Seahawks Mock Draft 2
by John Morgan on Mar 9, 2009 2:03 PM PDT
84 comments
Mock drafts are disposable, but fun. Kind of like Twitter. Some more names to consider in 140 characters or less.
4. Matthew Stafford QB: Draft pundits insist you build around a franchise quarterback, but successful picks join teams with existing offensive talent. That's not Detroit. It's Seattle.
37. Max Unger C/G: Unger can compete for either guard spot or challenge Chris Spencer for center. He's smart and agile and fits a traditional zone blocking scheme. Not a tackle.
68. Michael Hamlin SS: Not a huge upside safety, but polished and very productive. A good mix of in the box skill and cover awareness. Could start in 2009.
~105. Mike Thomas WR: Sorry size queens, Thomas makes Branch look tall. And stiff and slow: 4.3 speed, 40" hops, 6.65 agility and eye popping production in college. Deadly return man.
~171. Terrance Taylor DT: Not surprisingly, Taylor performed much better on the 9-4 Wolverines than the 3-9 Wolverines. A former top DT prospect; Taylor is a better, younger, cheaper Cole.
~211. Jake Ingram LS: Never get between a man and his obsessions. Ingram isn't Schmitt's equal, snapping in .65/.7 to Schmitt's .53(!), but the team needs a long snapper.
0 recs |
84 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
snapping in .65/.7 to Schmitt's .53(!),
What does this mean, Understand I do not.
by SPENCEMAN on Mar 9, 2009 2:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It's the time from snap to punter
.7 is NFL average or so. .53 is exceptional.
by John Morgan on Mar 9, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're going to be the laughingstock of the NFL
if we draft a longsnapper in two consecutive drafts
by aerozeppelin on Mar 9, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If anyone paid attention to our 6th or 7th round picks
I’d be amazed. I’ve never heard much criticism for a 7th round pick since the chances of them having any impact at all are pretty minimal.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
I can totally see (and get with) the first 3 selections. I don’t know as much about the rest.
by Misfit74 on Mar 9, 2009 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like this
you get instant play from Unger and Hamlin.
Thomas pencils in as the #4 wr, high enough up the depth chart to develop him but low enough to not overwhelm him.
Stafford becomes the of the future a gets to redshirt a season or two. Stafford to Seattle keeps him from busting – qbs bust when 1) gimmick offense 2) no intangibles 3) poor oline in the pros. Stafford has 1) pro style offense 2) good leader/personality 3) at the least good pass pro in Seattle.
I think I like Deon Butler, Brandon Gibson and Mohamed Massaquoi more than Mike Thomas as far as mid round WRs.
This draft still leaves CB unadressed.
by puerto on Mar 9, 2009 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think we roll with what we have
Turfant, Wilson, Jennings, Hobbs and Babineaux is a decent five piece matched with the right pass rush.
by John Morgan on Mar 9, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stafford ran a spread at UGa
Just a point of clarification. It wasn’t exactly like WVa’s or Missouri’s, but he did run a spread.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Mar 9, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't remember being so excited about 2nd and 3rd round picks.
There are going to be some real sweet finds to be had picking at the top of rounds.
by Misfit74 on Mar 9, 2009 2:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why not Delmas?
Why not draft Louis Delmas or Rashad Johnson in the 2nd or 3rd and keep Deon at SS?
by SoCalHawksFan on Mar 9, 2009 2:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Johnson has been arrested a few times.
Delmas is from Western Michigan, and the only guy Ruskell has drafted from a small school was a long snapper.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it kind of sucks that Ruskell
likes BCS character guys, but if that’s his niche and that’s what he feels comfortable scouting that’s fine by me. I’d rather have him scout players he thinks he can get a handle on rather than players he’s not sure as to how to evaluate.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought Johnson only once, for disorderly conduct. No?
I think Rashad would be good for us. He has most all the other Ruskell qualifications.
by Misfit74 on Mar 9, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're probably right.
But I think I remember hearing about him having some type of character concern before his arrest.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here is
video of him being arrested on June 12 2008.
And then he was arrested again on Feb 23 2008.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pretty Sure
Johnson was only arrested once. That video is the evidence of the incident that caused the arrest in February. I don’t think it’s a seperate arrest in June. He was arrested for Disorderly Conduct for alledgedly pushing a security guard who was taking someone else out of the bar/club. The charges were dropped and Johnson performed 40 hours of community service (I’m not sure if the Com. Serv. was a Saban requirement or part of deal getting charges dropped).
by bp42810 on Mar 9, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think (could be wrong)
he was arrested twice. Charged once. If charges are dropped, you were still arrested.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quote:
“video of him being arrested on June 12 2008.”
“And then he was arrested again on Feb 23 2008”
Usually the “then … again” comes AFTER the first incident, not before…
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The man made a slight mistake, it's not the end of the world.
Do you really want to make your grand entrance to FG by criticizing someone who has been an active participant around here for quite some time?
by abender20 on Mar 10, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry.
Didn’t mean it as a CRITICISM. More like pointing out something humorous, which I tend to do. From now on I’ll try to be serious.
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Feb 23, 2009 sorry. about that.
Wording right, dates wrong.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With regards to Unger,
Didn’t people say the same thing about Spencer? I recall people talking about how he could play both center and guard, and hopefully eventually take over for Tobeck.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 2:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Mockingthedraft
has a 2 round mock up.
I don’t see any way in hell we draft Raji. I kind of wish he had a 2nd year of production and no character/academic concerns, because him and Mebane sure would be a good fit.
William Beatty is fine in the 2nd, and Duke goes a few picks later, but then there’s a run at safety with Delmas, Chung, and Hamlin, and to finish round 2 is Ziggy Hood, which in my mind would be a disaster since I’m not sure what we’d draft for round three, but in my mind we need a safety somewhere in the first 3 rounds.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 3:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I shake my head at the stupidity when I see Seattle taking Raji at #4.
There’s very little chance we’d draft him at all, and a snowball in hell certainly has a better chance than us drafting him with the fourth goddamn pick.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Thomas killed the Huskies
He totally padded his stats against that atrocious U of W “defense”. Those games should not count, as they were against talent not- comparable to the NFL. That being said, he would be a heck of a punt returner. Major quicks and he plays bigger than his size.
John, I think you have a man-crush on Unger, Chung, Hamlin, and Mebane. At least Mebane is a Hawk already.
Terrace Taylor is a beast…in the weight room.
by Section 128 on Mar 9, 2009 6:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm on board for both Thomas and Taylor
Seem like good guys with pretty good combine stats that both had a bit of a down senior year relative to their junior years. Seems like good ‘buy low’ candidates to me which is what you’d want in the later rounds.
by LantermanC on Mar 9, 2009 6:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the Jaguars do trade up for Crabtree
They like his type and now that Matt Jones has been arrested again, Seahawks can get a draft pick or two. Maybe flip spots and their 2nd or their 3 and next years 2nd. I don’t know how those trades are calculated though.
by Built2Spill on Mar 9, 2009 7:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You're right
However, Jacksonville will probably try to trade with the Bengals or Browns before going to the Seahawks.
Trading down to the 7th spot is pretty sweet though.
by aerozeppelin on Mar 9, 2009 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently the Jags may be looking for a QB...
ALSO a good way for us to trade down.
by djafrot on Mar 9, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I thought a 60-million contract to Garrard pretty much made him their guy.
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe those
sweat stained wedding pictures scared the Jags?
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yuck.
Although his wife is hot.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was just at a wedding.
And that’s just a random girl. Pretty sure it wasn’t his wedding.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know. I'm just pointing out that his wife is hot. Lucky ass NFL celebrities.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sucks we don't have a 5th rounder
What a waste that Colbert trade was
by Ezzra on Mar 9, 2009 9:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It was a waste in the end but...
