Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: 2011 In Extreme Home Runs

Seahawks Mock Draft, Pt. 1

I've had my breather. Now onto the sprint to and through the draft.

Tim Ruskell had an unmistakable blueprint for drafting. He was easy. He probably wasn't so easy in 2005. Every brain trust has its beliefs, habits and hangups. They are laid bare after a draft, but can be quite opaque beforehand. This is my current best guess for Pete Carroll and John Schneider. I will explain my thinking as I go. That process made this long and long winded, so I split it into two parts. The first two picks are familiar, but with a twist.

The goals I think Seattle wishes to accomplish during the 2010 NFL draft are:

1. Trade for Brandon Marshall.

2. Draft a starter-capable safety to replace Deon Grant.

3. Remake the offensive line.

4. Fill out positions of need: Defensive line, linebacker, corner, wide receiver, running back, quarterback, etc.

I will attempt to explain everything else as I go.

Star-divide

Seattle wants Brandon Marshall. I can not see them leaving the draft without Marshall. The question is: Who will win this standoff? It's hard to bet against Seattle. Giving Schneider the minimum benefit of the doubt, he has leverage and resources, and no other team, at least publically, is courting Marshall. At the same time, the Broncos should expect a decent return. Everyone will want to get this trade done, and I think we finally see what the terms are on draft day.

This seems sensible to me: Seattle trades its sixth overall pick, sixtieth pick in the second round and Deion Branch for Marshall and Denver's 11th overall pick. The Broncos move into the top ten, where a potentially elite talent might fall, say, Jimmy Clausen, but not one that directly fits within the Seahawks system. I think system, and system constraints will be a big part of this draft. By the draft value chart, the total value exchanged is 550 + Branch. I don't think Seattle wants Clausen. I'm undecided about Berry, but think Carroll would prefer an intimidator with presence in the box, and with Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, and Russell Okung likely selected, the Seahawks will be in a spot where their pick might be more valuable to another team.

Part of the attraction for Seattle is that the 11th overall pick is paid far less than the sixth overall pick. That money would then be invested in Marshall. Seattle would move out of the absolute upper crust of the draft, but still have two picks within the top 15. Green Bay has been an active trader on draft day and I think Schneider will adopt that strategy.

6. Brandon Marshall: Seattle considers Marshall part of its draft class, and pays him like a top ten pick.

11. C.J. Spiller: Seattle may attempt to trade down after spending its second round pick, but that will require two things I do not anticipate: demand, and flexibility for the Seahawks. The offensive line has one presumed starter, Max Unger, one potential starter, Sean Locklear, two long shots, Ray Willis and Chris Spencer, and as many as four openings. If tackles start flying off the board, Seattle may wish to move down from 11 but be trapped into the pick fearing it might lose out filling a critical need.

I think the shortlist of players Seattle will target in the first round to play left tackle comprise: Russell Okung, Trent Williams, Bruce Campbell and Charles Brown. From that group, Williams makes sense and could be had early. I think Okung is a pipe dream. Campbell and Brown are cut somewhat from the same cloth. Both can be projected to be better players than they currently are. I am not sure either has the nastiness Gibbs desires. I see nastiness as on par with physical athleticism as a Gibbs pre-rec.

Instead Seattle might give Gibbs freedom to mine deep into the depth of the draft and use its high-end picks on other needs. It has a ton. Pencil in Williams, but for sake of a hunch, I will look at what direction Seattle might go in if it doesn't find a satisfactory left tackle.

It might seem crazy, but unless Seattle sees Jordan Babineaux as a long term solution, it could need to fill out both safety positions. That could make an Earl Thomas-Taylor Mays first round possible. It could also give itself a ton more flexibility on its defensive line by drafting a defensive end. Right now, it has Lawrence Jackson and the remains of Patrick Kerney, and though Carroll might use Curry as a standup end, he might not. He might play him in that role, but want a fallback. He might want an end like Derrick Morgan who could start over Lawrence Jackson and man the end spot in nickel 4-2 formations. The point is: Trading Darryl Tapp does not preclude Seattle drafting an end. If it sticks with a more traditional 4-3 look, it would have fewer needs at linebacker and defensive tackle, or at least less pressing needs.

If I had my druthers, Seattle would select Branden Graham, I think the single best pure pass rusher in the draft, and move Curry to inside linebacker. David Hawthorne would become a super sub and Leroy Hill's stand in. However, I think the truth is that Seattle is committed to making Curry a kind of end. So I will work from the assumption that the front seven is somewhat set, with some flexibility at second interior linebacker and defensive tackle.

So, working through who Seattle won't select, we can move to who Seattle does select: C.J. Spiller. USC recruited Spiller, so there's familiarity and connection. Specifically, Lane Kiffin recruited Spiller. Kiffin was the offensive coordinator and recruiting coordinator at USC in 2005. Spiller would have been the designated replacement for Reggie Bush.

I think Spiller would also fit Gibbs needs. He is reminiscent of Steve Slaton. Slaton weighed in at 195 at the 2008 NFL Combine. Some did not think Slaton could carry a full workload, but Gibbs defied that idea just as he did with Warrick Dunn and Clinton Portis. Somewhere between all three is Spiller. Spiller is not purely a one-cut-and-go back, but it's within him. He adds a ton of value for a team that is trying to win now, but is far from it. Gibbs has a reputation of selecting players later in the draft but turning them into stars, but I think that is because he differently values players and not because he simply does not think a running back is very valuable. Like any position, should the talent be sufficient, the value is sufficient.

14. Taylor Mays: Sure to delight some and anger others, Mays is an atypical and polarizing player. Seattle is pretty desperate for a day one starter at safety, and for good or ill, Mays is the type of player to start week one and hold the position throughout his rookie contract. Mays overcomes some bust concerns with his outstanding health. He is also young and that should give him a long window to develop in.

Most importantly for this mock is not how good can Mays be, but why Seattle might select him. Youth, health, connections and mutual respect between Mays and Carroll should contribute. I think it's realistic that Carroll sees Mays as an easy top ten talent and will consider his selection at 16 an absolute steal. Mays is from the area, and should be a fan favorite. Some believe that because cover is not his strongest skill, he is likely to bust, but lest anyone forget, quite a few of the players considered top safeties are not strongest in cover skills. The model for Mays might be Adrian Wilson. Wilson only had three interceptions in college, but like Mays was considered an enforcer. Wilson has the same basic build, but is a little less fast, a little less freakishly athletic. Wilson has succeeded because he has played a type of rover position.

Secondary coach Jerry Gray will also contribute to the Seahawks making this pick. Gray himself was considered an enforcer when he played, and coaches tend to like kind. He coached secondary in Buffalo from 2001 to 2005. One of the first additions to the secondary under Gray was Coy Wire, a linebacker in college that converted to strong safety in the pros. Wire was, you guessed it, a big hitter. He broke in playing the 46. When Wire lost his job the next season, it was to Lawyer Milloy. Milloy is a big...

Gray also coached the Redskins. There he inherited Sean Taylor, and Taylor enjoyed his first of two consecutive Pro Bowl seasons under Gray. Washington had few draft picks to spend in 2006 and 2007, but spent high on LaRon Landry. Landry is not defined by it, but can lay the wood now and again. He is big, and transitioned to playing in the box more after Taylor's death. The significance of that move is both the personnel, and the emphasis on strong safety.

The trend is clearly towards big, physical safeties that can intimidate and rove within the box. I think that Carroll's preference towards that type, his choice of Gray to be his secondary coach, and Gray's own playing history of and preference for that type suggests that Mays, perhaps the greatest pure in-the-box talent to ever grace the NFL, has a hell of a chance of coming home.

Those two picks stated and reinforced, and Brandon Marshall shoehorned into the arrangement, let's see how the rest of the picks play out.

The Seahawks have added three presumed starters, but had enough holes at the start of the offseason and managed to blow open a few more, and now must aggressively target positions of need. I assume Sims will be traded, and for the sake of optimism, traded for a fourth round pick straight across. That would Seattle give three picks in the fourth round, but I think they will package two and move up to draft...

66. Ed Wang

Seattle needs an offensive tackle, and it should be picking from pool that looks like this:

1st Round: Okung, Williams, Brown, Campbell.

2nd Round: Jared Veldheer.

3rd Round: Ed Wang.

4th Round: Selvish Capers.

6th Round: Derek Hardman

7th Round: Chris Marinelli, Dennis Landolt.

Not selecting a left tackle in the first puts Seattle in a pickle. That pickle could grow to a calamity if a run on linemen forces Wang into the second. Wang and Capers form a line after which Seattle risks leaving a position unfilled if the player drafted does not work out. Of course, that risk exists if any tackle prospect struggles, but I think the chances of that increase greatly after Capers and Wang. I will settle on Wang.

Wang has the right mix of athleticism, smarts, squatty build and desire for Gibbs. He's a former tight end and a bit unrefined, and I think that seduces Gibbs ego. Wang has one major injury, but it's a broken bone and so there's no chance of recurrence. I think he profiles a lot like the player he replaced: Duane Brown.

In the move up, I figure Seattle trades the 127 and 100 picks, the latter acquired from Detroit for Robs Sims, for whatever spot is needed to grab Wang. That leaves it with a 104 pick.

To be continued.

Comment 136 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Mays is the only iffy pick and he's likely the prototype for what Carroll wants in a safety.

