Putting Together the Next Seahawks Contender: Coordinating Ages
by John Morgan on Feb 15, 2010 8:57 AM PST
85 comments
We don't know much about how to objectively evaluate football talent, but we do know that throughout sports, most players reach an athletic peak in their twenties, and players seem to hit a sweet spot between ability and athleticism sometime in their mid- to late-twenties. If you look at the Saints, for instance, you'll see most of their players fit within this theoretical prime: Drew Brees, 30, Jeremy Shockey, 29, Will Smith, 28, Jonathan Vilma, 27, Jabari Greer, 27, Roman Harper, 27, Devery Henderson 27, Marques Colston 26, Mike Bell, 26, Anthony Hargrove, 26, Pierre Thomas, 25, Robert Meachem, 25, and Reggie Bush, 24.
Seattle's youth lies in its defense, though it has some youth and talent in its offensive line and in the skill positions. Namely, Justin Forsett and John Carlson. To capture the primes of Darryl Tapp, Brandon Mebane, Josh Wilson, Leroy Hill, Lofa Tatupu, Aaron Curry, Lawrence Jackson, David Hawthorne, Rob Sims, Chris Spencer, Max Unger, Carlson and Forsett, it needs to take major strides on offense and soon.
I know this is going to blow some people's minds, but the offense is a quarterback, left tackle, complementary running back and wide receiver away from being good -- potentially very good. The quarterback will almost certainly require an early first round pick, unless a spare Kurt Warner is lying around, and so will the wide receiver, unless Herr McDaniels is committed to remaking the Broncos is his own ghastly image and willing to trade Brandon Marshall for spare parts and draft picks. The left tackle will need to go somewhat early, likely the latter half of the first round or early in the second, unless Alex Gibbs works his magic, and, well, Alex Gibbs has been known to work his magic. The complementary running back should be easy to find. Perhaps Pete Carroll could phone up Chauncey Washington or wager a late round pick on Stafon Johnson. Or both.
Seattle needs some other stuff too, bits and piece and completing players on defense, and even if this plan was followed and executed to a "T", it wouldn't ensure success, but the future doesn't have to be spent on that awful thing, that self defeat we euphemize as rebuilding. Pity the fan that buys that crock of shit. The future can be spent on winning and taking our shot at glory, but it requires Carroll and company to trust in the team's youth and draft somewhat for need, and not follow the suddenly vogue strategy of drafting "best available talent", as if that's even knowable.
The other option is that Seattle could forfeit contending anytime in the near future and just add talent where it can. That's sort of the rebuilding strategy, and it comes with the caveat that a team that attempts to rebuild often does nothing of the such. It loses established players with a future in an attempt to remake a roster. It's a word the vision-less use for not having a plan. But that requires believing that the young talent Seattle has is capable of being great. And that's a much more controversial assertion.
So I open it up to you, the Field Gulls readership. What should be Seattle's short term plans?
0 recs |
85 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
We already have a core
it just doesn’t feature a quarterback (no small problem is this).
The key word you use is vision. People talk (erroneously) about rebuilding the way they talk (erroneously) about efficiency—completely de-coupled from specific objectives.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Completing my thought: the NFL still rewards vision
You can still find good players who can contribute if you know what to look for. Our biggest issue is that we HAVE to get a QB that can come in and play. Even if you believe in Hass, the likelihood of him a) staying upright, and b) performing above “replacement level player” is low enough that you’d be stupid not to hedge that bet.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Offense offense offense offense offense offense offense
and by offense I mean quarterback quarterback quarterback quarterback quarterback left tackle quarterback.
The sooner the better. That way the QB will get some experience and be ready while the D is ready. Just seems so illogical to count on Matt to be healthy or good for an entire season. Love the guy, but stagnating with him will cripple the team the longer they go down that route. Who knows, maybe Bates can work magic and make a Cutler out of him. Yeah right.
Thus far our 4-3 defense has been incapable of taking over a game without help from the offense. It’s possible a Gibbs run game can pick up the slack no matter what we do at QB, so there’s always that glimmer of hope, but it seems like a long shot to me. Need a QB and in the next few years or it’s re-rebuilding time.
by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 15, 2010 9:30 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Fantastic writeup.
I would even take it a step further and say the entire team is a QB, LT, RB & WR away from being good, potentially very good. Not without holes, but potentially very good.
Am I crazy?
“the suddenly vogue strategy of drafting “best available talent”, as if that’s even knowable."
JM, I love it when you call it like you see it. Especially when that’s how I see it too.
Am I crazy for thinking that between free agency and three picks in the top 40 we should have a good shot at filling all of those offensive needs this year? QB and LT will almost certainly need to be picks 6 and 14, but between 40, free agency and late round flyers the team should be able to find a complementary running back and WR2 to play opposite Housh.
Without mortgaging our future Redskins style, I hate the idea of rebuilding. Fill the holes with good players. Don’t rebuild, RELOAD.
Free Agency? WHAT FREE AGENCY?
With an uncapped year next season and most free agents being Restricted and teams getting 3 Franchise tags, would that not make any UFAs that are worth a damn a lot more expensive? If I’m Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder, would there be ANY scenario where they’d let a good player go in this environment?
Also, is Nate Burleson a UFA or RFA, or still under contract? How much money would we actually save by cutting Deion Branch or Patrick Kerney or (to the horror of many ) Matt Hasselbeck? If Burleson does walk should we keep Branch anyway, because no matter what we need SOMEBODY to catch passes, other that T.J. Butler and Obumanu? If the free agent market is bone dry, will trading become more popular? Do guys like Trufant or Hill or Locklear have any trade value? If other teams aren’t going to offer Tapp and Spencer monster contracts, could we trade them for something because we could match any reasonable offer? (You know, because it’s an uncapped year and Paul Allen is super rich, and all.)
Ugh, this more than I wanted to say, but this is stuff I want to know more about before free agency is even a consideration. As the offseason continues I’m sure good information will become available, but I think these questions are important, no matter if we tank or play for next season. I just can’t fathom the idea of “We don’t need to draft a cornerbck, because we could always sign one in free agency.” Or something like that. Right now that’s a dangerous assumption to make.
Still only one Franchise Tag.
Teams will have two Transition Tags, but we all know how useful those are (insert obligatory Hutchinson comment here). There’s a good write-up touching on a few of your other points here.
No cap means no cap penalties
It’s all a mess, but I could see a ton of good but overpaid players getting dumped by teams looking to save some money. Probably not a good idea to count on a great FA group this year, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
(without getting too far into rosterbation)
I’m looking to add four offensive players: Franchise QB, Left Tackle, WR2 and a complementary running back. The QB and LT would almost need to be first rouind picks, so my plan would be to use our second round draft pick, our late draft picks, trades, and free agency to come up with a WR2 and RB2.
I agree on prioritizing offense
But I could understand if one of the first 3 picks goes defense, especially if someone just drops to us that is an extraordinary talent. Sure, our D has less needs than our O, but our D isn’t a powerhouse just waiting for the O to become competent before they’re suddenly the Superbowl Bucs, it has holes too. Big ones.
So LT, QB and DT/secondary help would be my call for the first 3, in any order.
I agree very strongly that RB is not the highest or even close to the highest of our offensive needs, probably ranking below WR even though we have plenty of pass-catching ability spread out (somewhat thinly). And I honestly don’t get the popularity of Spiller to the Hawks at 14, both from mock drafts and fans. I just don’t get it. Supplementary back/special teams standout can be electrifying, but it’s not a high-need pick. How could it be?
offense!
(Jumps shark)
O!
-KUNG!
Then in a perfect scenario, Claussen second pick, then best WR available, then I pass out in reverie of dreams and alaskan ale.
I like Drop Top better. Is that blasphemy?
6/14/40. Sweet.
by Nick Andron on Feb 15, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
I'm one of the guys who's loving this whole Belgian Witbier trend
Ever since Hoegaarden overtook Guiness for my alltime favorite beer, it was lamentable that atrocious Blue Moon was the only alternative so often.
Lots of them are still in the Blue Moon vein. But New Belgium’s Mothership Wit is pretty damn good, I have to say.
Drop Top always sounded a lot better than it tasted. It’s not bad, I like it, but it sounded so much better.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2010 10:42 AM PST up reply actions
I wonder if there is any quantitative way to compare where the Hawks
are now talent wise (offensively speaking) with Carroll vs where they were talent wise when Holmgren came on board. Off the top of my head the 1999 team was heads and shoulders better at RB with Watters, but Hass vs Kitna is close and Carlson and our current WRs are better than the 1999 team. Chris Gray and Walt were on the line with Glover and Habib and Todd Weiner which gives the ’99 team an advantage (I would think Jones alone at that age would be an advanatge).
That's a nice idea.
Ultimately inconsequential, but an interesting study. I’d like to see someone take it more to task.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
What about Lendale White? isnt he a free agent this year?
He could fill the need for a running back.. or is he not as good as i think he is and just benefited from the Titans Line?
I never saw much from Lendale, he will be expensive and not the kind of free agent I would invest in.
by John Morgan on Feb 15, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Chauncey Washington always seemed like the same guy as LenDale
to me anyhow.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
He's a fatter, slightly more effective version of Duckett.
Pass.
The Seattle Times linked to my website in June 2009. I wasn't aware of this until January 2010.
by SSreporters on Feb 15, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
He actually came into camp last year in far and away the best shape of his pro career.
Unfortunately he was vying for time with greased lightning and didn’t stand a chance. If he continues to work hard and cut tequila in the offseason (seriously, that’s what he claimed was his secret) then he might be worth a flier.
But yeah, I don’t see overpaying for him either when there are cheaper potentially similar options out there.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 15, 2010 2:36 PM PST up reply actions
I still stand by my belief
You take talent where you can get it, regardless of position.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
So what does that look like, exactly?
Taking a Center at 14, if he’s the best center prospect in 4 years? Punter in the 2nd?
I think impact of position should matter. How other teams value players, and whereabouts they would take them, should matter — it always feels like a big risk and a gamble, but ultimately letting the market set the price is a good mitigating force.
by jacobstevens on Feb 15, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
So San Diego should draft a quarterback?
St. Louis should select a running back with its first few picks? Seattle should select a linebacker?
No team drafts the way your describe. Every team drafts for need. They key is not letting need dictate who you draft, only influence the decision.
by John Morgan on Feb 15, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
That's taking my comment a little out of context.
I’d have expected some common sense to prevail instead of taking it so completely literally.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Feb 16, 2010 7:41 AM PST up reply actions
It's not really out of context. You said "You take talent where you can get it, regardless of position."
And I pointed out that “regardless of position” is impossible. All teams must at least consider need.
This works in baseball where a player is typically 2-3 years out from taking even a single AB or throwing a pitch at the ML level.
Doesn’t work so well in football where a player is immediately placed onto the 53-man roster and expected to produce.
I think John makes a strong case.
But I just can’t help myself, I love defense. If a stud DT or DE falls to us at #6 or #14 that has no business still being available, I think you still draft him (I’m thinking along the lines of Crabtree’s fall last year). I’m still not sold yet on either of the top 2 QBs yet though, so I guess my opinion could still change if I fall in love with one of them.
So I put my answer as “best player available”, but that’s only if it’s a DE or DT that really stands out. If somehow this happend twice and we ended up with both a DT AND a DE with our first two picks, I would understand people being pissed off, but I don’t think I’d be able to stop smiling on draft night.
by Mind of no mind on Feb 15, 2010 12:32 PM PST reply actions
I think that joy might end quickly when the season starts
better defenses than Seattle is likely to create have suffered through many a 7-9 to 9-7 season. A monomaniacal focus on defense is what gets most defensive minded coaches fired. It’s amazing how much easier it is to strap a good enough defense on a great offense, like the 2005 Seahawks, than it is the other way around. Defensive performance is much more variable year to year.
by John Morgan on Feb 15, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Thats how the Bears have always functioned
and it took them an incredible run of magical turnovers and Devin Hester to get to a Superbowl. Where they were summarily housed by a team with a great offense and a functional defense.
Agreed, and well put.
Both John and abender.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 15, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
I totally understand your point.
And realistically there is no DE prospect that would fit the bill for what I’m thinking about at #6. So for my little fantasy to play out, it would have to be DT at #6 and DE at #14. This far out from the draft, I still have not completely ruled out any players falling to us. Would you be totally against drafting a DT if Suh or McCoy somehow fell to #6? I know it’s a total longshot, but who thought Crabtree would drop to #10 this time last year? It would probably take something bad to make them drop, like an unreported injury, being caught with marijuana, or being accused of beating up a girlfriend (not that I wish for those things, but just allow for the possibility of something unexpected).
So if it worked out that we ended up with Suh or McCoy at #6 (even with the baggage required to knock them down a few picks) and someone like Derrick Morgan at #14, would that really be a bad start to a draft? I agree that you can’t ignore offense, and at some point you need elite offensive talent. And I guess if you’re lucky enough to grab a DT at #6, maybe you no longer need the DE as much and then could go after the best QB, LT, WR, RB available at #14.
So you’re right, as I wrote this out and thought it through more, I think my opinion changed to go offense, unless Suh or McCoy drop (assuming I don’t fall for Clausen later). I really like Morgan, but not anymore than someone like Spiller who would fill a need.
by Mind of no mind on Feb 15, 2010 8:06 PM PST up reply actions
If we ended up with Suh or McCoy, there'd be absolutely NO need for a DE.
Our current DE’s seem to be mediocre to promising, and the addition of a dominant player at DT beside Mebane would make them a hell of a lot better. Considering our needs on offense, spending a #14 on a DE would be migrane-inducing.
Even if we picked up a DT in the 2nd or 4th I think it would help our DL enough. I’m much more worried about our long-term status on offense.
I totally disagree with BPA not being the correct route....
Teams like the Patriots, Chargers and Steelers have all built consitent, contending squads based on drafting talent regardless of position. Who cares where the needs are? This team isn’t contending next year anyhow. If you think they will, you don’t have any idea what is going on. This is a minor restoration project. It’s not a total dire situation because the roster does contain talent. However, the new staff has no idea how the current guys on the roster are going to perform or if they will even buy into the program. That is why you head into this draft with a completely open mind and willing to take the best player when you choose.
Would it be a total disaster if they draft Berry and Mays in the first round? I’d take that duo. Our safeties aren’t intimidating and have average cover skills. Would it be absolutely horrible if they draft OT Davis and OG Iupati and form the next Hutch and Walt duo? What about McCoy and Dunlap on the defensive line? Or, how about Dez Bryant and Jermaine Gresham?
My point is you can’t rule out anything happening in this draft with the Seahawks. This team needs playmakers and talent. I don’t care who they draft in the first round as long as it isn’t QB, RB or LB. There is plenty of talent at QB and RB later and LB is hardly a pressing need. I’d personally like to see them take a shot at RB Gerhart in the second. He just brings a certain want to win when he plays. That’s the kind of guy I would want playing for me.
A "want to win", huh?
Can’t argue with that. But is he a gamer? I’m inclined to draft gamers with grit. Dirtbags.
Drafting Berry and Mays would be a total disaster
Drafting Clausen and Bradford, now that would be a win win. You can always trade a potentially good quarterback, but I don’t see you getting much for a potentially good safety. Plus the cost of two top 1st round safeties? Why would you do that to your team? And I don’t see much for talent at QB in the later rounds. Maybe running back that fits a zone blocking scheme, but quarterback is absolutely not a position you skimp on. You’re not just looking for A quarterback, you’re looking for THE quarterback. You don’t want serviceable, you want elite, and if you want to win a Super Bowl you almost always NEED elite. The odds of getting even a servicable QB in the later rounds is very rare. Any other position you can get by with serviceable, but not QB, and when QB is a position of need you have to go after it.
by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 15, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions
But you're forgetting one thing:
Both of those teams have a franchise QB. Ours just expired. The importance of a franchise QB to a team cannot be stressed enough.
by Cannonater on Feb 15, 2010 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No quick fix
There is no quick fix to making this team back into a contender. Everyone is deluded if they believe the Seahawks are contenders next year. They will be going through their third offensive coordinator in 2 years. Knapp was a WCO guy, but had different concepts than the ones Holmgren instituted. Another new o-line coach and another head coach. No one even knows how Carroll and company view how these guys fit into their scheme. That’s why I believe this draft is wide open for them.
I’m not suggesting they’ll take Mays and Berry. Simply a hypothetical statement. My point is that if everyone is thinking QB and O-line or RB with those two first picks, I think you’re wrong. Everyone keeps harping on this QB thing and I don’t see a clear cut guy I’d want to use a #1 pick on. Certainly not Claussen. There are good underrated QB’s in this class outside of the Claussen, McCoy and Bradford’s. Tony Pike, Dan LeFevour and Riley Skinner to name but a few. I know, everyone wants the super productive, huge number posting stud QB, but who is that in this draft. McCoy and Bradford are damaged goods and who knows what Claussen might be, but he never lived up to the hype coming out of high school. I’m not spending a #1 on one of those guys and neither will the Seahawks.
O-line, D-line and secondary are the most likely positions to get drafted with those picks. They brought Gibbs in to fix the O-line and he will. It’s the staff’s evaluation of the guys we already have that will determine what we do with those picks. Free agency might not offer much help, but maybe we’ll get lucky.
I just want some hungry players who are proud to represent this franchise. We need some cornerstone players who bleed Seahawk blue. But we also need talented players who can be game-changers. That’s why a guy like Berry or Dez Bryant make sense to me. I don’t care who we already have and how much of what position. Those guys aren’t Carroll/Scheider guys and have to buy-in. TJ showed me nothing but that he can run his mouth. Butler made a few nice plays. Branch showed up for what, 1 game. Burleson was our best receiver and even he is a little above average. As for safety, do Grant and Babineaux strike fear in your heart? They shouldn’t. Berry would be a significant upgrade to either. Anyone not know what elite safeties like Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu or the deceased Sean Taylor can bring to a game? Any position is open to be drafted and I say go for broke!
What don't you like about Clausen?
I’m just interested because so many people say that they “don’t like him,” and never back it up with any facts. So what exactly do you not like about him? I know that one should always be wary of individual stats, but check out Clausen’s statline:
Completion Percentage: 68.0 Yards: 3722 YPA: 8.8 TDs: 28 INTs: 4.
Eight of the teams he played were bowl teams, so the competition wasn’t atrocious. He was playing behind a mediocre (at best) offensive line in a pro-style system, his #1 receiver was down for half the season and to top it all off, he had turf toe the entire time.
So maybe there’s something I’m missing, but I cannot find anything about him that I don’t like.
A bit hasty....
but I should’ve stated with our first pick. It’s not that I don’t like Claussen, but I just don’t believe any quarterback this year is worth that first pick. If he falls to them, with the second one then go for it. That player being chosen #6 is going to be a difference-maker. Someone like Dez Bryant or Eric Berry. I would be okay with Claussen at their pick, but I just think they can do much better.
So...
you just don’t like him, and you don’t have any reasons? Because I am totally okay with that. I hate Brian Westbrook. Can’t stand him, and I have no reasons to back it up. I was just wondering if maybe there was somehing specific you didn’t like about Jimmy Clausen.
I half agree with you though. After Bradford and Clausen, I don’t think that there are even any starters in this year’s draft.
I think
You need to draft offense, Matt is on his way out and a quarterback is in my opinion a necessity. Then you get a good young versatile running back (out of Clemson perhaps!) and you’ve got a good, young, offensive core to build around and win some games.
This non sports forum I post on told me I was nuts for suggesting this idea. They told me we need to draft an LT and Spiller in the 1st, and then TANK the oncoming season so we can draft Locker.
Anyone that suggests a professional sports team should tank a season should be stabbed in the eye with a pair of needle nose pliers.
by John Morgan on Feb 15, 2010 6:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Regrettably
That option was not available to me. I was also informed that I had not been watching the same o-line, and that Matt has two good years left in the tank, at least.
I was also told Clausen was the worst QB entering the draft ever. I don’t know why I continue to discuss sports with that lot.
by ungoreatstefan on Feb 15, 2010 6:24 PM PST up reply actions
First Post...be gentle
I think you have to take best talent available. Drafting for need rather than talent leads to taking less talented players and less talented teams will usually lose more. Ideally you draft for both.
I think you adjust the talent evaluation to the position in question. Like building a hockey team from the back end out, I think you build a football team from the line out. My primary evidence is the Giants beating the Patriots in the SB despite being outmanned in every position except DL. So a draft of McCoy or Price and Okung (or the OT du jour) in the first round would make me quite happy.
I don't know about your analogy.
The Giants WR’s were absolutely stupendous in that game. A big guy like Plax, when he’s on, is almost undefendable.
Don't worry. We don't jump on people unless they ask for it.
Let me clarify. If there’s a clear difference in talent, say a Gerald McCoy compared to a, I don’t know, Colt McCoy, let’s say Bradford and Clausen are snatched up and Berry, Morgan and Suh fill out the other three picks, I certainly wouldn’t say Seattle should take need over talent. The truth is, there really isn’t a “best available talent” in most cases.
The draft is full of educated guesses and tiers of talent, and if a guy like Clausen or Bradford is not an ideal talent, if they are in the same tier as some other players, I think Seattle has to take one of them. Not only because they desperately need a young quarterback but because quarterback is so much more valuable than defensive end.
Another point, and I made this point with Malcolm Jenkins last year. If you select a position you don’t need, you end up stacking talent. So the actual value of someone like Morgan is Derrick Morgan – Darryl Tapp. The value of Russell Okung is Russell Okung – Sean Locklear. Okung doesn’t have to be as good as Morgan to be more valuable to the Seahawks.
This discussion begs for 'excluded middle' arguments
I really think virtually everyone is of the same mindset, they just have different frames of reference.
No one would be against taking Suh or G. McCoy at 6 if they were available since they would be steals. On the other end, if a LB was slightly more talented than a QB but on the same tier, no one would argue for the LB since QB is (much) more of a need.
Also, regarding the Giants - Patriots
It’s not wise to take isolated incidents and make rules based on them. The Patriots were a much better team than the Giants. That was proven over 18/19 games. One game can go either way, and the Giants were the better team that day, but we shouldn’t make any general rules from that. Play that game again and it’s very likely the Patriots win.
Agree with "Any Given Sunday" cliche
I agree but was using that as an illustrative example, not as the basis of my belief. Most (all?) of the consistently elite teams (IND, BAL, PHI, NE, SD) have very good lines and regularly spend high draft picks maintaining the quality of their lines. I may do some research and verify this rather than spout anecdotes to support my claim.
Sometimes I think, "going BPA wouldn't be so bad"
Then I look at the Lions, or the Niners, or any number of other consistently shitty team. They have so much talent, and so many high first rounders who were great talents.
Does any team ever really take best player available?
It’s always best player available, according to their needs. It’s never one or the other. Most teams with the top picks have so many needs, they balance BPA with their need. Why would the Colts or Patriots (or any team with a star QB) ever select a QB in the first round? Most teams will have a set area of needs and will draft the BPA for one of those needs. We oversimplify too much by saying it’s strictly one or the other. Teams draft for both, simultaneously, but I think rarely one or the other.
WR?
Really? I actually thought that we could still have an elite offense by only adding a QB, LT, and secondary RB option. I think we can work with Nate Burleson being the unreliable, huge risk/reward player he is, with TJ being a reliable “hands” reciever, and Deon Butler emerging as a mix of both. Last year he was slightly used, but I thought he showed that he could be almost as reliable as Engram as he has good hands, and runs good routes, but he also showed some big play ability every now and then. Obumanu slotting in there every now and then too. On top of our WR’s John Carlson should become the elite TE he should be. Great hands, and the ability to get open downfield.
Add Okung (Charles Brown), and Spiller or Gerhart, which means that the running game now has a traditional RB threat to go with the screen-play-dominator, and insanely quick Force we already have.
Then a QB in the first to start right away if we take Spiller, or a QB to sit behind Matt for a year (or half a year when Matt gets injured) if we attempt to take Gerhard in the second round.
That was a long post, but does anybody agree, or disagree?
I personally think you are on the right track...
because you are talking all offense.
However I also fully acknowledge we could use a true “Number 1” receiver, even if it stunts Deon Butler’s growth. Unfortunately, I just see a lot of need positions. LT, perhaps RT, QB, WR1, and an upper tier quality RB2 or great RB1 to push Force into a RB2 position.
Sigh. That’s a lot of need on offense. :(
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Feb 15, 2010 10:42 PM PST up reply actions
You're right...
It’s a lot of needs, and we can’t get them all at once in the draft. Unless we hit the 7th round lottery with a Marques Colston, Tom Brady combo to go with our LT-RB picks in the first round, that is!
Although I'd like to add
That I’m not 100% sold on #1 WR’s being a clear-cut position. #1 QB, for sure, #1 RB, totally, #1 TE, completely, but because there seems to be so many WR’s with decent speed, and hands and could potentially become a #1 WR, that it’s more of a “right place right time” kind of thing. Maybe i’m wrong, but I get the impression that a #1 WR has more to do with the QB than the WR. So I think the idea is that if we get a good QB then a #1 WR will emerge. I’d say it would be Butler, but it could be Burleson (good chemistry = good hands?) or it could even be Obumanu (but I highly doubt it!).
It might have been Hackett had we kept him.
So, like I've been saying
since the end of the “Jim Mora Error” we need a QB with the first pick, I’m happy with McCoy, Bradford or Claussen(in that order) and a LT with the second pick. Trade Branch, Obamanu, J. Jones and Seneca plus a second round pick for Brandon Marshall.
Now you have an offense. You start Force, spell him with Rankin. You probably contend for the division title next year and the conference title the following year after our QB has had a year to understudy Hasslebroken.
What? No SOUL?
A few issues here, but let's start with the trade proposal.
Why do the Broncos want a bad quarterback, an aging back (they just took Moreno), a special teams WR, and Branch (I could see a case for Branch) and a second when they could ask for a first for Marshall?
How about Branch and a 40oz
In a nice paper bag of course.
by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 16, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Although, to be fair:
At #40 we could have a chance at drafting a player like Demaryius Thomas – very much a (unproven) Marshall-like player. Perhaps A.Benn or another top WR. Marshall will be a lot more expensive than the #40 and w/out the cap we could trade or cut Branch w/ no cap penalty.
Yeah, it's iffy, to me.
I probably wouldn’t. Tempting. A late 2nd rounder, if we had it, I’d feel better about. I’m not saying Marshall isn’t worth it, I just probably wouldn’t.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2010 11:55 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Five unanswered preseason questions
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
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.
