The Tim Ruskell Draft MO and How I Would Draft
by John Morgan on Mar 19, 2009 2:35 PM PDT
Email
PrintThis will be boring for some, so I'm burying it under the fold, but it's a nuts and bolts piece about my mock drafts.
Do these Mock Drafts represent who I want Seattle to draft?
Only in so far in that I can't fully take myself out of the equation. I hate a writer who claims objectivity. Obviously, I'm inseparable from something I write. It's my intention to represent the opinions of the Seahawks front office, but the picks carry my biases. That means players may appear on a mock draft even if do not personally support Seattle drafting them. It also means I have a blind spot for some players.
There's a twist here. When I write a mock draft I always argue for why a team might select them. It's sort like Colin Cole. The matter isn't black and white or even shades of gray. It's something akin to colors. Cole isn't objectively bad. He may not be particularly talented, and may not warrant his salary, but in the right scheme, used to his strengths, he could be valuable. I just don't think Cole is valuable in his expected role with Seattle. It's the same basic story with a draft prospect. So, for someone like Jeremiah Johnson, I'm accounting for a Greg Knapp system that needs lot of depth at running back. Then I'm opining that Seattle could think of Johnson as an undervalued change of pace back with good potential. Then I just figure out if he fits the Tim Ruskell MO.
What is the Tim Ruskell MO?
It's a set of standards and criteria that Tim Ruskell uses to evaluate talent. It's famous, notorious in some circles, and often misrepresented. Now, this is simply my best guess, but I think it's sound. Here it is in brief.
Tape trumps measurables
Often misconstrued as production rules, Ruskell isn't opposed to selecting a player for that player's potential, only opposed to believing combine measurables are the best indication of that player's potential.
Classic Example: Chris Spencer. Spencer didn't wow with his bench or 40, and he wasn't an abnormally productive center at Mississippi, but scouts raved about his athleticism. It was a long time and many injuries ago, but Spencer was an extremely talented and preternaturally powerful center prospect with reams of potential.
Players from high-functioning units can have hidden value
Key players in dominant units that don't scout out well individually can have hidden value like awareness or leadership.
Classic Example: Lofa Tatupu. Tatupu was the middle linebacker of USC's third ranked scoring defense and top ranked rushing defense.
Production matters
You won't find too many Seahawks picks that didn't produce at a high level at some point in their college career.
Classic Example: Brandon Mebane. Mebane recorded 14.5 sacks and 25.5 tackles for a loss over four seasons with the Cal Bears. Sedrick Ellis recorded 17.5 and 28.5 against mostly the same competition. Mebane did it in ten fewer games and with weaker surrounding talent.
Players from failing teams can have hidden value
There is a misconception that Ruskell drafts winners. In reality, two of his most successful picks were from teams that tanked the season before they were drafted.
Classic Example: LeRoy Hill. Hill had 145 tackles, 27 tackles for a loss, 8 sacks and 3 interceptions in 2003. In 2004, his senior season, Hill's numbers were down pretty much across the board. He finished with 106 tackles, 19 tackles for a loss, 8 sacks and 0 interceptions. Still very impressive. Clemson dropped from 9-4 to 6-5. That, somewhat idiotically, hurt Hill's draft stock.
Also, John Carlson.
Level of competition matters
Ruskell has drafted one player from a non-BCS school: A long snapper.
Line talent can be developed
Examples: Mansfield Wrotto, Baraka Atkins, Rob Sims, Ray Willis, Chris Spencer
Character is part of risk assessment
Drafts deep at a specific position can produce undervalued players at that position
Examples: Jordan Kent, Courtney Taylor, Justin Forsett
There are lesser ones. Ruskell has avoided players with injury histories. And there are some misnomers too. Ruskell doesn't demand saints, but he does tend to draft players that are mature and coachable. He doesn't draft players because they have a good story. Something I read a few times from people trumpeting Oher. Ruskell is risk averse, but he doesn't demand instant starters. He has been drafting for a team considered a contender and was thus selecting players that could contribute immediately. I don't think that's a rule though.