I wouldn’t take him but I can’t think of a more talented player to ever fill the role that Carroll would use him in.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 4, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

We can get him for the 2nd round

That may be dreaming but if we had to use the 6th overall it would have been done already. 2nd round or the 14th overall is the talk at this point, that’s why it will be done after the 15th when the trade is easier to work.
With Washington trading for Mcnabb that also puts Jimmy Clausen back on the board but takes away one of the OT or DE.
Everything will be readjusted and its anyone’s guess.

yea dude

by dirtyktm on Apr 5, 2010 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

I am against #6 for Marshall

He is a malcontent, when your I think that he would be a bad influence on an offense that will struggle. I wouldn’t have an issue with signing him next year but to give up a pick for him seems like a bad idea.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

We would be trading down 5 spots to #11.

And trading pick #60 for Marshall, not trading #6 by itself.

by LantermanC on Apr 5, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

It is not the movement but the player himself

I like the addition of picks if it were to happen that way.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

that would be a great trade

better than any player in the draft but not one of top needs( WR). Lots of value in the 11th -14th but I’ll bet it come with a 4th rnd also, if not do it.

yea dude

by dirtyktm on Apr 5, 2010 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

No kidding?

Sure thing WR, EXTREMELY high potential RB and a S that could be freakishly good with time?

I dunno, I’d be pretty happy with a first round like that.

6/14/60. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Apr 5, 2010 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions  

John,

Didn’t see how the Hawks ended up taking Mays at 16… should that be 14?

Also, in your scenario with Wang at 66, is that simply a Sims and the 127 for 66?… or an offer sheet costing Detroit #100, Hawks give Detroit back their 100, etc… since the 66 is Detroit’s as well?

by trippsixxes on Apr 4, 2010 3:19 PM PDT reply actions  

That Wang Q sounded odd, let me try again,

I see where you stated the Hawks would trade Sims str8 up for a 4th, but since Detroit is interested and you’ve got Wang at Detroit’s pick, it seems like an easy Sims and 127 for 66.

by trippsixxes on Apr 4, 2010 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

My thinking was that Seattle would have to trade up and Detroit made sense.

But I do not know what exactly would be exchanged.

It is supposed to be 14. Now changed.

by John Morgan on Apr 4, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

All Playmakers

That would be a dream draft —-all playmakers in round #1. Don’t think we will get that lucky, but fingers crossed.

by Hawkwiz on Apr 4, 2010 3:35 PM PDT reply actions  

I'd LOVE that to be our first round.

Marshall and Spiller would be a huge boost to a weak offense. Between the damage those two are capable of, it should also free up Hoosh to live up to his contract as well.

And while I’m not totally sold on Mays, I trust Carroll’s judgement on safeties the same way I’d trust Holmgren to pick out a QB. If we get Mays, I’m gonna expect big things from him.

by Mind of no mind on Apr 4, 2010 3:48 PM PDT reply actions  

This isn't necessarily my dream draft

But it seems plausible, and there’s a lot of thought here. So, we’d have Marshall,Spiller, Mays and Wang in the first two rounds. That’s not a bad take. We also have to throw Whitehurst in there, because of our swapped 2nd rounder. Interesting. I’d be OK with it…not that my being OK matters.

by Chirp on Apr 4, 2010 3:51 PM PDT reply actions  

It's really not that bad of a draft

and could set us up for a good position next year to put a lot of good talent on the team (and by that I mean fill out the rest of our team). Except we still have a void at QB (I’m sorry, but Whitehurst is going to have to be amazing for me to believe he’s the QB of the future) and that’s the most important position by far. I guess we have nothing to do but wait and see. Stupid off season.

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Apr 4, 2010 4:00 PM PDT reply actions  

Locker in 2011!

I guarantee the thought has occurred to Pete, though I’m not sure we’ll be bad enough to get him.

by miracle_max on Apr 4, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Locker is not guaranteed to be the #1 overall, or even in the top 10.

I hate this saying but…"just sayin’ "

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.

by Wayward Llama on Apr 4, 2010 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

He's an athlete

He hasn’t shown he’s a QB yet. He also wasn’t even a first rounder this year. We’ll see after this next season

by Brian Floyd on Apr 4, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

Locker would have to have a Bradford-type season to fall out of the top 10

Given the progress he made in just his first year under Sark and his unparalleled tools, it would take an injury or a truly disastrous 2010 campaign for him to slip far at all.

by miracle_max on Apr 4, 2010 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Part of his hype was his age and the knowledge that he's only a Junior.

There’s a certain assumed increase in QB skill that should take place during his senior year. If he fails to develop at all as a QB, it will hurt his stock. Still first round probably, but not being the 1st QB off the board wouldn’t surprise me (once again, this is assuming he doesn’t develop at all this year).

