Arriving at Matthew Stafford by Process of Elimination
by John Morgan on Feb 16, 2009 2:30 PM PST
in Analysis
66 comments
There's a reason Matthew Stafford is all over Field Gulls of recent, and it's not that I want Seattle to draft him. I'm undecided. It's a lot simpler than that. Let's consult ESPN's top twenty draft talents.
1. Michael Crabtree
Will Seattle draft him?
Maybe. Seattle has bit-by-bit acquired an ess-ton of wide receivers, and spent a comparable number of resources to get there. Seattle has spent a first round pick, a third round pick, a fifth round pick (Keary Colbert), two sixth round picks and a seventh round pick to acquire twelve million dollars of wide receiver rawk-awesomeness. It speaks of achieving value through volume, and spending a fourth overall pick would violate that philosophy. Crabtree's is remarkable though.
2. Aaron Curry (Brian Cushing)
Will Seattle draft him?
Very unlikely. Very. If Curry turns out as a good as Leroy Hill, most would consider him a satisfactory pick, but Seattle already has Leroy Hill, and Leroy Hill four years further into his development. Seattle would be paying more and expending a draft pick to take on more risk.
3. B.J. Raji
Will Seattle draft him?
No. One year wonder with effort and character concerns that's really not a top ten talent.
4. Eugene Monroe (Andre Smith, Jason Smith)
Will Seattle draft him?
It's possible Seattle drafts a tackle, but I don't see it. Ruskell has stated he wants to build his offensive line through coaching and continuity. Depending on Walter Jones' health and Seattle re-signing Ray Willis, Seattle could be without a need at this position. This answer applies for Andre Smith and Jason Smith.
5. Matthew Stafford
Will Seattle draft him?
Probably yes. Seattle has a relevant need at the position. Stafford is a ringer for a Ruskell pick and a great fit for Greg Knapp's system. It depends on what Seattle's scouts think about Stafford, but he's certainly a strong contender.
6. Malcolm Jenkins (Vontae Davis)
Will Seattle draft him?
Maybe. Jenkins is definitely a Ruskell guy, but the team has a top cornerback, Marcus Trufant, and two players who have shown flashes, Josh Wilson and Kelly Jennings. Seattle would be heavily invested in one position, and wouldn't see half that talent for half their snaps.
7. Mark Sanchez
Will Seattle draft him?
No. Sanchez is a one year starter with major character red flags.
8. Aaron Maybin (Everette Brown)
Will Seattle draft him?
Depends on if Maybin or Brown maintain the weight to play end. See below.
9. Brian Orakpo (Tyson Jackson)
Will Seattle draft him?
Probably not. Orakpo is the purest end of the group, but to say Seattle doesn't have a need is an understatement. Knowing now that Seattle essentially can't cut Patrick Kerney, Seattle would be stacking the popes into the hole and hoping no one gets their feet burned. I mean, er, creating subtraction by addition. Who loses out? Darryl Tapp and Lawrence Jackson deserve snaps, and between those two and Baraka Atkins, Seattle has a better shot of developing a good to great defensive end internally than acquiring one through the draft.
Tyson Jackson only makes sense at defensive tackle, and still not much sense.
x. Brandon Pettigrew
John Carlson
x. Rey Maualuga
Lofa Tatupu
10. Knowshon Moreno (Chris Wells)
Will Seattle draft him?
Possibly but not likely. Seattle is attempting to create a system that deemphasizes the need for top talent at running back, and taking Moreno (or Wells) at four would seem a major overdraft. Don't count it out though. One thing I haven't talked much about but believe is that Julius Jones may have soured himself with more than Mike Holmgren. I can't imagine temper tantrums go over well with Tim Ruskell.
Stafford isn't the only pick, but he's not far off. In fact, after a little inspection, it's startling how many players are eliminated from consideration. Seattle's a young team without a young quarterback, and in this draft, there's one young quarterback that screams Seattle.
0 recs |
66 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
You're on a roll today, John.
Great read. Although I’m sounding like a broken record, I’m still terrified that we have a strong chance of getting Stafford.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 2:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Great piece John.
I don’t know if the David Greene experiment would scare him off Stafford a bit.
That being said, I dont think we’ll have the opportunity to draft Stafford. I think he’s going 1 overall.
I don’t think it makes sense, but I’m still leaning towards Curry. When I think of Ruskell I think of a few things: defense, college production, low risk, good character, senior.
by LantermanC on Feb 16, 2009 2:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I guarantee we don't draft Curry.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I love your list.
I like how you have Pettigrew. I love JC, but I’d love to have some two TE sets. It’d be better for running. And with two versatile tight ends I feel like we’d still have a great passing game.
by LantermanC on Feb 16, 2009 2:41 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but is a 2TE set worth more than the alarming number of needs we need to address?
Including getting rid of Russell, help in the interior o-line, etc…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not mutually exclusive necessarily.
1 (trade down) Pettigrew.
2 Duke Robinson
3. Chung
by LantermanC on Feb 16, 2009 2:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some two TE sets would be nice,
but we shouldn’t use a first-round draft pick for just some plays. A first round draft pick should be expected to play the majority of downs, even if they only ease into that role over a few years.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 16, 2009 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why can't we use Weaver as the second TE?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great read John. Just out of interest,
are you saying you believe Seattle most likely to go for:
Stafford
Jenkins
Crabtree
in that order? Thanks.
by JamesMurphy on Feb 16, 2009 2:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
JM, I must have fallen behind a little
Can you (or anyone here) point me to the serious character red flags of Sanchez? Just curious, because I personally hadn’t read anything about that.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Feb 16, 2009 2:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Rape allegations, dropped due to lack of evidence.
Underage drinking, fake ID. Couple of cop complaints.
by LantermanC on Feb 16, 2009 3:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's like every USC students rap sheet.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 3:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As a recent USC grad
I take mild offense at this. People need to drop their decades old stereotypes of USC students and realize that the student body there is a LOT different since 2001.
Trust me the difference in personality and mentality of upperclassmen I met as a freshman and people I met every year after was just astounding. Anyone who was admitted to USC pre 2000 or so probably fits the old stereotypes, but since then Sample and the rest have gone out of their way to build a student body that is a lot different.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Feb 16, 2009 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
apologies.
I just think it’s harder to keep your nose clean in Los Angeles than say… Pullman or somewhere. My point was I think he is a good kid.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 6:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
A a recent WSU grad, I-
Wait, nevermind.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Aside from the rape allegations which are horrible...I don't see how that's any different from any college student ever.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Feb 16, 2009 3:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't have a huge problem with the underrage drinking.
In fact I think their are some photos of Matt Stafford drinking out their on the web (although he could of been 21 when those were taken). It’s something most college students do and as long as their not drinking and driving and putting others lives at risk I don’t think it’s a big deal.
by MFAN on Feb 16, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Joe Schmo doesn't care college kid: Ok
Soon to be rich and famous and must show simple self control to keep career on track: A huge red flag.
by John Morgan on Feb 16, 2009 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You at least have to have the presence of mind to not get put yourself in a position to be photographed
whilst engaged in some form of jackassery.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
by abender20 on Feb 16, 2009 4:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
When you're a star someone's gonna get a picture of you.
Drinking underage really isn’t that bad. Yeah, it’s illegal, but every other country in the world has a drinking age of 18 or below, because 21 is a ridiculously high age. As long as he’s not driving a car, he can drink and I don’t see how that’s a red flag at all.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Feb 17, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rape allegations aren't horrible
rape convictions are. In this country there’s a little thing called “presumption of innocence” that applies here. I think it’s fair to conclude that if there was insufficient evidence to go to trial he probably didn’t rape anyone.
by t.hast12 on Feb 17, 2009 8:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jerramy Stevens would like to say hello
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Feb 17, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mind of no Mind linked this in a previous thread
http://seahawksdraft.blogspot.com/2009/01/passing-ruskell-test.html
Hard to keep track since JM keeps writing so much lately.
by LantermanC on Feb 16, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch.
Thanks for the link. Those seem like bright red neon flashing lights instead of flags.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Feb 16, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it's positively Jerramy Stevens-esque.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You never want to see rape allegations
from the person you are counting on to be the leader of your franchise for the next decade.
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Feb 16, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is ridiculous
Sanchez never beat anyone over the head with a baseball bat.
Sanchez isn’t a repeat offender, he wasn’t constantly in trouble. There were two incidents both of which were tied to each other. One was something I’m betting the majority of posters here have done and the other was never proven.