On a side note, teams not drafting for need is hogwash. I don't know where the phrase "best available talent" originated, but teams rarely draft a player that doesn't have a chance of playing in the very near future. No team will admit to drafting for need, but Cincinnati isn't selecting Matthew Stafford; Minnesota is not drafting Beanie Wells. All teams draft for need, they just don't draft exclusively for need, or let need dictate who they draft in what round.
Anyway, the above dictates how I populate my mock drafts. Finally...
Who would I draft?
My draft, assuming plausible value picks and equitable trades, but no trades out of the fourth pick. All picks are based on NFL Draft Scout's rankings, which might be batshit.
- WR Michael Crabtree
- SS Patrick Chung
- And
- Pick for QB Brian Brohm and Green Bay's 6th round pick
- OG Tyronne Green
- RB Ian Johnson and TE Bear Pascoe
- WR Brian Hartline, CB Brice McCain, RB Devin Moore, P/K Thomas Morstead
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So would I.
I’d be even happier if it were possible to do a deal down (with Philadelphia or whomever) as well.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 19, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Still high on Brian Brohm, huh?
After you talked him up so much last year, I’m still kind of disappointed we didn’t end up with him.
In my mind I’ve come to a deadlock between drafting Michael Crabtree and Matthew Stafford. I’m just not sure who, ideally, I’d rather see taken.
I think this is an easy decision
I’d rather have Crabtree (or Smith or Monroe) and Brohm, over Stafford and whoever we’d take in the 3rd and 4th rounds. Take for what it’s worth, but last year I believed Brohm was, at most, a hair below in value to Matt Ryan. If Green Bay gives him up for a 3rd & a 4th, then we have to jump all over it.
I agree that Brohm/Crabtree is the best scenario
However, I would be quite happy if we got Matthew Stafford.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 19, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with you and Brett.
But at the same time, it’s kind of hard to go by a ‘this time last year’ statement, since we have a years worth of knowledge and data at our disposal now. We know that Matt Ryan is not just a good college QB, but also a pretty good NFL one as well, whereas Brohm apparently struggled against practice squad caliber talent in preseason.
That being said, I would definitely be up for JM’s mock draft, though I feel as though the price for Brohm might be a bit high (not for what I think he’s worth, but for what I think he’s being valued by the market) due to his stock (supposedly) dropping a bit relative to last year.
I don't know how much stock to put in that one year
Since Ryan & Brohm were placed in completely different situations. And while Ryan’s got a whole year to show himself, Brohm got much less – just 2-3 total preseason games, and then he was back to the bench. Pre-season games where he’s playing with unfamiliar and sometimes inferior talent, and coaches who may be calling a gameplan aimed at evaluating different things, rather than putting Brohm in the ideal situation.
Also, both QB’s we handled differently. With Ryan, it was assumed he’d be the starter from day 1. So it’s likely that Atlanta coaches simplified things and concentrated on building the O around his strengths and putting him in the best position to succeed. He got to play with the #1’s from the beginning and get the majority of practice reps. Whereas Brohm was likely expected to learn and conform to the scheme, rather than having it tweaked for him, and was splitting 2nd string reps with Flynn.
So if we were comfortable valuing him that high last year, not much about him has changed – he still has all the same physical tools. He’d probably be ranked the same type of prospect if he was in this year’s draft. But it’s a very interesting question – just how much should a poor red-shirt season hurt a guy’s value?
I thinkit should hurt it somewhat.
Not a whole lot, but it takes out the possibility of him starting and being good right away.
That being said, I forgot a set of data, and that is young QBs as a whole might be more valuable, considering this draft really has 2 top picks, then Freeman in the late first and Nate Davis possibly being the 4th QB take no earlier than the 3rd round. Now what’s more valuable, Nate Davis or Brian Brohm? Seems to me that scouts would still love Brohm more, which would reflect that for QB draft picks later than the 1st are worth less in this year’s draft than last years draft.
I don't know Davis that well, but I think Brohm fits Ruskell's MO
really well. I’m still shocked Ruskell didn’t find a way to draft him last year; Brohm QB’d a BCS school (Louisville) and had success there, even though his first head coach left for the NFL before his senior year.