Now with more lemon bars!

by Fear on Apr 4, 2010 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yep.

There’s so much hype around Locker, it’s crazy.

He wasn’t even that good last year (granted, he played on a poor team) but now everyone is whipped into a frenzy that he should be picked #1 in 2011. Wait … what!?!?

6/14/60. Sweet.

by Nick Andron on Apr 5, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

#1 by default

He will likely be the highest rated QB in next years draft. Because of positional value he’ll be in the top 5. He is also freakishly athletic and has “prototypical” size. It’s a perfect storm of hype.

by Hancock.Brett on Apr 5, 2010 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

And honestly, I’m tired of hearing about it already. If he does well this coming year, and we do poorly, Lockermania is going to reign supreme for months.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.

by Wayward Llama on Apr 5, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

The hell he wasn't a first rounder.

Basing anything off the NFL Draft advisory committee ranking is ludicrous. He probably would’ve gone first overall this year.

by huskies2010 on Apr 4, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

No offense

And it may not have been you per se …. but as a whole, this community applied the logic that Curry was a third round pick the year before based on the draft advisory. We all know what happened after that.

Just saying that ludicrous may be a harsh word when talking about the Draft Advisory Committee.

(And I am not trying to imply that Locker would not have been a first round pick this year. It only takes one GM …)

by nut_house on Apr 4, 2010 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

And I'm not saying he's bad

But the assumption that he was a dead lock top five, or even number one overall, pick is a false one. He’s got great potential but he’s still a project right now.

by Brian Floyd on Apr 4, 2010 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

He would arguably be

Locker’s Stats
YEAR CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT
2007 155 328 47.3 2062 6.3 14 98 15 105.01
2008 50 93 53.8 512 5.5 1 48 0 103.55
2009 230 395 58.2 2800 7.1 21 51 11 129.75
Rushing
YEAR ATT YDS AVG LNG TD
2007 172 986 5.7 47 13
2008 56 180 3.2 20 3
2009 112 388 3.5 56 7

Clausen’s Stats
YEAR CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT
2007 138 245 56.3 1254 5.1 7 44 6 103.85
2008 268 440 60.9 3172 7.2 25 69 17 132.49
2009 289 425 68.0 3722 8.8 28 88 4 161.43
Clausen’s Rushing stats aren’t worth the time to put up.

Yes Clausen’s numbers are better. But for all of the Clausen lovers out there who always point out how inadequate the rest of the ND team was, the Huskies absolutely sucked for the last three years. They were much better this year, but it still wasn’t anyplace to showcase a good QB. He has freshman and softmore recievers and RBs and a weak line. The D will let anyone score up until about halfway through this year. Scouts look at his size, speed and arm strength and are awed. They also look at his leadership and are impressed. He helped take a bad team and make it better then they should have been.
Not only will he be a top end first round pick next year if he continues his level of performance and improvement, I think he would have been drafted ahead of Clausen this year if he had of come out.

by stufr on Apr 5, 2010 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

Locker is a big pile of potential

He’s Tebow on a worse team and a better throwing motion. There are some good QB’s coming out next year, I think it will be far better than next year.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

err this year

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

John,

I think I understand the logic, but why would PC pass on Earl Thomas at 14? Given his target being a safety (which makes sense to me) why not take the best safety on the board? It seems to me that cover skills and ball-hawking capability are more of a premium than being an enforcer, and that’s the difference between the two.

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 4:41 PM PDT reply actions  

I would prefer Thomas astronomically more than Mays.

I hope the ‘trend’ from our guys is not a beefy in-the-box Safety, but one that can contend in a passing league. Mays wouldn’t fit in many of the elite NFL defenses (PIT, for example). I think the really good defensive teams typically ask both safeties to be able to cover. Earl Thomas would be fantastic for our team. He can play S and CB with much the same versatility that makes Berry such an attractive prospect.

I still see some writing that Mays could also be a linebacker in the Pros – something we don’t need. I have no real way to knowing that or how to know that, though.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 4, 2010 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, and Mayock, for what it's worth, has Thomas ranked above Berry.

I don’t know why, but Berry and Thomas have similar strengths and there may not be much drop-off between the two, or if you believe Mayock, an actual improvement taking Thomas instead of Berry.

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 6:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

Marshall-Williams-Early

Would make me so much happier than Marshall-Spiller-Early.

That said, while I found the pick less well-explained on MTD, the background of our secondary coach fills in a lot of gaps in the thinking. It might not be the pick you and me want, or heck even than JM wants, but why PC would pass on Early for Mays is pretty clearly explained.

by Thomas Beekers on Apr 4, 2010 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

I really hope we also address the defensive line

Losing that 2nd rounder (possibly Houston or Alualu) hurts.

by aerozeppelin on Apr 4, 2010 4:46 PM PDT reply actions  

Another question:

Any chance Spencer is part of the Marshall deal, perhaps preserving the 60th pick?

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 4:48 PM PDT reply actions  

Trading down from 6 to 11, PLUS the 60th pick, PLUS Branch...

…seems like an awful lot to pay for a guy nobody else wants.

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed

Using the geriatric and nearly-obsolete NFL Draft Value Chart, moving down from #6 to #11 is equivalent to the #57 overall pick. In a certain sense, trading TWO 2nd rounders AND Branch for Marshall doesn’t seem like the best deal.

I’m for one or the other, plus something extra (4th rounder, conditional 2011 pick, etc)….I’m not sure why Denver would want to move up to #6 anyway. With Clady on board they don’t need a LT, and guys who fit their 3-4 scheme (Rolando McClain and Dan Williams) should be available at #11. The only player (other than Clausen) Denver may want at #6 would be Eric Berry, I think.

Also, if Gerald McCoy is available at #6, then that would make this decent trade BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS TIMES WORSE. I can’t stress enough how horrified/enraged/depressed that would make me, and it’ll doom the franchise for sure.

(Maybe I’m over-exaggerating. A little bit.)

by J.L. White on Apr 4, 2010 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

So which of these would be be willing to pass on to land...

Mr. 1-step-from-8-game-suspension Marshall?

Okung, Berry, McCoy, Suh, Bradford, or Clausen??

I think the #6 is perfect this draft because (imho) the top teir contains exactly 6 players…

  1. is also valuable because we’ll have an good shot at either Spiller or Morgan— or at the very least Thomas or another top-10 type player.

I would not be happy if A) we gave up that much for Marshall; or B) the staff is counting on Whitehurst to be our new “franchise QB”.

by Kryten on Apr 4, 2010 6:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hmmm.... Don't know what happened to my "#14"

It turned into a tab and “1.” So that 1. should read #14…
(Yes, I thought I did pre-read it!)

by Kryten on Apr 4, 2010 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Marshall is a top 5 WR in the league....

None of these other guys are going to come in and be in the top 5 at their position. With Washington getting McNabb it is about certain that McCoy does not fall to us. We don’t lose much moving back 5 spaces so essentially we’re giving up a late second rounder for a top 5 WR who’s 24 yrs old. How does that not make sense?

The question is whether or not Denver is willing to do that. I think Josh McDaniels will value Charlie Weiss’ opinion of Clausen which makes the trade more likely. Dropping Branch frees up money to pay to Marshall. As for the draft value of those 5 spaces counting for a second rounder, that’s just silly, especially when you consider the salary difference between 11 and 6. I like the options at 6 but I like them at 11 too.

by Billy Showbiz on Apr 5, 2010 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think we've seen that value in trades and the draft has changed to reflect how badly you want what you can't have

That value chart and points system doesn’t work anymore. McNabb just proved it. So did the way the Cowboys raked the Browns over the coals so they could get Quinn, the Broncos and the Bears – everyone knew Cutler wanted out but look what the Bears paid, and look at us and Whitehurst, once it became obvious two teams wanted him the bidding war started. No one else wants Marshall but look at the price and no one else wants to pay that much to get him. I know the Broncos can make another trade but why would they.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

McNabb to the Redskins

Just announced.

So I was wrong. The number 4 pick will not be Clausen.

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 5:18 PM PDT reply actions  

Interesting.

That pretty much guarantees Seattle will be able to take Clausen at 6 if they want.

by MFAN on Apr 4, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was thinking the same thing.

Does this change the complexion of Seattle’s top pick? PC has made it clear he will consider drafting a QB, and I think it’s the right thing to consider.

The question is, is Clausen the guy?

Whitehurst is a good back-up and bridge to the future, but I doubt he is the future. Is Clausen?

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I hope the Seahawks don't waste the #6 on Clausen

You, after the Whitehurst trade….I know, he probably sucks. But that no reason to ignore other needs to get ANOTHER quarterback.

Well, I think this all guarantees Washington drafts a Left Tackle. Hmm….if Detroit gets Okung, I’d think the Redskins would get either Bulaga or Trent Williams. I bet the Chiefs are now seriously looking to trade back now.

by J.L. White on Apr 4, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

"I bet the Chiefs are now seriously looking to trade back now."

I think Trent Williams and Brian Bulaga are very closely rated, so I don’t think KC will be looking to trade just because the ‘Skins will now likely take an OT. I think KC and Wash. are in silmilar spots now in that they both need a good OT and probably wouldn’t take a DT.

by Kryten on Apr 4, 2010 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

To be honest, I thought KC should trade back even before this trade

Bulaga and Williams (and Berry) are just fine, but KC has a lot of needs and could benefit form more picks. Also, after being with the Patriots so long Pioli may naturally prefer to trade back if he can.

Somebody moving up to #5 to snag Clausen seems to make a lot of sense. Just depends on who wants him that badly.

by J.L. White on Apr 4, 2010 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

Do teams just hate Clausen, or what is the deal?

I’m excited about this now.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 4, 2010 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

In-division trade...

…what were the Eagles thinking?

Got to root for Redskins now…

by Hawksince77 on Apr 4, 2010 5:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Very surprising.

They must really think McNabb is done (or almost done) and/or really, really like Kolb.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 4, 2010 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I mean they were demanding two first round picks for him before.

I wish we could have snagged him up before his stock got so high.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.

by Wayward Llama on Apr 4, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is kind of like when the Packers let Favre go

at some point you just have to see what Aaron Rodgers can actually do. It was just time to move on, thinking 5 years down the road instead of next year.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I know it kills me to have to do it too

I really want to see McNabb go and just light up Philly. They really treated him badly there.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

Probably not.

But McNabb turns 34 this year.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 4, 2010 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Heh.

Looks like Campbell is going to be available after all.

by BrianL on Apr 4, 2010 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why would you say that

I think they trade Campbell and draft Clausen. It makes way more sense then not drafting him and keeping the guy they just spit on.

by stufr on Apr 5, 2010 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

That would actually be a pretty good trade IMO

Getting a guy like Marshall who has already proven he is one of the elite receivers in the NFL and then getting playmakers like Spiller and Mays. Seattle would win that draft.

by Seahawksfan23 on Apr 4, 2010 5:24 PM PDT reply actions  

Great stuff even if I dissagree on a pick or so.

I do have a question: where do you see Saffold? Would he not be a late 1st-early 3rd round type offensive tackle prospect that Seattle might consider? Was he missed or ruled out for some other reason? (availability at our pick, perhaps?). It seems that his 6’5" 317 body would be in line with Gibbs’ criteria.

I’ve been thinking the same way re: Marshall. Draft-day deal announcement, I think (and hope).

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 4, 2010 5:33 PM PDT reply actions  

I like Saffold

I haven’t seen any real footage of him other than youtube. I didn’t think about Gibbs wanting a certain amount of meanness.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think he's a late first early 2nd.

Therefore, we have little chance at him. Since in this scenario we draft 14, and then not again until 66.

by LantermanC on Apr 5, 2010 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

It fits Seattle though

I like Tebow and McCoy but I just can’t see them fitting in here.

At least we aren't the Raiders?

by Generzal Zod on Apr 5, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Gibbs?

I’m at a loss why he keeps coming up when people discuss picking Spiller. Would he significantly impact the choices?
I’d be thankful for an explanation.

by Thomas Beekers on Apr 4, 2010 7:09 PM PDT reply actions  

McNabb is 33. I don't think this means that the Redskins are not drafting a quarterback this year.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2010 8:28 PM PDT reply actions  

However, this move gives them options.

Talents that I covet:

Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes

by Carl Shinyama on Apr 4, 2010 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's right

Usually in a trade like this, the player (McNabb) also signs a contract extension. Not saying it’s a must, but if he does…the Redskins would easily have over $20 million per season wrapped up at QB, if they took another one at #4.

by J.L. White on Apr 4, 2010 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think it changes anything.

They don’t really have a left tackle on their roster, they’re almost guaranteed to draft one.

by Nate Dogg on Apr 4, 2010 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

But not at #4.

They have nobody to protect McNabb. Their line is worse than ours.

TouchMyIchiro

by brayden04 on Apr 5, 2010 2:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe, but they faced some decent fronts in the NFC East and with their schedule.

It’s fair to say both lines were poor (and porous), but I’m not sure one was considerably worse than the other.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 5, 2010 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

John... Must you make such a big splash? CANNONBALL!!

From 12th Man Rising:

As much as I do not like John Morgan at Field Gulls, I love his trade scenario of the No. 6 overall and and fourth round pick for Brandon Marshall and the No. 11 pick.

Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.

by iverson2169 on Apr 4, 2010 8:49 PM PDT reply actions  

Oh it's Andy Auger.

Might have something to do with banning him for being an insufferable rumormonger who tried to peddle his wares here.

by BrianL on Apr 4, 2010 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can't please everyone.

It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.

by Wayward Llama on Apr 5, 2010 3:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe all replies to FG posts

Should be prefaced by “As much as I do not like John Morgan at Field Gulls,”

Hell, every sentence should be.

“As much as I do not like John Morgan at Field Gulls, I think we should order Thai food tonight.”

“As much as I do not like John Morgan at Field Gulls, I got to remember to TiVo Breaking Bad.”

by Thomas Beekers on Apr 5, 2010 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well as much as I DO like you John...

I hate the trade! I think we’re overpaying the market price.

The #6 is just too much to give up for someone with that amount of risk and baggage. We can get him cheaper. I’m sure Denver does not want him back this year and will take what they can get. Denver would pull a the equivilent of a hamstring in their mouths rushing to say yes to that deal.

Yes I know we get the #11 back, but that’s not good enough. Look at it this way— if they approached us and wanted to move up from 11 to 6, and wanted our starting WR (as the roster is today) and our second round pick, what would it take?? A hell of a lot, that’s what.

People (Clayton, Sando, Denver columnists, et al) are predicting the Broncs will only get a 2nd for Marshall, but we’re giving up that plus a good player plus letting them move up from good (11) to great (6).
Way too much I tells ya.

We need the #6 for either McCoy, Berry, or Clausen (one will be there and none will drop to #11), and the #60 for a good RB.

by Kryten on Apr 5, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

I like this analysis a lot

I agree with virtually everything you wrote here John. I like Taylor Mays at 14 precisely for the reason given. Wang seems like a natural fit to Alex Gibb’s OL philosophy and would likely benefit from sitting on the bench for a year (rookies rarely start in Gibb’s system) given that he has only played OL for 2 years.

One thing: I’m not sure if we move the 6th for Marshall. That 6th pick has the potential to be quite valuable. With Haden, Bryant and Spiller who are the clear favorites at their respective positions most likely sitting there and the fact that nobody knows what direction Cleveland, Oakland or Buffalo will go, there could be many teams calling the Seahawks with trade scenarios. I’m also not ruling out the crazy possibility that a highly rated player drops to 6th. Furthermore, I think a team like Tampa Bay who has a good young QB but a worse WR corps than we do and has 11 draft picks (including two high 2nd rounders) could offer a better deal come draft day.

by Kevaru on Apr 4, 2010 8:51 PM PDT reply actions  

I imagined that were the trade to happen, Seattle's pulling the trigger would be dependent on who is there at 6.

This seems like it would be the case for both parties. If McCoy is there, maybe they don’t. If Clausen is not there, maybe Denver doesn’t (though Seattle seems to have all the leverage in this pulley system).

by DJ C-Raig on Apr 4, 2010 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

I still dont want Marshall

It seems like I’m in the minority when I say I dont want Marshall at all, even at a good price. Obviously he’s a phenomenal talent, but his personality just seems like a ticking time bomb. What happens when Charlie Whitehurst cant even hit him on a hook route? Or what happens when Housh starts crying about not getting the ball? For all his physical talent, I think he does more harm than good, and I’d rather not risk trading for a guy who is a risk to be suspended by Chairman Goodell every season.

Check out my Mets blog: http://metsmosh.blogspot.com/
Part of the Shore Sports Report blog network, Fox Sports Radio 1310 New Jersey

by Steeeve on Apr 5, 2010 3:58 AM PDT reply actions  

Housh did just fine with Ochocinco who's way more of a nut job than Marshall

It’s not like Marshall bad mouths his team mates like TO and disrupts the other guys on the team. He just makes mistakes. Sure it’s an issue if he misses 8 games but his 8 games of production will still be better than the 12 games (if we’re lucky) that Branch will be healthy enough to play in.

I’ll also tell you that if Kyle Orton can find him 102 times in 14 games then Charlie Whitehurst will be able to get him some productive completions.

by Billy Showbiz on Apr 5, 2010 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

mmm... I like what you've done here

I agree that the trade is a little too big though. Instead of the 60th I’d give one or more of our 4th rounders, Branch and the trade down from 6 to 11. If we could pull that off it would be great. Marshall still scares me, but if the coaches are convinced that he will behave, then he would be amazing on the field.

by stufr on Apr 5, 2010 4:12 AM PDT reply actions  

For the rest of the picks

I have no problem with them, but I would do it a little different. I would get Thomas at 11, Brown at 14 and then since in my trade scenario still have 60, I would get Gerhart or the next best RB available. Then in the 4th I would would restock everywhere else.

by stufr on Apr 5, 2010 4:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think we need to let go

Of the idea that Branch represents value in a trade. For the Broncos he’d be just another body at WR, I seriously doubt they valuate him much higher than that. He always seems to be thrown into these trades “and Deion Branch” as if he has value, but truth is we only throw him in because we want to get rid of him. And I think any competent FO would see that.

by Thomas Beekers on Apr 5, 2010 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

I love this draft

Spiller and Marshall would be great playmakers for 5-6 years. That’s enough time to transition from Hasselbeck – Whitehurst – QB X if Whitehurst flames out in a year or two.

by Hancock.Brett on Apr 5, 2010 9:04 AM PDT reply actions  

If filling two safety spots is a possible need,

filling four spots on the OLine is just as possible and needing to fill two offensive tackle spots is a definite need (one left tackle and at least a rotational RT.) Left tackles will probably make up four of the top ten picks. Safeties will also go early this year. I think that means our top picks need to go to those two positions.

…because if Whitehurst is an acceptable quarterback placeholder, then Forsett/Jones have to be considered good enough for now as well. Spiller would be a luxury.

by BurtonOerney on Apr 5, 2010 9:26 AM PDT reply actions  

I worry about depending on Gibbs's late round magic

because of our track record on the O line. We haven’t been able to get anybody through free agency and the only player who could be called a late round success from our drafts over the past few years is Unger. Locklear was drafted in the third round and has been about as solid as you would expect a third rounder to be. Sims went in the fourth. He’s good but would be better in a different blocking scheme. Vallos is what you’d expect from a seventh rounder – a project with some upside.

Taking Chris Spencer with the 26th overall pick in 2005 got us a good center who’s been able to play since day 1. That’s what we need this year. Badly.

by BurtonOerney on Apr 5, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

I wouldn't call Unger a 'late round pick'

He went in the first half of the second round

by Keasley on Apr 5, 2010 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

You're right. I confused him with Nick Reed.

So we haven’t been able to take any of our late round linemen and make them viable starters.

by BurtonOerney on Apr 5, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with the sentiment on Marshall trade being a bit too much

but I could also see it happening that way. The fourth rounder from Sims and the trade back makes more sense value wise, but we will see.

I also think Spiller represents more value in trading back with a team in the 20s and picking up an extra second or third. That would allow Seattle to take an OT and RB instead. Stickig with John’s original logic, it would look something like this:

6. Marshall
11. Traded
14. Mays
28. Campbell/Brown/Saffold
40. Best (if RB, but would rather look for value at another position such as DT/DE. Griffen/Alualu?)

by bilbo on Apr 5, 2010 10:12 AM PDT reply actions  

There, fixed. :)

6. Marshall
11. Traded
14. Mays Earl Thomas
28. Campbell/Brown/Saffold
40. Best RB available (or best 3-tech DT available)

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 5, 2010 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions  

"40"="60" I believe.

Unless I’m missing something.

Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...

by Cheddar28 on Apr 5, 2010 12:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

There, fixed (again!) :)

6. Marshall
11. Traded
14. Mays Earl Thomas
28. Campbell/Brown/Saffold
60. Best RB available (or best 3-tech DT available)

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black*, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling**, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Apr 5, 2010 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

actually it is 40

in this scenario because we traded back from 11 to 28 with SD and recouped our #40 pick. The #6 and #60 gets traded for Marshall and the #11, per John’s post.

by bilbo on Apr 5, 2010 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

I like this idea, in theory

Although it would depend on who they trade back with. Plus I would assume that they could always package those later picks (if they pick up the extra second or third) to move up in the second if they had someone they really wanted.

Although I wouldn’t have a problem with them getting Spiller with the 11 either.

by splintrdmind on Apr 5, 2010 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I wouldn't mind Spiller either

but with the needs of this team, I’d rather trade back. Put it this way, would you trade Spiller for Best and an OT (Brown/Saffold/Campbell)?

by bilbo on Apr 5, 2010 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

I worry about Best

The NFL is going to “protect” the players from concussions, meaning they won’t be able to play if there’s a risk. Best already has had three, I think, in his college career. The last one severe.
I worry if we take him at #60 he gets another in an early game and is forced to sit by God-El

by Kryten on Apr 5, 2010 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Official Field Gulls OT Thread - In Which We Gush About Our Favorite TV Shows

Recent FanPosts

Photo_on_2011-10-14_at_23
Jim Harbaugh Vs. Pete Carroll
Small
Nation Wide Mock Draft
Small
Could Dre Kirkpatrick be the key to our 2012 draft?
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
Seahawks QB Situation: Not a Defense for Tarvaris Jackson
Small
Team Needs - The National Perception of Seattle
Small
2012 Mock Draft, Version 1.0
Walshrun_small
Super Bowl XLVI Reaction: New England Patriots
Small
My Friend has a Friend who works for Nike...
208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small
GM John Schneider On The Ideal QB
Bodypaint_small
Delocated ad

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

284430_601240951600_44900771_32958650_2317286_n_small Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Hatersgonnahate_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Halloween_mobster_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Mail Matt Erickson

Davis_small Davis Hsu

Profile2_small Rob Staton

208114_505637750968_23709013_30160241_9483_n_small Scott Enyeart

Elephant_pink_clothes_small Chris Sully

Seattle_seahawk_white_1600_reasonably_small_small Derek Stephens

Osprey1_small Ben Harbaugh

Easleystreet2_small ChadDavis45

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill