and because I don’t want to pay a LB that much money, and because I’m ok with Lewis and Herring. That being said, It would be hard to be overly upset at drafting this guy just because it seems like he’ll go to a few pro bowls in his career, won’t have any run ins with the law, etc. The LBs that get paid the big money are usually Merriman type blitzers or Ray Lewis do-everything LBs, neither of which fit Curry’s description, but I think Curry will be a valuable asset. I just would rather shore up another area of concern.

but I think Mora and Knapp will also be heavily involved in the decision. Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I just don’t see them picking a defensive player or a linebacker at #4.

Drafting Curry and trading Hill makes some sense, depending on what they get for Hill. And if Curry’s still there, which is no guarantee. And what would we gain really? Even if they get a mid 1st pick, they basically end up with a wash at linebacker (or would Curry cost more at #4 then hill?) and a lower valued offensive playmaker, vs Hill and perhaps the top offensive playmaker of the draft.

I still think we’re getting Sanchez, but this pick was as well thought out if not more than any other prognostication on 1.04 that I’ve come across. Better reasoning than I have for us taking Sanchez.

he’s operating at a deficit on the offensive side of the ball

And then …

First Round (4) – Aaron Curry, SLB, Wake Forest.

= profit???

and now have a higher chance of selecting Crabtree…

The big knock on Curry is his lack of sacks. But how many tackles in the backfield did he have?

I think Ruskell’s established that he doesn’t feel obliged to follow CW when it comes to player evaluation, which lends credence to John Morgan’s comment yesterday that the Seahawks might go ahead with Malcom Jenkins at #4. I’m starting to think that might be more likely than Curry, despite what most draft boards say about those players’ respective value, because I understand Ruskell’s comment that “we have needs (but not priorities)” as code for “we might draft for need.” If you can’t trade down, and no one’s “worth” the #4, and you “have needs,” it seems like you go for the player deemed most likely to improve the imperfect team you’ve got, right away.

I don’t buy the idea, though, that the team doesn’t have priorities. That’s ridiculous. I think at this point, you have to look at the secondary as the Seahawks’ achilles’ heel on the defensive side of the ball, so I think that makes Jenkins the most likely pick if they decide to draft for defense in the first round. It’s partly an Occam’s razor thing: why keep Hill if you don’t want to keep him, and why trade Peterson if you think you’re just going to have to replace him? I don’t think they’re too worried about LB. I can see Ruskell going with a “secondary by committee” approach that’s loaded up with lots of versatile athletes. Jenkins would be like having Super Babs (hopefully not another confused, out-of-position project as we had with Boulware). If Jennings comes on, or if Josh Wilson proves capable enough to take over as a starter, great: Jenkins takes over for Brian Russell, except maybe in games against teams with bigger receivers, in which case he slides over to CB. If CB remains a liability, then maybe Jenkins plays there more of the time. On the offensive side of the ball, I think they do recognize that we need more continuity on the line. Versatility is great, but constantly switching assignments is no recipe for good chemistry. I would like to see Monroe or Jason Smith come in and shore things up, but if we take Ruskell at his word that he thinks he can find suitable, high-quality proxies later on in the draft, then I think Michael Crabtree is the Seahawks’ most likely option if they prioritize offense. Last season, the liabilities on the offensive line were greatly increased by the lack of reliable targets for our QBs. An aerial arsenal that includes Crabtree in addition to Houshmandzadeh, Branch, and Carlson can probably do just as much as any single lineman could do to help our running game and (I hope) keep players’ mitts off Matt. (A superb pass-blocking FB becomes paramount in this scenario, though.) I leave Burleson off that list because, unlike the others, he hasn’t been a disciplined-enough route-runner to reliably help the QB get the ball out of his hands. (Incidentally, this fact should put the kebosh on any of the speculation that Maclin could be the guy.) The rest of our top WRs are very good at this, but their age/injury issues are scary. Crabtree runs great routes AND makes defenses think about his homerun potential. I think Crabtree is the most likely, therefore, to bring synergistic benefits to the offense as a whole.

So I think (barring a trade-down) the question at #4 will be between Jenkins and Crabtree. And given the much greater strength of the draft at WR versus S/CB (I’m skeptical about both Chung and Hamlin), I think the edge goes to Jenkins. If this winds up being the case, get ready for a mighty howl of incredulity from draft analysts and the Seahawks fandom at large.

It means we’d be paying $8.3 million or ~$10 million to a Will LB this year, and that’s not something sustainable so it almost certainly would mean Hill would be on his way out. Maybe Curry is better than Hill, but its practically a lateral move.

Further, Seattle’s defense cratered from lack of pass rush last year. The Seahawks aren’t a tackle-machine LB away from having an elite defense. If Curry was a blue chip pass rusher I’d feel completely different, but he’s more of a Lance Briggs/AJ Hawk type, and that is just not something we really need.

To contrast him with Sanchez or Crabtree, those guys have probably a 50/50 chance of being NFL busts, whereas Curry probably has 10% bust chance- but that lower bust chance kind of becomes meaningless when you can be of little to no value to the team even if you turn into a good player. WR and QB will be big needs in 2 years- if not sooner, and we’re holding a once in a decade type draft pick this weekend.

Even if Ruskell doesn’t like Crabtree or Sanchez, I’d be happier with super-reaches at #4 like Everette Brown or Malcolm Jenkins or Knowshon Moreno than I would be with the “value” pick of Aaron Curry. At least I can see those players having a significant impact without displacing a nearly equivalent player.

Sadly, Ruskell and I never see eye to eye on first round picks, and I have a feeling he blows it and picks Curry.