I’m not sure how to compare Brohm to Davis, or to Stafford or even to Ryan (maybe a scout can, but not me). Unlike in Atlanta, we’re not looking for whatever young QB we get to start right away. I think Brohm has the best combination of QB talent and cost/draft pick value.
Love that mock
I’d be ecstatic with it.
I also think you did a great job explaining Ruskell’s MO – showing that it is shades of gray, and illustrating some of the misconceptions.
The one thing about Ruskell’s MO that is still a question mark for me is the “level of competition” factor. It’s true that he has avoided non-BCS conference players here in Seattle, but 4 drafts is still a relatively small sample size. I noticed when looking at past Tampa drafts, when Ruskell was director of college scouting, there was a mix of small-school picks, a few of them turning out to be good players (guys like Al Harris, Donnie Abraham, etc)
Now, it’s impossible to know how large of a role Ruskell played in those picks since he was part of a committee. But at this point, I still think that if the right small school player came along – experience, good production, etc – that the level of competition would not rule him out (I’m thinking of a guy like Nate Davis in this case)
I noticed the same thing.
But at the same time, how much influence did he have in Tampa and Atlanta. A lot, but not the final say (I’m guessing) like he does now.
As for Nate Davis, my personal feelings are that positions like long snapper, kicker, punter, and QBs are the exception to the rules, in that it seems like there are more factors involved. Special teams, more so because most people don’t take pride in their special teams ability until college when they think money might be involved (just speculation).
He has been drafting for a team considered a contender and was thus selecting players that could contribute immediately. I don’t think that’s a rule though.
That is a very insightful and meaningful statement. An example of why I read your work so often.
I must be boring, because if this is ‘boring to some’, I’m in heaven. This is the goods. I’m with you on Devin Moore and the draft. I would be fine with the bulk of your selections. I almost missed the guard pick. We should nab one in this draft. I wonder what results you would expect if we had such a draft for the upcoming season? Beyond? Brohm is a valid scenario, and we’ve discussed that idea around here for some time. Brohm would be a nice WCO signal-caller. I also wouldn’t mind the big arm of Stafford. Who knows, maybe Crabtree will be gone?
Regarding Minny not drafting a back...
…it is interesting that when they took AP, they had Chester Taylor already – a bonafide running back. I do remember a few pundits going “whaaa….?”
They just stole Hutch a season before who greatly helped Chester Taylor, so they reasoned that an elite RB prospect
would put up elite numbers.
Sort of like how we’re in a good spot to start developing a new QB, whether it be Stafford or Brohm.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Please please please Detroit
take Stafford at number 1, so we can get Crabtree. Assuming Ruskell would take him, but he probably won’t. Though both the Rams and KC could go WR.
Picking a QB first also brings back bad memories of all the times the past Seahawks regimes picked one in the first. Not fair, but ugh.
Rams would be moronic to draft a WR.
KC could conceivably take one, but seeing as they just filled out their WR corps by adding our very own Engram I doubt it.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm surprised you say this even though you love Crab.
They could take Crab in the 1st, Ebben Britton / William Beatty in the 2nd, and a decent enough of a guard in the 3rd, no?
I think the last several years have shown that Bulger, as good as he is,
can’t do shit without a DT up in his face all the time. Both Britton and Beatty are projected to be taken in the teens/late first. In addition, I think their FO might be wary of taking a late first tackle because of semi-bust Alex Barron. Their line depth is fragile enough as it is, and all this talk about moving Alex Barron to LT and starting LG Jacob Bell to RT has to be a smokescreen because that would unbelievably stupid and a DE’s dream. Although, I suppose the Rams drafting Crabtree would benefit us because if they leave their starting tackles like that, Darryl Tapp can compile half his season’s worth of sacks against them again.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions
If I were a Rams fan
I’d be uneasy about Avery and Burton being my team’s only two wideouts worth a bag of rice. I like Avery, but he’s really the only true talent they have at the position. They could easily go Crabtree, but I think (and hope that) their needs on the OL will trump all.
