted prospect several times, and was unimpressed with his play. In last weekends game vs. Florida, he looked clumsy and completely whiffed on numerous attempts to cut block a linebacker who ultimately made the tackle. Have not seen Iupati from Idaho, or Asamoah of Illinois. Has anyone actually focused on their play during a game who can comment?
Keep both picks and take Terrence Cody
If they were to switch to a 3-4 he could play NT or he could be a building block in a Williams Wall style 4-3 d-line.
by Badmotostinkfinger on Dec 8, 2009 3:07 PM PST reply actions
I don't like Cody at all.
Sometimes he just seems like a big fat guy, very sluggish and with little power.
At least he could contribute to our team's sex appeal.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Dec 8, 2009 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
I think the question is "62" what?
I’m guessing 62 DD.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Dec 8, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Please, no videos of him running w/out a shirt.
Andre Smith is still imprinted in my mind of horrors.
Horrors?
I found it hilarious!
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 7:56 AM PST up reply actions
Never ever trade two first round picks for the top pick in any draft. Never.
Remember the #1 rule of the NFL Draft: It is A Crap Shoot.
Steve Emtman
drafted #1 – 1992
highest-paid DT in NFL history
2 knee surgeries
8 career sacks
6 year career
it can happen to anybody.
Other D linemen selected in the 1992 draft after Emtman:
DE Sean Gilbert – #3 – pro bowl
DT Chester McGlockton – #16 – pro bowl
DE Robert Porcher – #26 – pro bowl
DT Joel Steed – #68 – pro bowl
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Agreed. Your chances are better if you have two first-round picks and you keep them
… or you trade down in order to get additional picks.
More picks means you spread out the risk of a bust. Trading away picks in order to move up means you’d better be right about the guy you pick.
Random thought: Mike Ditka wasn't wrong about Ricky Williams.
He just had no idea that he’d up and quit out of nowhere (which it would be impossible to know)
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Dec 10, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say that's being pretty danged wrong about the guy you picked
But I also think he was wrong to think that Williams was worth all the picks he traded away in order to get him. He was good, but not that good.
Peyton Manning: 49313 yards, 358 TDs, 9 pro bowls, 3 MVPs, 12 years and counting
QBs taken after Manning:
Ryan Leaf
Charlie Batch
Jonathan Quinn
Cherry picking is silly.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Was physics the reason Wes Welker dropped Tom Brady’s pass?
- Maria Menounos wears Giants bikini in Times Square after Patriots loss
- How the Super Bowl prop bets played out
- Want to watch UMass kids riot and a Giants fan get punched in the back of the head?
- Only dance can heal the wounded souls of Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