Is it at least a minor red flag? Yes. But to say he is even remotely like Stevens is ridiculous.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Feb 16, 2009 4:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The incident in question happened in Sanchez' room
and she even said she consented to a lot of stuff. Its reminded me of the Kobe non-rape, where the victim probably changed her mind afterward. The Kobe victim it turned out had a history of mental instability, so maybe its not a perfect comp, but seeing as how Sanchez’s case was dropped as a classic he-said, she-said (no evidence) incident 2 years before he became the starting QB, and it was a 1 time event, seems like a non-starter to me. Stuff happens, and there is a pretty good chance (I don’t know, but I’m guessing) they were both drinking that night.
My red flag for Sanchez is character concerns of a different kind. He seems to have kind of a negative aura to him on the sidelines, he frowns a lot and looks displeased, if there was a word for it. I guess a better way to put it would be, he didn’t look particularly happy being a major NCAA QB. Now of course I am really reading into this pretty far, obviously I can’t prove this, its just something I’ve noticed. Seems like most of Sanchez’s detractors are citing his persona and off-field conduct more than his scout-type shortcomings. I’d be laughing their concerns out the room (since most of his rap sheet is typical of college students), if not for the subjective “vibe” that something isn’t totally on the level there.
Stevens was worse than Sanchez. He pretty much did rape someone, even bragged about it. He also beat someone up pretty bad, and was pretty much a huge punk (albeit an extremely talented one) even before being a punk as a Seahawk.
by kearly on Feb 16, 2009 5:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
While getting ready to binge-drink his sorrows away.
Keep it going?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 17, 2009 3:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, for the sake of pure guesswork
If this is how you see things shaking out, is there a chance that Ruskell trades UP to land Stafford? We’ve talked a lot about the possibility of Ruskell trading down, but the Lions are looking for a QB….
"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture
by Eegah on Feb 16, 2009 2:58 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
My biggest questions is:
What is the likelihood of Stafford being available at 4? Are both Detroit and KC going to pass on him, or, do you think Sanchez will go first?
by Misfit74 on Feb 16, 2009 3:00 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
That's what I was thinking
All of the top three draft teams have needs at QB (some more than others). Seems like a no-brainer that Stafford will be off the board by then.
I’m not trying to say this argument is a moot one, but it’s pretty close …
by Nick Andron on Feb 16, 2009 3:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Stafford will be there at 4.
For what it’s worth Detroit has said Culpepper will be their starter and their new head coach Jim Schwartz has been a big Football Outsiders fan, I imagine he’ll put some stock in the Lewin system and probably pass on Stafford.
I’m not sure what KC will do, they had something like 11 sacks last season so they might go DE. Their new head coach is an offensive guy however and Todd Haley might want a young QB that he can mold into a star. I think KC is our only potential competition for Stafford.
by MFAN on Feb 16, 2009 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Especially if Gonzalez isn't around next year
Thigpen would be a deer in the headlights without Gonzalez. It’d actually be quite funny to watch.
Regarding Detroit – I saw the same thing. But they’re in MAJOR rebuilding mode, and doing just that around an aged Culpepper wouldn’t be terribly bright. Then again, the Lions FO aren’t exactly the brightest bunch, so who knows …
by Nick Andron on Feb 16, 2009 3:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They did fire Matt Millen.
I’m sure who their GM is now, but it’s a good bet that he’s better than Millen. The Lions are in a major rebuilding mode, but that might be a good reason to start Culpepper. The Lions aren’t competing next season, so they might as well start someone like Culpepper (or Kitna) and wait a year or two to grab their QB of the future. In the meantime they can rebuild their offensive line.
by MFAN on Feb 16, 2009 3:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Detroit never said Culpepper will be their starter.
Recently waived Mike Furrey said Culpepper is all but assured of the job, but there’s nothing definitive or even speculative from the Lions front office. I could definitely see KC taking Stafford though.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Feb 16, 2009 3:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, is that what is was?
I thought I heard that the Lions themselves had said that, either way I’d take it with a giant grain of salt as I’m not sure why the Lions would just hand the job to Culpepper.
by MFAN on Feb 16, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't mean Detroit wont still take stafford.
You know, let Culpepper start the first few games and phase him out in week six.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Let him develop and learn from Culpepper. As washed out as Culpepper is, he still does know a thing or two about quarterbacking.
by Nick Andron on Feb 16, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I think Haley migh try to emulate Arizona's success and draft Crabby.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 3:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My opinion on Moreno is looking up.
I could see him working well in the Seattle offense. I want to believe J. Jones will be more productive this year, but I am not convinced as of yet.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 3:21 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
Julius Jones was not impressive in 2008. I’d be much more inclined to keep Mo Morris; he showed flashes of brilliance from time to time.
by Nick Andron on Feb 16, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Right. I'm not getting the logic on letting him go.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Knapp's offensive schemes?
No idea how he likes to utilize RBs in his offensive schemes, but I’d imagine having one that can catch in the backfield is beneficial … JJ certainly can’t
by Nick Andron on Feb 16, 2009 3:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jones was a pretty good pass catcher in Dallas.
I think Holmgren had trouble adjusting to his RB’s strengths last season, Knapp’s offense might be able to help Jones as a receiver.
by MFAN on Feb 16, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct me if I'm wrong
but isn’t Jones better at picking up the blitz as well?
by BrianL on Feb 16, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He's absolutely terrific at blitz pick-up.
Sacrifices his body and everything. He’s just as good as Weaver at it.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember that grab MO made against the Bucs a couple years ago?
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Feb 16, 2009 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
JJ can receive very well, but Seneca has a very poor short passing game and Hass wasn't himself.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Crabtree looks like the best player and is probably the safest pick
If Ruskell was smart he’d realize he sucks at evaluating receivers and take Crabtree so he doesn’t have to worry about it for a long time.
by Nate Dogg on Feb 16, 2009 3:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 16, 2009 7:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Many questions answered above.
Me tired. Sleep now.
by John Morgan on Feb 16, 2009 4:35 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
A recurring theme among draft threads is that
nobody is really worthy of the money a top five pick will get. That is a fact. It is extremely unlikely that the team will get adequate value from #4 pick. Still, unless we can trade down, we have no choice but to draft someone. I still think it’s much safer and Ruskellian to draft an OT or Jenkins at #4 than to take a flier on Stafford. We can try to develop a late round pick behind Matt and Seneca for one more year. No need to push the panic button just yet.
by diehard82 on Feb 17, 2009 5:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I've done some more research, and...
Yes, Ruskell took Jennings in the 1st round, 31 overall in 2006, BUT, he was the 7th DB off the board. In 2009, the 7th best DB will likely go mid second round, due primarily to deep O-line talent, not lack of DB talent. Put simply, if Jennings were in the 2009 draft, he wouldn’t be a 1st round talent. Also, Josh Wilson was taken in the 2nd round in 2007, the 11th DB selected. What does that say about Ruskell’s confidence in Jennings after his rookie season? That should put to rest the idea that drafting another DB would be admitting failure, and therefore Ruskell won’t do that. He already did.
In 2004, Ruskell was Dir of Player Personnel in Atlanta and they took CB-DeAngelo Hall with the 8th pick in the draft. That is the only top 10 pick in Ruskell’s career since 1995, and is in my humble opinion the only real historical data point of any significance when evaluating Ruskell’s history as it relates to our #4 pick.
Lastly, as Jenkins won the Thorpe Award for best DB in the nation, and may be projected to play FS in the NFL vs. CB, drafting him doesn’t indicate giving up on Jennings or Wilson any more than drafting Taylor Mays would have (were he in the draft) indicated that.
At the end of the day, best player available who will start, exception to Curry if we re-sign Hill, and exception to OT’s if Jones is deemed to be fully recovering from surgery, is who Ruskell will select. In my book, that’s Jenkins.
by diehard82 on Feb 17, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Question: do you think Jenkins would be worthy of the 4th overall selection if he projects to play Safety?
I can’t help but think that would be a reach if he is in fact going to play Safety in the NFL. His value as a Safety would conceivably pale in comparison to his value as a Cornerback. We don’t know he can even play the cornerback position at the next level, due in large part, to a perceived lack of requisite speed.
by Misfit74 on Feb 18, 2009 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Are you saying his value would be worse
because Safeties are less valuable than Corners? Or because we have no clue how he’d do as a safety since no one has seen him play that position before?
by LantermanC on Feb 18, 2009 3:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying
That I question the value of a college corner who is a relatively unknown quantity at Safety at 4 . A top-4 corner would be more valuable than a corner converting to Safety, or a Safety altogether, in most cases. It would be different if he wasn’t a ‘tweener’. There is additional risk taking such a player with the number four pick. When we talk about the small sample size of Sanchez (games started) being cause for passing on him, how would it be justified to select Jenkins, who started most, if not all, of his college career at a different position?
I suppose Jenkins could still solidify himself as a corner between now and the draft, but so far it looks like he could project as a Safety. There are some ‘what if’s’ in this discussion due to some unknowns.
by Misfit74 on Feb 18, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