Considering Holt is gone they don't really have any WR's
I don’t know, I could see it, but it’s hard to tell since the Rams have so many holes. OT seems the logical choice. Engram is hardly a long term solution for the Chiefs, although as nice little side fact, Engram was the first ever Biletnakoff Award winner back in 1994. I don’t see the Chiefs taking him either, but other then Engram they really only have Bowe.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 19, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions
and Gonzo, which rounds out 3 solid targets for Cassell to get acquainted with.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
is he comeing back? i thought they were trying to trade him or something
i haven’t really been following KC. but yeah, 1 gonzo = 2 receivers.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 19, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions
OK... so gotta ask this question.
Line talent can be developed
Examples: Mansfield Wrotto, Baraka Atkins, Rob Sims, Ray Willis, Chris Spencer
In your (you all) opinion, what is the least coachable position? In that, I mean the position that is the least easily developed and requires a higher focus on “blue chip” drafting strategy.
QB.
Not that they’re uncoachable but you can’t grab any 5th round pick and turn him into a franchise QB.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Cornerback might be the most dependent on physical tools
I’d agree about qb’s but it seems like they can really benefit from time behind an established starter. I’m not sure if there is really a position that can’t be coached up.
True, but Cortland Finnegan was a 7th rounder.
Can’t think of any others, maybe I’ll look at my spreadsheet tomorrow for late rounders by position for ‘wild success’.
Here's what I got.
Wild Success = 2 pro bowls, 7 years as a starter, or 125 games played.
Data is from 1988 onward (7 round format), BUT data is obviously skewed because I classified undrafted as 7th rounders and obviously if a player is undrafted and is not successful at all, but played a bit, he won’t be on the list, so 7th rounders are sometimes 2x as successful as 6th rounder because of this.
It looks as though BOTH O-Line and D-Line have a significant amount of undrafted successes. Running backs as well.
I classified DT and DE both as D-Line since many guys (Cory Redding) were drafted as one and ended up at another. Same goes for D-back because of guys like Nnamdi, Antrel Rolle, maybe Malcom Jenkins, etc.
This post is kind of buried actually.
I’ll go ahead and be presumptuous enough to assume that enough people would like to see this and make it a fan post.
What do you think it is about OL then that TR thinks is so overvalued.
The examples given (Mansfield Wrotto, Baraka Atkins, Rob Sims, Ray Willis, Chris Spencer) dont really do a ton for me yet with the exception of Willis who may finally have turned the corner.
I'm not sure if theres any way of knowing short of asking him
Maybe he was just grabbing toolsy lineman that could develop behind an established o-line or maybe he feels just takes to midround raw talent prospects for those positions. Every position has that debate and how you handle it is part situational and part preference.
Just guessing here, but
If you look back on previous Super Bowl winning teams, how many of them had a starting offensive lineman drafted in the top 15? Or first round, even.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 19, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Tarik Glenn, Alan Faneca, Jeff Hartings, Damien Woody and Kenyatta Walker since 2002
Walker was drafted the highest at 14 and was not very good. Thats just the super bowl winners though, the Hawks add two more to that list alone if you include super bowl teams.
I also think the analysis should be looked at relative to....
Offensive output and not superbowl participation. It would discount defensive involvement as a factor in getting to the SB if we just look at OL draft position.
Maybe top offenses? thoughts on this train of logic?
by iverson2169 on Mar 19, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Good idea
Lots more players involved, and this is only for the top rated offense in DVOA.
Saints ’08
Jamal Brown, 13th
Patriots ’07
Logan Mankins, 32nd
Colts ’06, ’05, ’04
Tarik Glenn, 19th
Kansas City ’03, ’02 (second to Colts in 05 and 04)
Willi Roaf, 8th
John Tait, 14th
It’s interesting, but with the exception of Kansas City it’s hard to say that those teams weren’t mainly successful because of their quarterbacks. Also interesting, arguably the Colts and Chiefs best o-lineman were undrafted (Jeff Saturday and Brian Waters).
That would certainly support TR's philosophy of developing mid-round OL
I’m just thinking… I wish there was some sort of “filter” that could be applied to a teams success relative to positional investment.
Possibly Salaries?
It could be interesting to see how a teams investment ratios per position stack up against other teams ratio of investment in the same positions.
Example: Playoff teams average 45 million on OL, bottom 5 average 37 million.
Good thought, but I don't know if salary would tell you that much.
Because bad teams tend to spend money on bad players or get trapped in FA deals. (Big difference between the Vikings paying Hutch $49M and the Bills paying Derrick Dockery $49M) Or you have a team like the Patriots who always seem to be able to talk their important FA’s into sticking around with below-market extensions.
I suppose coaching philosophy and scheme is the most relevant factor here.
Some blocking schemes probably require a more blue chip type of prospect than others.
I'd have no problem trading the 4th for Brohm.
But I wouldn’t want to give up the 3rd for him.
Personally, I’d rather get Jenkins than Crabtree, though I have no problem in selecting him. A Crabtree/Brohm pairing could be dangerous for years to come.
Also, I’d hope that Ruskell would spend more than one pick on the O-line.
I’m going to post the anti-draft as a reply to this one. Not saying who I think we should pick up, but players I would like to see replaced by opening kickoff of the preseason.
- Courtney Taylor. I don’t care how far back he is on the depth chart, he’s a waste of a roster space. Maybe at some point he will develop into a great receiver, but I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt it.
- Kelly Jennings. Watch him have an outstanding year since I’m saying that, but he was terrible last year. With Josh Wilson improving I think he should be the nickel back, and I’m happy with Babs backing up Safety and being a dime back. Need to pick up someone in the draft or think about going after the newly available Mike McKenzie or, dare I say, Ken Lucas as a temporary fix opposite Trufant.
- Brian Russell. As much help as our corners needed last year, I didn’t see them getting much from this guy. Maybe there are Brian Russell fans out there? But I think he sucks.
- Deion Brach. I like the guy so I almost hate to say it. However, if every time I go on a date I buy the girl flowers, but the damn things fall apart before I get to her house, I dunno, maybe next date you should bring a box of chocolates or something. With Julian Peterson they were getting their money’s worth and they traded him because he wouldn’t restructure his contract (didn’t he just last year so they could sign Tatupu to his long term deal?) yet they aren’t asking Brach to restructure despite not even coming close to getting what they paid for. He hasn’t even paid off the first round draft choice they gave up for him, much less the contract they gave him.
Taylor…I think the waiting game on him is almost over.
Jennings…this year is make or break for him. I wouldn’t mind Lucas or someone as insurance (veteran).
Russell.
Branch…I would argue that he has produced when on the field and his talents are special. If he’s DJ Hackett again this year, it will be time to cut our losses. Hanging our hat on his super bowl experience and the thought of him being a #1 WR are thin ideas. He should be an explosive compliment to Housh and Carlson this year…if he can stay on the field. I’m looking for a good year from him. At least 65 catches (!).
I agree Branch has been OK when he’s actually been on the field, and if he would be willing to rework his contract to ease some cap space then I would love to see if he can actually make it through a season. If that doesn’t happen, though, I think you have to cut your losses and move on.
Also, have to say, he’s no Peterson but I’m a little excited to see D.D. Lewis get a shot as a starter next year. I think he will exceed expectations.
He started during our Super Bowl season.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 20, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Percy Harvin is looking like a better fit to me.
We need a playmaker. Someone you can line up anywhere on the field.
The injury prone argument with him is a nonissue. The amount of attention he would require from apposing defenses…….
Cogito Ergo Sum
I personally love Percy Harvin.
But I don’t see the injury prone part being a non-issue. I’m not sure if his injuries are repeatable ones, or just freak accidents, but having a guy that you can count on to be able to play is pretty important, especially considering last year.
No, it isn't a nonissue. He has serious injury concerns and I'd like to know why you think he's going to command a lot of attention.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 20, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Well the health thing is obviously an issue
but to pretend like he’s not a special talent is just as dumb as pretending that his injuries won’t be a problem.
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
- Peyton Manning’s face on all 32 NFL logos
- Todd Haley could be in for a bumpy ride in Pittsburgh
- Alex Smith caddied for Jim Harbaugh at AT&T Pro-Am
- Boston (in) Common: Kevin Youkilis set to marry Tom Brady’s sister
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
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.
