Expect the #4 Pick to Wear Blue

by abender20 on Apr 20, 2009 6:59 AM PDT in Seahawks News & Rumors

After what feels like an absolute eternity, we're now 5 days away from the draft. As speculation and hype reach a fever pitch, I always find myself tuning out the various talking heads so as to avoid being set adrift in a sea of rumors and idle chatter.

Hopefully you've all had the chance to concoct your dream draft, likely involving copious amounts of trading. That's a great exercise in functionalizing the concepts of pick value and depth (both on the roster and in the draft). It's also a good opportunity to brush up on lower round players with the talent to contribute. While it's beyond unlikely that the team shuffles picks at a high frequency, you can expect a trade here or there after the 4th pick. Maybe my brain is just cooked from a run in the 90 degree heat yesterday, but let's apply some parsimony to the draft talk from here on out; plan as if the Hawks won't be making multiple major first-day draft deals.

Speaking of which, don't get too emotionally invested in trading down out of the 4th pick. The Times has a quick piece with Tim Ruskell on the possibility of trading down:

"Those of us at the top don't sense we're going down," Ruskell said. "The phone's not ringing off the hook for that. I would say if there's movement and change you will see it below us, the eight to 10 to 12. Then you might start to see it."

Tweet Comment 23 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Not a surprising comment

The best way to lose leverage is publicly communicate your true intentions.

by Nick Andron on Apr 20, 2009 7:34 AM PDT reply actions

Ordinarily the smoke screen argument applies, but consider the comment.

What does the team stand to gain by broadcasting a lack of outside interest in their pick? If the team is actively looking to move down, it would be in their best interest to give the impression that their pick is highly sought after in order to convince more teams to participate (so as to not lose out on the player they want). If Ruskell wants to keep the pick, then it really doesn’t matter what he says.

by abender20 on Apr 20, 2009 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Maybe the phone IS ringing off the hook?

How’s that for a twist?!

by Nick Andron on Apr 20, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree

I don’t think this is a smokescreen. There’s no obvious incentive and, frankly, Ruskell’s opinions reflect the undeniable truth. Ruskell is not the first to say that teams are not interested in trading up. It’s widely reported, conforms to history and had been studied and the results published in a scholarly journal. Fantasy aside, Seattle has a great shot to draft a great player that they will overpay.

by John Morgan on Apr 20, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions

How bout

they’ve heard Cleveland and Washington have had deeper discussions, than anyone else, about a trade, if Sanchez is still there, and in response of seeing Washington skeptical about whethr we’ll really take Sanchez, rather than trying to sell the tough-sell lie that the phone is ringing off the hook, he lays this case out: that we’re resigned to staying put. It presents a more potential threat to someone taking Sanchez before Cleveland is on the clock than anything else.

Not that it much matters whether it’s smoke or not. I don’t think we’re going anywhere.

Someone ought to fanpost Peter King’s MMQB today…he makes it sound like we’re narrowed down to Sanchez or Crabtree and no one else.

by jacobstevens on Apr 20, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Interesting point about drafting OLs

I never knew he was so against drafting OLs that early. Interesting information.

by Nick Andron on Apr 20, 2009 8:34 AM PDT reply actions

Taken from Mocking the draft

This article says that the tackle class is actually weaker than most…. Which makes me wonder how weak the rest of the class is then, if two tackles have an outside shot of going 1,2.

by LantermanC on Apr 20, 2009 8:43 AM PDT reply actions

I disagree with a lot of what MtD has to say.

If Oher and Smith didn’t have their stocks plummet, we could have had 4 top 10 worthy tackles.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Apr 20, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions

They will both probably be gone by pick 15, if not 10

I think.

by LantermanC on Apr 20, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the point of the article

was that if these players were coming out last year they’d go somewhere between Clady and Otah instead of in the top 5. Oher and Smith may have been able to fanagle their way into the top 10 of this draft but they wouldn’t have been able to last year.

But regardless of whether Monroe would have been top 5 last year or top 20, he’s a top 10 pick in the one that matters.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 20, 2009 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions