Colin Cowherd gives Seahawks "A" in draft.

by 12thman on Apr 27, 2009 7:40 AM PDT

Morning all. Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio just opened his show talking up the Seahawks. He says it's hard to grade the draft on its own too early because you never know which late-rounders will make the final roster. Apparently the Texans have had the most draft picks from the last 2-3 years make the roster. No one ever gave them high draft grades though. Here's Cowherd's take. My comments in Italics

While the Seahawks' draft, especially Day 1, was great addressing in needs with the best available "safe" talent, Colin also factors in other offseason happenings.

He claims Housh is worth 16 game starts and 70 caught balls. Easily the best signing of the offseason for any team. Fits the system like a reborn Bobby Engram

Hasselbeck, worth 7 starts last year, easily doubles that number this year.

Curry is worth 16 starts. How many starts did we lose off the linebacking corps last year? A few from Tats?

Unger is worth 16 starts. This one might be a stretch, only happens if Spencer or one of the guards has regressed that much. One possible scenario, left to right- Walt, Unger, Spencer, Sims, Locklear. That leaves Willis, Wahle and Wrotto as primary backups. Thank you Lord. Anything to see Vallos not play another snap off the practice squad.

In Cowherd's mind, he sees at leat 50-57 starts we lost last year to injury being replaced. He gives 4 other teams "A's" based on offseason signings and draft picks. The Bears, Eagles, Browns, and Falcons. Good take in my opinion. The Eagles adding Peters, Hobbs, and two major rookie offensive weapons certainly grades high. No mention of our Denver 1st rounder next year.

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't know about anyone else

but listening to Colin Cowheard’s show on ESPN makes my ears bleed.

by BrianL on Apr 27, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions

Ha, I was just going to say something similar.

If you had said Maycock, Rob Rang, Doug Farrar or shoot even McShay or Kiper, I’d say ‘yes!’, but Cowheard is pretty low/non-existant on my list of sports personalities with opinions I respect.

by LantermanC on Apr 27, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions

He does make excellent analogies, which all usually involve a) strippers or b) prostitutes

"Why is it every time I need to get somewhere, we get waylaid by jackassery?" - Dr. Venture

by Eegah on Apr 27, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Agree

I’d almost say he qualifies as a doucher

by Nick Andron on Apr 27, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Jim Rome has that effect more than Colin.

by PascoJoe on Apr 27, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions

I cannot stand Jim Rome

by Built2Spill on Apr 27, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions

This thread is making me realize how much I despise ESPN.

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

by Fearless Frog on Apr 27, 2009 5:09 PM PDT up reply actions

There's still a lot of people I like on ESPN.

Especially Trey Wingo, he’s the best of his kind as far as sports go. And I still enjoy PTI and Around the Horn, though I think Tony Reali is a downgrade from Max Kellerman.

by SeaTownBlueDevil on Apr 28, 2009 8:38 AM PDT up reply actions

So where does he get this opinion?

Hasselbeck, worth 7 starts last year, easily doubles that number this year.

It’s easy to say, not so easy to have anything substantial to back it up. In fact it’s impossible to back it up. Look at Brady last year, or Palmer. Those were freak accidents, Hasselbeck has a history of being injury prone. I don’t know there’s anything ‘easy’ about him playing 14 games.

by LantermanC on Apr 27, 2009 9:34 AM PDT reply actions

Colin Cowherd (check the spelling) earns a living by boldy asserting whatever crops up in his head.

While he can be entertaining on certain matters, he makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims based on his gut instinct*. He is in no way an authority on these sort of topics, and I’d be careful about giving him too much credence.

*He actually makes a point of emphasizing that this is the case.

by abender20 on Apr 27, 2009 9:59 AM PDT reply actions

Gut instincts trump stats or really any kind of actual analysis

Guts are for cool people, everything else is for nerds who rule their Dungeons & Dragons group. I swear, the man brings up nerds constantly and so disparagingly he has got to be one, secretly. And is embarrassed by it.

by Gihyou on Apr 28, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions

umm...

… he does talk about strippers and prostitutes alot as was mentioned before? ehh never mind.

by hawkfanjp on Apr 28, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks for the spellcheck

All good points. I usually hate Cowherd’s voice as well and just randomly put him on this morning when I got into the office. What I like is that he’s illustrating the foolishness of the “draft grades” that spew forth from the likes of Yahoo! Sports, SI, etc without taking into consideration the entire offseason to this point in time. It was also kind of cool to turn on the radio at 7 this morning and hear Seahawks within 5 minutes, if for nothing more than entertainment.

by 12thman on Apr 27, 2009 10:21 AM PDT reply actions

I disagree.

The offseason moves before the draft should not influence a draft grade. Lets assume that a team made boneheaded moves before the draft, but then made great picks in the draft that were amazing values that also met team needs..

Obviously building a contender requires smart moves in FA and the draft, but I do not think that a grade has to encompass both. Since the FA signing period is over, it is very easy to consider the draft with each team drafting to supplement their rosters as of the beginning of the draft, not free agency.

The opposite argument makes some sense, that is, a teams FA period may be much better judged after the draft because a move may or may not make sense depending on who is available when the team drafts and whether they foresaw it.

I also think it is stupid to postpone a grade until after seeing what late round and UDFA’s actually make the roster. The crappier the team the more of those guys should make the roster, so such a methodology penalizes good teams. A good team may have made better choices in late rounds but the talent already on the roster was just too good. This leads me to long-standing pet peeve: Historians in hindsight. It is unfair to grade based on information (how a guy did in camp) not available at the time of the draft. Similar case in point: all the people who mouth off about the Deion Branch deal over and over.

by michaelfox99 on Apr 27, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions

Grading drafts...

Five seconds after it’s over is generally retarded unless you are simply grading the theory. As has been pointed out before, there is a right way and wrong way to go about drafting, see the Raiders for how to do it wrong, the Patriots to see how it is done right; as far as this is concerned, the results are coincidental.

However, I think one should consider other offseason moves, at times, when evaluating the draft, but I also think that the offseason isn’t yet over, so it’s hard to bag on a team that still may address certain concerns. That being said, I think the Broncos draft was thoroughly underwhelming to the point of being a royal phuck-up precisely because of their other offseason issues; in other circumstances it wouldn’t necessarily have been a bad draft.

As an aside, I think the Bears had a better draft than the Broncos possibly without Cutler, and I think our trade for Denver’s 2010 1st-round pick was the steal of the draft.

by Azimeir on Apr 28, 2009 5:21 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed, the Bears draft was AWESOME!

How did ESPN give it only a C+?

Gilbert, projected mid 2nd in the 3rd.
Iglesias projected mid 2nd in the 3rd.
DJ Moore, projected late 1st mid 2nd in the 4th!
Johnny Knox apparently ran a 4.27 or something in the 5th!
Marcus Freeman, a LB who had more tackles than Laurinaitis and was projected in the 3rd in the 5th!

I mean c’mon, even if you weren’t high on these guys, it seems like a smashing success to me, especially if you include Cutler.

McCoy McCoy 2010

by LantermanC on Apr 28, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm no Bears fan

but that logic is tough to argue against well stated.

by hawkfanjp on Apr 28, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions

I'll give him points for...

a model of evaluating the draft that is interesting to say the least. But if you are going to examine personnel this way, don’t you have to factor in talent lost, too? How do we net 16 starts with Curry if Peterson is lost?

by SpokaneSHAWK on Apr 27, 2009 11:11 AM PDT reply actions

Don't you always get 16*22 starts?

by michaelfox99 on Apr 27, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Not an A

I am a Seahawk fan and I do believe that the picks we got are good. But I wouldn’t say our draft was an A. I think we gave up too much to get Deon Butler. Getting a #1 pick next year was a good move. Max Unger could be a good move also, but once again maybe we gave up too much for him also. Who knows. Maybe I’m wrong but giving up most of your picks so you can move up isn’t always the best approach.

by Dickedoo on Apr 28, 2009 12:18 PM PDT reply actions

In the end...

they really only gave up a 3,4,5,7. Now when I right it out like that it sounds like alot but who in their right mind wouldn’t give that for a top 12 pick? Which is what they will have next year I assume and if Hill leaves they’ll have a 3 comp. too.

by hawkfanjp on Apr 28, 2009 10:07 PM PDT up reply actions