John's Mock -- And in the first round...
Dueling mock drafts? Oh heck yeah. Doug started the final big push to Saturday, and who am I to argue with genius?
Here's a Tim Ruskell habit we haven't covered: reach picks. Ruskell is regularly raked over the coals by post-draft analyst for reaching on too many players. And he does reach, too. I mean, BigRoxHoxBox has Sam Baker falling into the third. I mean, pre-draft rankings aren't a bogus echo chamber almost devoid of insight. I mean, every team does make their selections after consulting the NFL Draft Splog Ultra Mock Draft DataBase, right?
One of my regular outlets (and I would say ace in the hole) when the pre-draft hype reaches a fever pitch and I'm suffering the muscle cramps and fugue associated with the condition is 2009 mock drafts - from last year. It's a good place to wonder aloud what the heck happened to Cullen Harper and what rock was Aaron Curry under? It's also a great place to get grounding and a long-view on draft prospects. Ruskell likes his reach picks, and he likes picks that looked like value picks 12 months ago. Players like Leroy Hill, John Carlson, and Brandon Mebane whose down senior seasons hurt their stock. It translates to free agents too. Patrick Kerney, Julian Peterson, Julius Jones and TJ Duckett were all once-accomplished players Seattle signed after a disappointing season.
Let's add those two things to our Tim Ruskell Rube Goldberg. Now we have: high character + high production + major conference + great tape + team leader + great team performance + reach pick + potential value because recent decline. Malcolm Jenkins saved his swoon for the NFL Combine. But what a swoon. You couldn't find an English language mock draft from 2008 that predicted Jenkins outside the top ten. Now it seems fait-accompli that he falls to the first team that can hold its nose long enough to give Goodell the card, like a dirty dollar bill that even the bums pinch by thumb and forefinger, pinkies protectively out.
Jenkins is an eye-popping athlete, that's extremely skilled, played at a football factory and for a top ranked defense, that was extremely productive, is young for his level (not 22 until December 20) and plays the position the NFL franchise tag system deems the most valuable on defense - and plays a position Seattle is desperate to upgrade.
Ruskell has been aggressive about upgrading failed units. Part of Seattle's secondary failing was the pass rush, but in an unending chicken-and-egg argument, some of the pass rush's failing was the secondary. The secondary allowed third down completions. Lots of `em. It allowed long completions. Lots of `em. It dropped coverage on broken plays after the front seven penetrated and caused disruption. Every damn game. And if you were to take a microscope to the unit's media portrayal, one player was never lauded: Kelly Jennings. And only one player was benched: Kelly Jennings.
Jennings has two years left on his rookie contract. His current trade value is nil, but he also counts only a little over a million against the cap, so his cap impact is nil too. The team can't trade him, but doesn't need to. He's cheap and good depth at a position where depth is essential.
Gus Bradley wants to implement more Tampa 2 principles in the secondary. That means corners that can press. Marcus Trufant has a decent press, but Jennings is a non-starter, and for all his deceptive strength, so is Josh Wilson. Jenkins excels at it. He's scheme versatile. He won't be embarrassed by taller receivers. He improves multiple positions, is both a value pick and a need pick, and gives Seattle a legitimate post-Trufant #1 corner. Jenkins not only makes Tim Ruskell sense, I've almost convinced myself he makes actual, real-world sense, too.
0 recs |
39 comments
|
Comments
I maintain that any offensive unit asides from TE failed more than the secondary.
Your logic for reaching on Jenkins is sound, but you could make the same case for Crabtree, Oher, Moreno, or others.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 23, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The wide receiver unit failed, but mostly because of injury
and Ruskell has already aggressively targeted that unit by signing Houshmandzadeh to a huge contract.
by John Morgan on Apr 23, 2009 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And WR is still a unit with a bandaid
Burelson is coming off knee surgery, Branch has not played a full season in Seattle the practice squad guys proved they couldn’t fill in. That only leaves us with 1 healthy 32 year old Housz. Arizona thrived even without a running game attacking through the air with 2 Stud WR and a pretty good #3. That being said Crabtree is the guy to take…Anytime you can get a T.O. type WR you take him. It gives us a young playmaker to play alongside Housz, Branch, and Burelson (if healthy). That’s a very good set of WR and weapons for a healthy Hasslebeck. If Seattle drafts Crabtree 1st Rd and (Shown Green, Donald Brown) 2nd Rd, we now have the young playmakers to surround a QB we draft or trade for in the future if Hasslebeck fizzles out. I do agree with you John that Jenkins is a perfect Cover 2 guy but he’s a reach at 4.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 23, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree completely on Jenkins
From a draft-drama perspective, the Crabtree and now Sanchez hype seems manufactured by a herd of teams all echoing each other in the hopes some rube GM or owner will buy into the hype. Everyone else benefits.
by Groundhog on Apr 23, 2009 3:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Heh. The herd mentality seems familiar.
I can’t get that scene from “The Life of Brian” out of my head. You know, the one where the crowd keeps throwing out names for the Roman to lisp, just so they can laugh at him.
by Groundhog on Apr 23, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This highlights what I hate about draft hype
You have 32 teams with scouting departments working all year round, and the media acts like they only bother to start going to work in March. Jenkins was a consensus top-10 pick in every post-competitive game but pre-combine mock. 0.10 secs means he’s now often the no.2 corner, and almost always outside the top-10.
I wish there was an obvious all-pro DT / SS in this draft but there just isn’t. Jenkins makes all the sense in the world to Seattle. If we took Chung as well (I know, big leap…) our nickel-D looks scary good, and the point about Jenkins being no.1 post-Trufant is very well made.
I’d be happy with Jenkins, as I would with Stafford, Crabtree or J.Smith.
by JamesMurphy on Apr 23, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Something you forgot to mention
is the lack of depth for corners over 6 foot. That should help Jenkin’s stock too.
Not that what I think has anything to do with how Ruskell will draft but I’d be more interested in finding a premier pass rusher to help the secondary and then a 2nd to 4th round corner for some extra depth. Jenkins makes a lot of sense though.
by Nate Dogg on Apr 23, 2009 4:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Keenan Lewis...
…out of Oregon State should be around at the top of the third he’s just over 6’ and 208 with an eye for the ball.
by hawkfanjp on Apr 24, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It helps Lewis's stock too.
Meaning he might be reached on early.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 24, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
St. Louis...
takes him in a bunch of the mocks I’ve seen in the third which is just ahead of where I could see the Hawks taking him if they don’t get Jenkins in the first through some fifteen team trade sited somewhere I’m sure. Would really like to see him in the third though, but your right wouldn’t be a bit suprised to see him go earlier just like Sean Smith will probably go earlier than projected too.
by hawkfanjp on Apr 24, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, this makes me feel smart & stupid at the same time.
smart for being on the Jenkins bandwagon long ago, stupid for letting all the pundits & talking heads convince me to barrel roll off of it as it plunged off a cliff.
IMO, the pick makes a ton of sense. I don’t think the financial aspect can be overlooked, not just immediately, but how the roster is constructed 2-3 seasons down the road and who will be making the big bucks. If Jenkins develops, then contract he gets at #4 is in line with what good CBs make around the league. And I think he’s the sort of “decent ceiling, but very high floor” player that TR prefers.
Back when the Jenkins talk was really heavy, the NFL comparison that always stuck in my mind was Chris McAlister – good in all aspects, hurt by average 40 time. McAlister has gone on to have a very good career and had a brief window where he was considered one of the top 3-4 CBs in the game. Is that a ceiling worth the #4 pick? If we’re not landing the QB of the future then I definitely think it is.
by jteckmann on Apr 23, 2009 5:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
McCallister is a FA
He’s Free Agent why not draft Crabtree and then sign McCallister as a FA. He’s still serviceable along with Ken Lucas….anybody remember him.
by Mr. Blache III on Apr 23, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
McAlister is a huge medical red flag
It’s doubtful he could pass physicals at this point, much less play at a decent level. That’s the main reason Baltimore let him go.
I’m sure the team remembers Lucas. My guess is that they have his number on speed dial as a Plan B if they fail to get a a CB prospect they like out of this draft.
by jteckmann on Apr 23, 2009 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I HATED the idea of taking a corner on Day 1
But the idea has really grown on me.
by SPENCEMAN on Apr 23, 2009 5:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, seeing the last two Day 1 CB's rousing success really makes me excited to draft Jenkins.
Irrelevant but someone please make the Open Mock Draft and Open Fantasy GM Threads show up by the Fanposts again.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 23, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably the best argument that could be made for a non-Curry pick
But, I can’t see a Tim Ruskell board that has Jenkins rated above Curry. Both will very likely be available at #4, Jenkins definitely.
The only way I could see this happening is if…
1. Lions – Stafford
2. Rams – Tackle of choice, probably Monroe for them
3. KC – Curry because he’ll take less dough
AND…
Ruskell is will not take Sanchez at 4 under any circumstances
AND…
Ruskell cannot move the pick. Then I could see him saying, “Screw it. I’m going need all the way and rolling with a kid I know is going to be a player.”
Otherwise, there’s no reason to pay Jenkins #4 money when it’s a virtual guarantee that no one else would select him at that spot.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Apr 23, 2009 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why did we pick Kelly Jennings, again?
what, we thought he’d develop ball skills or….anything?
by Will Kier on Apr 23, 2009 5:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Immediate need + "close to NFL ready" player to fill it
has always been my best guess.
by jteckmann on Apr 23, 2009 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And... relatively cheap at the end of the first round.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Apr 23, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really don't like Malcolm Jenkins
Note* I hate OSU. Probably stemmed from losing to Florida, which is the college team I hate the absolute most.
But look back at what you said about James Laurinitis- They didn’t play against great offenses, did they? USC and Penn State were the best teams they played. And I know he plays on the right side, so he goes up against the ‘slower physical’ receivers, but how hard would it be for a coach to realize that ‘oh they have a slow corner, fast receiver you line up against him?’
I really wouldn’t like this pick.
by Trepidation on Apr 23, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
THAT....
….actually does make some sense when you stop and think about it.
If he thumbs his nose at the talking draftheads, and actually shows the ability to play corner, then you’ve just fixed the hole opposite Tru.
If, on the other hand, he turns out not to have the chops to be an NFL corner, he’s an instant upgrade over Russell, learning curve and all.
by KHF on Apr 23, 2009 6:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Good point; this is one of the built-in bonuses to picking a bigger CB
He has somewhere to go on the defensive spectrum, which is a concept that doesn’t typically apply to most positions in football.
If a tackle can’t play tackle, he can usually play guard. With good-sized corners, you also have an inherent — wait for it — safety net.
Other positions don’t usually have those fallback options, which lowers the prospect’s floor a little bit. Just something to consider in terms of mitigating risk, which I imagine Ruskell might be thinking about since pick #4 is going to be a big investment.
by busplunger on Apr 24, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
::Applauds::
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 24, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I took Jenkins in my mock at the SPI forums
And people were not impressed.
by djafrot on Apr 23, 2009 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Solid pick
But MAN, is this a boring pick.
by aerozeppelin on Apr 23, 2009 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
3 CB’s as the first pick 3 out of the past 4 years would be pretty sad.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Apr 23, 2009 8:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
or you could look at it as 3 picks total spent on CBs in the past 4 years
which isn’t bad at all.
I don’t see it as sad, I see it as rather commonplace. Teams go on runs drafting certain positions, and when the average contract length is 4-5 years, you expect some turnover. CB’s are premier positions, you need 2-3 quality ones, and the good ones get paid. If you aren’t drafting them, you’re spending FA $$ on them.
If the team’s sold on Jenkins, They shouldn’t let the fact that the Jennings pick 3 years ago wasn’t a home run stop them from pulling the trigger.
by jteckmann on Apr 23, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Perhaps we will find someone to play opposite Trufant this time.
I would prefer we give the offense something to build upon, and find a nickle/safety in the later rounds; like Carolina did last year.
It is what it is...
by kidder95 on Apr 24, 2009 5:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I blame Matt Millen
His idiocy was so powerful, it’s tainted the impressions of other NFL GMs. The Giants have drafted a DB in the 1st round 4 out of 7 years. The Eagles had one draft where their 1st 3 picks were all DBs. The Chargers have done basically the same thing – one draft where the first 3 picks were DBs, and they’ve spent 2 1st rounders and traded up to grab Weddle in the 2nd all in the past 3 years. People used to just shrug their shoulders or call it smart – thinking that teams were loading up to match-up well vs. their Divisions. But after Millen’s WR disasters, now there seems to be a lot more snickering when teams do the multiple pick thing.
I’m like you. 3 months ago, if you told me our first few picks were going to be spent on anything other than rebuilding the O, I would’ve thought Ruskell had lost it. But as we’ve approached the draft and the way the prospects have graded out – solid D picks just seem to make a lot more sense. Aside from Stafford, Smith & Crabtree (2 of whom likely won’t last til #4) I just don’t see an O guy worthy of the selection. And even though I started off locked onto Crabtree, he still worries me in so many different ways.
by jteckmann on Apr 24, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love this part of the analysis...
Los Seahawks siguen buscando una solución a largo plazo en la posición de guardia izquierdo, así que utilizarán esta selección en el proyecto número uno en esa posición.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 23, 2009 9:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Why so Spanish?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 23, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good question..... did you see the freaking picks they made?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 23, 2009 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the Jenkins pick infinitely more than the Curry pick
Jenkins would be an impact player and at the worst, could be a good safety. I’ve been back on the Jenkins bandwagon for some time, and if the Seahawks do trade down, I expect he’ll top their list of BPA.
That said, with Sanchez, Crabtree, and Curry all likely on the board at #4, Seattle has no excuse taking Jenkins without first trading down. They may not get value from the value chart, but its better than nothing. If they trade with the Redskins, I’d give Jenkins a 90% chance to last to #13.
by kearly on Apr 24, 2009 3:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
HAH.
Jenkins at 4? You must be joking. We would have to trade down for this to be a possibility. He just doesn’t have the talent to justify being picked 4th. Some mock drafts have him dropping into the teens and twenties. Absolutely, positively, NO WAY we take him at 4.
I think you just have been thinking about this draft too long and hard and you’ve overly focused on Ruskell logic. The Seahawks are not going to pass on a real talent in order to pick up Jenkins. He’s middling at best!
The Odenphant is true king of the jungle.
by maxmillian on Apr 24, 2009 5:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Didn't you read the part about Ruskell's tendency to aggressively reach for players?
I think John might have hit the nail right on the head there.
I think it’s wholly possible that Ruskell could have Jenkins on his board. Besides, would it really surprise you if Ruskell chose Jenkins?
BTW, in my opinion, Jenkins is a real talent.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 24, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think in reality JEnkins at #4 is a reach....
not in terms of talent, but in terms of value.
For example: we could give the farm away in terms of chart value (in order to go back to 8, 9 or 10) and still pretty much guarantee Jenkins (picking up an additional 4th or 5th rounder, and spending much less on Jenkins).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 24, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah.
And I would be disappointed if we drafted Jenkins but hey, we can’t miss the third time on a first day CB…right?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Apr 24, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But I also think that John’s assessment about Ruskell’s draft tendency is spot on.
Weez the juice!!
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 24, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
me too
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Apr 24, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