I don’t really blame the FO for making the trade when the WR corps was in such shambles.
by gobo on Mar 9, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was outplayed but guys off the street
Ruskell has admitted it was a decision made out of desperation, it was a bad move.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 9, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just hope Ruskell learned from the experience
And doesn’t allow desperation to cloud judgment in the future.
by Ezzra on Mar 9, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you have felt more secure with let's say...
Jordan Babineaux running routes. We needed bodies at the time and our options were limited. We needed somebody with some knowledge of how our offense is run, unfortunately that led to Colbert sans coif. Sometimes desperation is needed to cloud judgment, look we got K-Rob back for a few weeks.
by Built2Spill on Mar 9, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We had had just signed McMullen and Samie Parker
and recentely promoted Michael Bumpus. We had plenty of no name WR’s already, and we got them without losing a draft pick, including K-Rob.
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO, these 2nd day picks are like scratch-it lotto tickets
I bought it yesterday for $1. But today I’m starving, so I traded for a hamburger. Unfortunately that hamburger was undercooked and tasted like shit, so I’m still kinda hungry .. but I get paid tomorrow, so I’ll live. Now, when that guy I gave the ticket to finally checks it, odds are 95% that it’s worth $1-$2, or maybe $5 at most. So yeah, I guess I overpaid for a crappy meal, but did I mention I was starving? But then, for the next couple years, my friends keep ragging me because they’re convinced I gave away a $100 winner, and I can never live it down.
by jteckmann on Mar 9, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Now that's funny
I am in no way implying that losing that pick will result in the loss of some pro bowler (or the equivalent in your example, 100$), only that we might have lost a bit of depth. We got Owen Schmitt with our 5th rounder last year, and even if it’s only in depth in the form of a career special teams player, it’s still better than Keary Colbert.
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course, you knew ahead of time that Colbert wouldn't work out
by djafrot on Mar 10, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, I had no idea what was gonna happen
But as I mentioned above, we had options other than trading that offered similar value to Colbert, which is why I disagreed with it at the time
We had had just signed McMullen and Samie Parker
and recentely promoted Michael Bumpus. We had plenty of no name WR’s already, and we got them without losing a draft pick, including K-Rob.
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 1:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Now that's funny" is my way of supporting and enjoying your clever analogy
It was not intended to be or sound sarcastic, for the record.
by Ezzra on Mar 10, 2009 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quote:
“that hamburger was undercooked and tasted like shit”
You’ve tasted shit?
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Use the subject line and please put a bit more effort into the content of your comments.
by BrianL on Mar 10, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will use the subject line.
Not sure how much more effort can be put into a question like the one I posed. I think the spelling and grammer was correct. But I see your point.
I actually try not to post unless I have something to add (-like new information, a correction, an opinion, or something funny). At some sites (like Scout, and now this one) I’ll read often but rarely post. But some sites VALUE the number of posts like it’s some big accomplishment to type everything you think— and give more respect and esteem to those who post a lot.
But I didn’t reply to boost my count. I replied to make people laugh. Did you not think it was funny? Do you prefer to keep it serious here? I suppose I ought to know the temperment of the room before saying anything.
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess only certain kinds of funny work here...
…because a good joke gets REC’d up the yin yang.
by djafrot on Mar 10, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, yes he's tasted shit before.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I supposed anyone who forgets to de-vein their prawns has.
That’s not sand in there.
by jteckmann on Mar 10, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
O_O
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 3:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe he has.
He’s already made us ‘not desperate’ for a DT and WR early in the draft. Willis makes us less desperate for OL. I think Ruskell does a good job (in the off-season) addressing what the team decides are ‘needs’.
However, during the season is a different situation. That move may have blown, but I can’t fault him for not just rolling w/ the turds we were trotting out there. Kolbert just proved to stink more.
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know it's not worth much.
But Kiper says he doesn’t see Raji falling past the 5th or 6th pick.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 12:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No, not worth much
I’m not a fan of Kiper— although I used to be (in the 80s!), I find his logic flawed and he gets into a mindset and doesn’t seem to be able to think beyond it. Like the running feud he’s having with McShay about picking Stafford first.
He claims that if there is a top 5 QB available and you could use a QB, you must take that QB. He cites the case of Dallas picking Aikman over Manderich as proof, but that is flawed because Dallas already had a good team and Troy was perhaps the last piece needed, and Manderich was one of the biggest busts in draft history. (BTW, If I recall, Kiper had Manderich at the top of his board…)
He should also look at what the result of us taking Mirer instead of we could have taken— or, as I preferred at the time, trading that #2 pick. He should also look at what happened to David Carr going to a team that needed help everywhere else. More recent examples might be JRussell, or ASmith, or VYoung, or TLeinart.
And now he says Culter is vastly overrated!
The more I hear from Kiper, the dumber he sounds.
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't trust Kipers evaluation skills myself. But if he has some inside knowledge that's what I care about.
I’m going to assume he thinks that Raji won’t fall after 5 or 6 because Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Raji’s agent told him something along those lines, not because he thinks that Raji is too good to fall beyond that point.
His Aikman example is dumb because you can usually point out an exception to almost any rule. But wasn’t Aikman 1-15 his rookie year?
The Cutler comment is pretty stupid. Cutler had a great season last year 4000+ yards almost a 1.5:1 TD to INT ratio, calling him overrated, especially when you compare him to Leinart or Young is pretty dumb.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Inside info is possible...
But I wonder how trustworthy it is. There’s a lot of disinformation going around…
Despite my earlier post, I still factor in Mel’s opinion when forming my own opinion about a player. I mean if we pick a guy and Mel loves him, then great. If not, I look at better opinions.
He has been so wrong about so many players…
I think if a team hired him as their draft guru, they would consistantly score A+ after A+ but they’d end up with an inferior team. Makes me wonder if he’s the 49er picker…
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would explain Vernon Davis, Alex Smith, Manny Lawson, Kentwan Balmer, and numerous other busts/semi-busts they've had this decade.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 11, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually like Raji
and I don’t think he’ll drop very far either. But not because Mel said so…
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see the first 3 rounds as plausible
although I’d rather we didn’t burn #4 on Stafford, I could understand the logic with the uncertainty that Matt’s back problems are behind him for good. If Detroit is smart, they’ll follow Miami’s example and go OT or Curry at 1, then use 20 for QB (Freeman?). So, Stafford could be there at 4. I like the Unger pick, although with a run on OT’s and Alex Mack likely gone by 32, I doubt Unger makes it to us at 37. Several teams just ahead of us in round 2 could use a Center/Guard.
by diehard82 on Mar 10, 2009 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Detroit can draft Stafford and sit him for a year.
But if they want, they can also draft an Oher/Britton at #20 and a Mack/Unger/Robinson with their 2nd rounder.
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A lot of Mocks agree with you
and the storybook tale of Bobby Lane and Stafford attending the same High School, etc… make for an entertaining read. Here’s why I think Detroit doesn’t take Stafford.
New regime wants to put last years miserable season behind them as soon as possible. Only way to do that is win RIGHT NOW. If they lose game one the headlines will read “Losing Streak Continues”. Best way to win now is with Culpepper at the helm and Eugene Monroe protecting his blind side, giving Johnson, MoMo and the other weapons the best chance to score points. Monroe is more NFL ready than Brandon Albert was last year, and he had a fine year at left tackle for KC. Linebackers virtually never go top 3 because they just don’t carry the same value, hence not Curry either. They can use 20 and 32 to trade up from 20 and down from 32, if necessary, to get Sanchez or Freeman and develop them behind Culpepper with less risk in the form of $ invested. Keep in mind, a tackle at 1 costs a lot less to start with than a QB at 1. It’s the “smart” play. If they do this, 90% of the NFL universe will say, “that makes sense, good move Detroit”. If they take Stafford, the same 90% will say, “same old Detroit, nothing changes”. You say Stafford can sit, but if Culpepper struggles, there will be immense pressure to replace him with the $15MM man. What a debacle that could be. If I were Detroit GM, I’d take Monroe at 1, Mathews or Cushing at 20, and if Freeman not available at 33, then Ayers (DE-Tennessee). All 3 would start and Detroit is immediately a much better team. Keep in mind, they will likely have a good 1st round pick next year, and the quality QB options should be more numerous, so I don’t think it is critical that they take a QB in round 1 this year. They do need to grab a FA QB to bolster their backup in case Culpepper goes down.
by diehard82 on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's sort of why I don't want us to draft a QB early.
Once Matt throws his first INT of the season, all the local idiots are going to be clamoring for the rook to start, and that Hasselbeck is a relic of the Holmgren era, washed up, etc. despite that he likely has several effective seasons left.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 10, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So we shouldn't draft a QB because the coaching staff might face media backlash?
This doesn’t seem like smart roster construction.
by BrianL on Mar 10, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how they react to pressure.
If Hasselbeck has a string of terrible games like he did this season, do they cave in and give the newb a shot?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 11, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do people think about Sean Smith?
Seattle was at his pro day. He is projected by some to be a Safety at the next level, and though I’m not sure what to make of some of these ‘tweener’ guys (see: Jenkins), he still would seem a fast fit. I realize that moving Grant back to FS is probably in the works, but we did look at him:
03/09/09 – Utah Pro day: The University of Utah pro day was held today in Salt Lake City, with 21 teams and 13 players in attendance. Carolina Panthers defensive coordinator Ron Meeks was among the attendees, as were defensive backfield coaches from the Miami Dolphins and Detroit Lions and a defensive line coach from the Seattle Seahawks. The pro day was held indoors on FieldTurf. Smith measured in at 6-3½ and 209 pounds. He ran the 40-yard dash in 4.47 and 4.49 seconds. He had a 32-inch vertical and a 9-5 broad jump. He participated in position drills but did not do any shuttle drills, save for the 60-yard shuttle. – Gil Brandt, NFL.com
Here is a nice INT from him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9M2w9m320k
by Misfit74 on Mar 10, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
His college stats and combine numbers look good.
But then again, he didn’t go to a BCS school. He did play a fair amount of games against BCS schools, so maybe Ruskell will still scout him?
by LantermanC on Mar 10, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's interesting it said our DL coach was there, not our DB
maybe they were more interested in Kruger or Misi.
I like Smith a lot, too. I definitely wouldn’t be opposed to him – although I think a hard hiting, decent cover guy is more the type we need, rather than a CB/FS ’tweener like Jenkins or Smith would be.
by jteckmann on Mar 10, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good catch
I agree that it is likely the DL coach was there scouting Kruger, more so than Smith specifically. Interesting that his 40 times were better than at the combine. I don’t have the times in front of me, but I think he was high 4.5’s. I also recall hearing about character issues, although don’t remember the details.
by diehard82 on Mar 11, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to get Smith...
In a later round. Wouldn’t be my first choice of safety, but at the right slot then yes.
by Kryten on Mar 10, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If our d-line coach was there
isn’t it more likely he was looking at Paul Kruger?
by Nate Dogg on Mar 10, 2009 8:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of the draft, those freaking Patriots keep rolling along
How do they do it? If the draft were a side of beef, picks 21-64 would be the tenderloin, the choicest cut of the draft. Maximum value based on historical success of guys drafted in that range vs. what you have to pay them on their rookie contract. 1-20 do have a slightly higher success rate, but at a significant premium in salary. And the Patriots have 4 picks from 23-58. Whether you like them or not, they are a well-oiled machine.
by diehard82 on Mar 11, 2009 9:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
