DraftWatch - Week 15: The Homestretch
by Hmph on Dec 20, 2011 8:00 AM PST
Email
Print
This is going to be a quick update; I'm up way too late for someone who has to work in the morning. Instead, we'll be doing everything in bullet-point format:
- The Seahawks dropped, yet again, to 15th in the draft order after crushing the Bears on Saturday. Once again, it was damn worth it to see 330 lbs. of Red Bryant high-step into the endzone like that.
- Because of the number of teams that already have nine losses, the Seahawks will pretty much find themselves out of the top 10 no matter how the rest of the season plays out. Unless a lot of bad teams win their remaining two games, that is.
- Speaking of bad teams, the Colts, Dolphins, Redskins, and Browns - all teams that need a QB as badly as we do - have records of 5-9 or worse. Meaning it'll be well nigh impossible to draft in front of any of these teams unless we trade up.
- The Colts' win over the Titans makes the top of the order a lot more interesting, although the Colts still hold a big advantage. Only the Rams and Vikings are left in the running for the first overall pick, and since the AFC South has been so sickly this year, one of those teams would essentially have to lose out while the Colts win out in order to snatch the #1 pick away. Especially since all four AFC-S teams play divisional games the rest of the season, so there's no chance for their overall record to gain any more than 4 wins.
Here's how the draft order looks this week:
1. Colts (1-13, 120-104 SOS)
2. Vikings (2-12, 127-97 SOS)
3. Rams (2-12, 132-92 SOS)
4. Jaguars (4-10, 117-107 SOS)
5. Browns (4-10, 122-102 SOS)
6. Buccaneers (4-10, 127-97 SOS)
7. Redskins (5-9, 105-119 SOS)
8. Panthers (5-9, 113-111 SOS)
9. Dolphins (5-9, 116-108 SOS)
10. Bills (5-9, 117-107 SOS)
11. Chiefs (6-8, 112-112 SOS)
12. Eagles (6-8, 115-109 SOS)
13. Titans (7-7, 104-120 SOS)
14. Cardinals (7-7, 105-119 SOS)
**15. Seahawks (7-7, 114-110 SOS)**
16-17. Chargers (7-7, 116-108 SOS, 2-2 Div.)
16-17. Raiders (7-7, 116-108 SOS, 2-2 Div.)
18. Giants (7-7, 118-106 SOS, 2-3 Div.)
19. Bears (7-7, 118-106 SOS, 2-2 Div.)
20. Cowboys (8-6, 105-119 SOS)
21. Bengals (8-6, 108-116 SOS)
22. Jets (8-6, 110-114 SOS)
23. Broncos (8-6, 115-109 SOS)
24. Falcons (9-5, 106-118 SOS)
25. Lions (9-5, 120-104 SOS)
TEAMS THAT HAVE CLINCHED:
Ravens (10-4)
Steelers (10-4)
Texans (10-4)
49ers (11-3)
Patriots (11-3)
Saints (11-3)
Packers (13-1)
(Strength of Schedule is the total win-loss record of every opponent on a team's schedule. Divisional opponents are counted twice since they appear on the schedule twice. Division record breaks any ties, followed by a coinflip; head-to-head records are not considered. Teams that reach the playoffs draft based on their postseason finish, so they are excluded from the draft order.)
Obviously, there's a lot riding on next week's games that have nothing to do with where we draft. On that note, here's how we want things to pan out during the holiday games:
HOU @ IND: Operating on the assumption that whoever gets the #1 pick will go straight for Andrew Luck, I'd much rather he end up in the AFC and not in the NFC, certainly not on a division rival. Go Texans.
DEN @ BUF: The Bills are one of the only teams we could theoretically get in front of if we both finish 7-9. Go Bills.
ARI @ CIN: Playoff aspirations aside, a Cardinals win would add two wins to our SOS while a Bengals win would only add 1. Go Bengals.
JAX @ TEN: The Jags are now officially out of reach, and the only way we can get in front of Tennessee is if they outwin us. Go Titans.
OAK @ KC: The Raiders did us absolutely no favors last week against the Lions. They must be punished for their betrayal. Go Chiefs.
MIA @ NE: Miami is another team we just might be able to leapfrog if they happen to win out. Go Dolphins.
NYG @ NYJ: One of the two roads into the playoffs involves us, the Giants, and the Falcons all finishing 9-7, and us getting in because of a superior divisional record. Go Giants.
STL @ PIT: One more Rams win guarantees they can't get the #1 pick. Go Rams. Who the hell are we kidding, they're gonna lose this thing by 40.
MIN @ WAS: We may not be able to leapfrog the Redskins, but at least we can hope they get pushed further back down the line. Go Redskins.
TB @ CAR: Both teams are pretty set at the QB spot, so both could make decent trade partners. Either way.
CLE @ BAL: Inconsequential from a draft standpoint, but just to keep a first-round bye out of Pittsburgh's hands, Go Ravens.
SD @ DET: If the Lions win, we're pretty much doomed. Go Chargers.
PHI @ DAL: Because of the leapfrog potential, Go Eagles.
CHI @ GB: The Bears are not mathematically out of playoff contention yet, but I honestly don't know how they'd get in. Just to be safe, Go Packers.
ATL @ NO: The Falcons losing out would give hope to the three-way tie explained with the Giants. Go Saints.
So there you have it. By this time next week, we'll know if we still have a shot at a wild card berth, or if we really do need to focus our attention to where we're drafting. This is quite possibly the most important week of the season for the Seahawks, because in order to even have a chance at the playoffs, at least two dominoes are going to have to fall our way. Have a safe and happy holiday, and I'll see you back here next Tuesday!
95 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The front office is going to have to bring this one home for us.
Myself I would trade up . For one thing I really like most of the guys we have and we have 14 coming back from IR. If we draft 8 or 9 guys who do we cut to make room for them? Give-up 4 or 5 picks and get a franchise QB. Plan B. Do the homework and draft a second tier prospect. Sit him behind TJ for a year or two. Either way this is the year to do it for multiple reasons. It wont hurt for us to make some noise and let the FO know we want it all!!!
I look at the draft order and see a lot of teams in the top 6 that may be willing to deal. At least four and maybe five if the Rams want to talk shop.
Hell, the Colts could make six. It would be expensive in picks but we at least are getting closer to the point where we can’t consider anything other than a trade for a top 3 QB. It’s either go get him, or draft a different position, I think.
follow @casetines
I can't imagine the Rams would want to stack the cards against them
Unless the deal was really really lopsided.
I can see the logic in not trading with the seahawks, but.
The Rams are a tremendously untalented team. They have a few stars, and a lot of garbage. If they can pick up an extra first, second, and third. and thats the best deal, i think they have to take it.
Pretty much. It's not quite the same as baseball, but I can't back that up with facts just yet. Would be fun to research.
But teams trading within the division, I mean, since it’s draft picks… the Rams could still look at a deal and say “damn, we need those picks and we could be fleecing them.” if we offer 4 good draft picks for one player that hasn’t proven anything. Rams can be a good team if they just get 20 more starters!
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
It would actually be a perfect match if they weren't in the same division.
The Rams think they have their QBoTF and now they need to stack talent around him. The Hawks have been stacking talent and now need just that one guy. Both would get exactly what they wanted, and then have to face each other’s new toys twice a year.
I never understood the "don't trade within your division" logic.
So what if you’ll have to play twice a year against the guy you traded? That opponent will have to play twice a year against the guys you acquire, too. It’s supposed to be value for value. If it can make your team better, do it.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 20, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Especially when it involves picks.
If it was for established players – that would be one thing. But picks are unknowns.
by BennyGStein on Dec 20, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
Unfortunately with the giants loss last week, they can not help us.
If they win out, they win their division. Thus are not involved in the tie breaking proceedure.
Bears Falcons, seahawks 9-7 or Lions, Seahawks 9-7 with or with out a third team.
They can sorta help us a little bit
If the Giants win out, the Cowboys win this week, and the Falcons lose out, it could set up another three way 9-7 tie without needing the Bears to finish 9-7 (which frankly looks impossible the way they’ve been playing). It’s a very odd situation where we would need to root for the Cowboys this week and against them next week.
I’ve been spending entirely too much time on the ESPN playoff machine.
Again is the Giants win the division,
Dallas and Atlanta in a three way tie at 9-7 with us, we are out, since both other teams have beaten us. this would be second worse case scenario(Lions and Falcons win out is worst)
Ill high light the important areas of the Tie Breaking Proceedures from NFL.COM
TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM
If it is necessary to break ties to determine the two Wild-Card clubs from each conference, the following steps will be taken.
1.If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker.
2.If the tied clubs are from different divisions, apply the following steps.
Two Clubs
1.Head-to-head, if applicable.
2.Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3.Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4.Strength of victory.
5.Strength of schedule.
6.Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
7.Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
8.Best net points in conference games.
9.Best net points in all games.
10.Best net touchdowns in all games.
11.Coin toss.
Three or More Clubs
(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format.)
1.Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.
2.Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)</strong>
3.Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
4.Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
5.Strength of victory.
6.Strength of schedule.
7.Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.
8.Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.
9.Best net points in conference games.
10.Best net points in all games.
11.Best net touchdowns in all games.
12.Coin toss
When the first Wild-Card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the second Wild-Card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. In situations where three or more teams from the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of the teams remains the same for subsequent applications of the tie breaker if the top-ranked team in that division qualifies for a Wild-Card berth.
Three or more clubs, Check
Eliminate same division team(Bears and lions) Check
Sweeps- no team has beaten all other teams BUT or if one club has lost to each of the others. Seattle has lost to Dallas and Atlanta. If the three way was with them, we are OUT
2012, 2013, and 2014 first round picks for Luck? What say you?
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
Some notes on this idea:
- Have we established how far into the future that you can trade draft picks? I thought you could only trade “Next years” picks, but I could be wrong. I just thought we established that on this site.
- Trading multiple picks to move up has not worked out very often, it turns out.
- Teams that have traded up to get a QB include San Diego to get Leaf, Atlanta to get Vick, Baltimore to get Boller, Buffalo to get Losman, New York to get Manning, Washington to get Campbell, Cleveland to get Quinn. Anything after a top 2 pick has not worked out at all, in the top 2 the results are shaky. Even New York gave up Rivers/Merriman/Kaeding picks.
- Not that has any affect on how Luck will fare. But the cost to acquire him could be… umm.. costly. How costly?
- If the formula still holds true: Assume the Hawks pick 16th. You need a 1st, 2nd this year, a 1st and 2nd next year, and probably a third somewhere just to get into a serious talk with the Colts.
- If we do that, then forget about immediately improving DE, LB, RB, WR, OL in the draft. Holes. This team has holes.
- Now, if you saw RG3 fall to 9 and you liked him. We could trade a first and a 2nd, or a 1st, 3rd, 6th, maybe.
-Luck? No way. A QB that slips to the back of the top 10? Yeah.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
After reading Beekers post, I'm inclined to shy away from my suggestion of 3 1st rounders.
You are correct. This team has too many holes.
Eternally looking forward to someone making a Seahawks song based off of Lil' Jon's "Shots" song named "Hawks!"
What holes are real pressing needs that call for first-rounders, though?
Defensive end will be a pressing need if Bryant leaves and Clemons shows his age, but there’s a good chance they enter next season as quality incumbents. They’ll want to improve their depth and maybe draft a future starter at linebacker, so that’s something. But aside from those areas, here’s where the team has a real need: quarterback. For other positions, the FO has shown ability to find late-round value, and there’s some headroom for free agent tinkering here and there.
Two firsts, two seconds and a third for Luck would be a no-brainer for me. What to trade for a Barkley or Griffin pick is a harder call.
And I think there could be a psychological/intangible benefit to trading up for a QB: it would send out a message, loud and clear, that the team is going for it and not treading water. It might even make the place a more attractive destination for free agents who otherwise wouldn’t want to move way out to the Northwest.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 20, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
It's easier to trade picks when they're not names. Just to say "Yeah, I'd trade Pick A, B, and C for Andrew Luck"
Its not until later that you see that maybe you traded Jason Pierre-Paul, Sean Lee, Nate Solder, and Daniel Thomas.
I want a franchise QB as badly as anybody, but within reason.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Or it might be Lawrence Jackson, Kelly Jennings and Aaron Curry.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 20, 2011 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not the point.
Most people wouldn’t trade those three players on draft day for one player on draft day.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
The point is that there is uncertainty in any trade.
You might wind up trading Philip Rivers, Shawne Merriman and Nate Kaeding just to get Eli Manning. In many people’s eyes, the Giants wound up losing that trade — the majority view is that Rivers has had the better career than Manning, at least before this season. And yet, the Giants did what they needed to do to get their guy at QB. Not inconsequentially, they have their Super Bowl ring to show for it. Is it possible that one or more of the picks you trade become really valuable players? Sure. But I don’t think very many Giants fans in the last five years have sat around thinking “aw man, we could have had Merriman on this team.” They’ve been able to get some pretty good defensive ends in any case.
by Suburban Shocker on Dec 20, 2011 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Free Agency usually occurs before the draft.
Honestly im more excited to see that, because im sure the draft will be solid.
Plus there are some KILLER names in FA this year.
QB:Brees,
RB:Lynch, Rice, Forte(RFA), Foster(RFA), Leron Mcclain(FB), Tolbert,
WR.Welker, Bowe, Wayne, Colston, M. Wallace (RFA)
TE:Carlson, Finley, M.Lewis, Olsen, Shockey,Shiancoe, T Gonzalez
DL:Abraham, R. Bryant, R. Mathis, A. Carter, C. Avril
LBs: A.Brooks,Tulloch,Lofton, Mario Williams, Fletcher, D. Levy, J Mays, W. Woodyard. A Specncer, DQ Jackson, C.Campbell
DBs:Mathis, Palamalu, C.Rodgers, D Goldson, J.Mcgraw
Isn't Matt Flynn a FA this offseason too?
Obviously not on the same level of Brees, but there’s been some chatter about him in these threads.
Call me sentimental but I want to go back
And commemorate the place with a historical plaque
He is. Wonder what kind of contract he will really get.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
Yea..
There are a lot of middling free agents, untested players, ect.
Career 68.1 QBR, 58%, 3 TDs, 4 INTs, gets sacked once every 10 attempts.
Im just guessing, but we might be able to get that kinda production from Portis….or pretty much any QB.
Will most likely get a much larger contract than Tarvaris will be willing to accept, and larger than any draftee.
I figure its better to pay less for approximately the same upside. He should get some playing time
You know he is only 2 years younger than Tarvaris? 3 years experience behind him, and completely unproven.
Brees on the other hand would be the perfect game manager for Carroll.
Bress will not leave the Saints
Unless they are in some serious cap trouble and can’t afford him.
by Seahawk_Superbowl on Dec 20, 2011 5:30 PM PST up reply actions
I like a lot of those names
but many of them are nearing the old years, not sure the FO is willing to sign anyone 27+ish.
by Seahawk_Superbowl on Dec 20, 2011 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
I agree.
There are four names I think we really should look at hard though.
Brees- even though he is older, he is phenominal, and doesnt go wild west with INTs.
Avril- young, talented, will have nice career.
Finley- This guy has freakish ability, was the focal point of teh packers offense for a while, though this year had some dropsies.
Tulloch: This guy is the Urlacher of the next 15 years.
Responding to those four:
Brees- Just don’t see him every even considering leaving NO/Payton.
Avril- A younger version of Clemons, Lions won’t let him leave without a fight, would rather have Mario.
Finley- don’t see GB letting him go, and a big-name FA TE is probably the last thing the Hawks need now.
Tulloch- If he’s going to enjoy a 21-year career and retire at 42, by all means, I want him now.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 21, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Mario will most likely command a much higher pay check.
He is only a year older than Avril, but has amassed much better stats. Is a more complete DE too. But avril is quick and small enough he could be moved to OLB, but still rush the passer a ton. If we get either im very happy.
I understand you have a hard time seeing how some top players could leave their teams, but you also have to look at it from a business stand point. Most players want to be signed to a contract a year or more before they go FA. When a team wont resign before then, well the team is saying “we are not sure we want you back” The saints could have locked him up last off season, all year, and now, well He wants to get paid. Same with Finley.
Tulloch is young, strong and has racked up just under 400 tackles in the last three years. 4-5 years of this kind of play, would be really nice.
IM not really sure we need a WR.
In our offense we spread the ball around to many WRs, so we dont need a traditional Elite WR. Luckily we have one in Rice. Health concerns are rices bane, but the good news is its never the same injury.
I fully expect next year to carry 4 TE and 5 WR, maybe 6 WR if we keep only 2 QB
What two-three recievers do you give up on? We have Butler (still one of the faster receivers in the league), Tate (Looks like his third year will be a break out), Baldwin (Top receiver on the team), Durham (Tall, Fast and did make an impact the one game he played in), Lockette(Tall, Fast). Obomanu (One of our top ST players) Williams(Tall)
without even looking at our FAs, we have needs.
Here is how I broke it down. Top two spots of need starters on offense and defense.
QB, TE
DE OLB
We really only need a DE for pressure, and we need OLB in general, a pass rushing OLB would be perfect think Julian peterson/Von Miller type
Tight ends are a spot where you generally dont get a greast reciever and blocker, like Miller. Those that are both tend to go high, the rest can be had as low picks/ udfa
Then you look at aging players, and weak spots. Take the four oldest players (excluding QB, K, P), and the five worst players. these are your areas of concern. Brock, Gallery, Clemons, Bigby. Brock, Whitehurst, Cox, Lewis, Parker(IR) McCoy.
Then I took out anyone that has freakish ability and rookies(IE clemons)(Note im not sure about our LB corp as a whole, just havent seen enough to condemn or praise, Aside from starters)
That is DE, OL, S, QB, CB, CB, CB, TE
Match those up with the needs and im gonna guess these are what the coaches consider “needs” though i dont see the practices so im really just guessing.
QB, TE, CB, DE/OLB
Starter: QB, DE/OLB, RB(if we dont resign Marshawn), TE(2nd TE is like a starter in this offense),
Depth: LB, RB (If we resign Marshawn), OL (Continue youth movement), CB (Cox and Lewis Suck) S, QB(if the coaches are not high on portis’ development)
that being said, im sure it will be BPA slightly skewed towards those positions.
by Oliudyen on Dec 20, 2011 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
They should replace Williams. I expect them to.
Even if you expect Rice to play 16 game (thats a big IF) and you expect Doug Baldwin to get better (reasonable) they shouldn’t rely on only what they have. A year ago the team looked like they had a whole crapload of linebackers, and now it’s the unit that gets recognized the least with two impending free agents.
If the team wants to get a franchise QB, it would be wise to get him another weapon. Even if it’s a third round pick, I do expect them to get another legit wide receiver.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 12:52 PM PST up reply actions
I get that point of view.
Why i think differently is this.
1. WR is one of the hardest positions to transition into in the NFl. Even those talented enough to succeed as rookies usually dont have the polish to be come super stars, example look at AJ green, all talent terrible routes. Its the position you invest and then reap down the road. Take Butler for example. He played his first two years on pure speed alone, but when he learned to run routes he suddenly was open a ton…until he broke his leg. Tate didnt see the field at all his rookie year, year two he started slow and has really picked it up late. Next year he really should be much better. Looking at the ages of our recievers i think you have to let them develop, or you will constantly be over paying for vets.
2. Looking at the Green Bay model for receivers, They like to draft then keep them. There are a few reasons for that. One is cap space its usually cheaper to sign your own receivers, plus you get 4 years at bargain prices, though two of those are generally learning years. Two is Continuity with the QB and the offense. When your receivers know what they are doing and have it ingrained, they can focus more on things like running good routes, fakes, ect. When the QB has timing with the receivers it makes all the difference. Its one of the keys to most successful QBs.
3. We lost a pro bowl MLB. His knees were shot, and he didnt want to take a pay cut. Plus he had hurt feeligns cause the hawks were shopping for elite LB talent. We traded Curry cause he was..well..a bust. I dont think we have a bad LB corps, its just that every other problem position on defense has vastly improved. They are the weakest links on defense, but they are still good. couple that with very little back ups playing(we really dont know how good they are)
We also need a big time upgrade on pass rush, so this is a two for one shot.
I want to be clear that im not arguing about sitting on your laurels. I just think that with WR you dont really want a constant churn. Personal opinion.
I'm a Golden Tate fan by the way. We still don't have any receivers that are like Mike Williams.
Spending a third round pick on a big, physical receiver wouldn’t be a terrible idea or getting one through free agency.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Dwayne Bowe/Marques Colston are FA's possibly
Wouldn’t that be just fantastic? Bowe may be a tad over-rated, havent seen him play much, but he can be a fantasy stud at times. Or Marques Colston, he will likely be re-signed or get big money though (Bowe might demand big money as well). Rice and Colston… drool.
by Seahawk_Superbowl on Dec 20, 2011 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Most of the teams that have traded up for quarterbacks took a player they had already passed on once.
A lot of those trades were from the second round to the middle or bottom or the first, instead of from the first to the top 10.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 20, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure why there were used as an example then.
They’re fairly different situations.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 20, 2011 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Use any example you like as a counter-argument, I don't mind.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not sure what you mean.
You said that players like Boller, Campbell and Quinn are examples of teams moving up for quarterbacks that haven’t worked out. That’s true, but those moves were of a very different nature than what we’re talking about Seattle doing. Trading up from the middle of the first round to the top ten is not the same as trading up from the second round to the first for a player you already passed on drafting once. I don’t know what the track record is for those kinds of move, but they certainly aren’t represented by JP Losman.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 20, 2011 1:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, when I want to find something out, I spend time researching it.
If you want to make a counter-argument, I welcome the debate, but I’m not going to do the research for you. Its examples of trading for quarterbacks on draft day. Go find very similar situations to ours (we dont even know what our situation is yet) and I would honestly be interested to know.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not here to make your points for you.
You made the original claim, not me. I’m not saying you’re ultimately right or wrong, I’m saying you’re getting to your conclusion using erroneous information.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 20, 2011 1:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ehhh... it's not erroneous information. The trades are facts.
I made a point already and used those facts. You’re not making my point for me, you’re asking me to make your point for you. You wanted to write off things I simply linked to and I basically said “Here’s a bunch of examples of trading future picks, make of it what you will.”
I’m not going to do the legwork for you to say “Here’s where trading up into the top 10 has worked.” You do that if you want an answer because I’m perfectly satisfied.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 3:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
You laid out notes on the idea and one of the notes was mostly irrelevent.
I’m not asking you to do any additional research, just pointing out that some of what you said doesn’t apply. If you think that the Jason Campbell trade is at all similar to Seattle trading multiple first round picks to move up and get Andrew Luck or Matt Barkley, I’d be interested in hearing how.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 20, 2011 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Jets
Traded their 17th overall pick, their 3rd round pick, and 3 players to move up to the 5th spot to get Sanchez. Very similar to what the Seahawks will want to do.
What a nightmare scenario
cause Sanchez sucks. Over prices, under performing, and honestly the only reason he isnt ripped not stop is cause Ryan’s wife has nice feet
Thank you for supplying a relevant point.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
This is basically all I was asking for.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 9:34 PM PST up reply actions
That's not a good trade to use as a benchmark,
since they were trading to a team that had the coach they just fired. It’s a rare situation where another team will value players over picks in that fashion.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
For the record
I’m on board with trading a 1st and 2nd to move up to 9. That’s the right price all the way around, especially if it lands us RG3 who I see as a potential star.
RG3 will not last till the 9th pick.
someone will trade into one of the higher slots to grab him.
Let's at least wait until the season is over to start making such assertions.
We have no idea who is declaring. We have no idea what the draft order is. We have no idea what will happen at the common. I agree with your opinion, but its still an opinion.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
His parents are interviewing agents
and he asked for the draft evaluation to see where he would most likely go.
And where he lands on a draft board is entirely dependent on who else is available.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 20, 2011 9:32 PM PST up reply actions
Barkley is declaring, Luck is declaring
Kalil is declaring. Richardson is declaring.
Those five will fill the top 5. If they dont, then atleast one team is wasting its draft capital.
richardson is quite unlikely to be a top 5 pick...
because teams tend to view RBs as partially fungible… much like LBs… Richardson is not the rare elite talent that would warrant a top 5 selection.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
I've not been able to find a rule on the limits on future draft picks
But I know it’s not one year. Richard Seymour was traded in 2009 for a 2011 pick.
Herschel Walker was traded in 1989 in a trade that included a 1993 conditional pick. But rules may have changed since then. I don’t know why they would though.
Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 21, 2011 8:06 AM PST up reply actions
I think the problem is that the market rate discounts a future pick by a round or so
So there’s an issue of diminishing returns.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 21, 2011 10:13 AM PST up reply actions
I believe its a matter of two points why it isnt done, more than any rule.
1. A draft pick more than one or two years beyond the current one is a crap shoot. There are drafts that are extremely talent deprived, and the team you are recieving the pick from may suddenly become really good, dropping the pick to later in the round.
2. Draft picks are not an NFL rule. They are part of the CBA, therefore, if you trade a draft pick after a CBA expires, there could be new rules governing draft picks, or no draft picks at all (though highly unlikely), This could include rules for expansion teams, or the new CBA may invalidate any trades of draft picks at all, in that case one team would be left holding the bag.
I thought there was Potentially a change in the 2011 CBA.
But I could be mis-remembering what I read. I mean, that’s most likely what is happening.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 21, 2011 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
And hilariousnes ensues with...
“OAK @ KC: The Raiders did us absolutely no favors last week against the Lions. They must be punished for their betrayal. Go Chiefs.”
Figures, even with a 6-point lead, the Raiders realized that a win would push the Seahawks closer to the play-offs and promptly conspired to make sure Megatron would get his 2nd TD and a career day (and, incidentally, make sure I lose in one of my fantasy leagues, fucking came down to who had the better WR and I had Roddy White…I thought I was golden!)
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence lies in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
-Sun Tzu-
it was 13 point lead
so they fucking suck even more…=)
I'm not so sure JS/PC want to trade up
They have been talking about how they need one more full draft/free agency period to really get the team well rounded to the point they like. If they trade their top picks away it would seem to contradict their philosophy.
I guess if you have a shot at a QB that you think will be a difference maker – then you might have to take a gamble. It just seems against their method.
If they Hawks try to trade up
I wonder if potential trade partners can lie their ass off with impunity to try to
sweeten the deal. As in, pretend they have a better offer when they don’t.
by broadbill birdwatcher on Dec 20, 2011 12:02 PM PST reply actions
i like taking a young fresh OG, then trade Gallery and a 5th round pick for a 2nd and a 3rd.
get rid of Gallery’s salary and really rebuild the line. Unless we bring in a proven veteran, I still have to see next year as rebuilding – competitive but missing pieces. unless we manage to nab Manning, a DE, LB, and Chris Polk in which case I think maybe we could seriously compete with SF to win the NFCW
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Its starting to sound more like the Colts will keep Manning
It’s not for sure yet, but the sound bites coming from that area seem to be leaning that way. Which means the #1 pick might be up for grabs…
by Seahawk_Superbowl on Dec 20, 2011 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
Compete with SF?
Next season, the niners will have a hard time competing with the Seahawks.
lets see what happens this week first eh?
i think homefield gives us the advantage, and i’d love to say we will dominate them for the next 5 years, but in reality the niners are a pretty solidly build team, although I couldn’t say much about their depth because I just don’t know. Our chemistry may be getting better, but we still were totally bent over by the Steelers on both sides of the ball – a Steelers team that was similarly just bent over by the ’9ers
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
They played the Steelers late in the season vs. very early.
That’s an advantage when playing an aging roster. Not to mention that Ben probably qualified for a temporary disabled parking permit at the time.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
And that
it was the second game in a shortened off season for 2 rookies on the Oline, a new STARTING QB, LG, WR, CB, S, DT.
That game came down to two big reasons we lost.
1. Browner was improperly used and still acclaimating to the NFL speed and skill, He is now a Pro- Bowl quality CB. I do not believe Mike wallace will have another 126 yard effort against Browner, though some of the penalties might still be there. Sherman has the speed to shut him down.
2. Time of possesion. The coaches horribly mannaged the clock in several games, and on top of that the hurry up offense we were running was making that difference even bigger. Marshawn is in a zone right now, and that alone would help balance the clock better.
The entire division could be remarkably tough next year.
Could have 4 winning teams, each without a truly good QB.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 21, 2011 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, the rumor is they're going to clean house.
Or perhaps keep the GM, not sure. Either way, unless there’s a third Harbaugh brother waiting to coach, a winning season seems a longshot for them.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
They've got more talent than they've had now in ages.
McDaniels won’t be back to treat Bradford like an idiot. They’ll have some NFL Roster-worthy CBs. They’ll pick up another WR & a DT somewhere. They might still finish last, maybe 6-10 and be much better than this year.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 22, 2011 4:05 PM PST up reply actions
Not trading up
With so many teams vying for a franchise QB it’s unlikely the Seahawks will get involved in it, unless FO is throwing smoke screen saying they need one more full draft to get them the pieces they need. I think we need to look at other options rather than one of the top 4 QBs this year. Assuming the Seahawks can resign Bryant and Lynch, what are the most pressing needs? QB, DE (pass rushing), CB, OL (still), OLB, WR, RB. What is available 15-20 that would be reasonable for us to draft?
QB: Ryan Tannehill (only other QB in my opinion that will go 1st round outside of top 4)
DE: Coples will be gone, so: Whitney Mercilius – Illinois (love this guy), Brandon Jenkins – Florida State
CB: top 2 likely gone but Dre Kirkpatrick could be there, Alfonzo Dennard – Nebraska
OL: David DeCastro – G – Stanford, Peter Konz – C – Wisconsin, Jonathan Martin – OT – Stanford, Riley Reiff – OT – Iowa.
OLB: Zach Brown – NC
WR: Alshon Jeffrey – SC, Michael Floyd – Notre Dame.
RB: Montee Ball – Wisconsin, Lamar Miller – Miami
Do we dare draft OL again 1st round? You can never have too many good solid OL (as you see with injuries this year). I really dont think we do… it would not shock me if we took a flyer on Tannehill, I really hope not, nothing against the kid I just think we should fill with elite position player rather than 5th best QB in this draft class. Of these players I would take Dre Kirkpatrick if there in a heartbeat… if gone (likely is) my pick is: Whitney Mercilius – DE – Illinois (52 tackles, 19.5 for loss, 14.5 sacks, and 9 forced fumbles), he’s ranked behind only Coples in DE for this draft class. I believe is a junior but is declaring.
I'm not wild about Mercilus.
He relies mainly on his speed rush but doesn’t look particularly athletic. He does some nice things though.
I think Tannehill is the guy
Only got to watch two games late in the season but his upside is huge. Middle to late first round, if he is there, I would snag him and be very happy.
Tannehill
With Barkley just announcing he’s going back to USC for his senior year, he might just move up draft boards into top 15 pick… might not be there. He’s not a bad QB at all, if we do draft him I’m not going to be upset, just others I’d prefer.
2nd and 3rd round.
Round 2:
Chase Minnifield – CB – Virginia – PC size at 6’0", upgrade to Sherman and Thurmund III.
Chris Polk – RB – Washington – I like Forsett but Polk is so much better and paired with Lynch… forget about it! Could be top 5 rushing tandom in league.
Lavonte David – OLB – Nebraska, depth at OLB is needed.
Marvin McNutt – WR – Iowa (you might be saying who?) – unless you are an Iowa fan you likely dont know him, but big WR 6’4" good hands but is very good route runner, good speed and would be solid big #2 (I like Baldwin and Tate as #3/4 in our offense).
My pick: If Polk is there, you have to take him with Lynch could be amazing duo, if Lynch does not resign then you get a potential solid #1.
Round 3:
Nick Toon – WR – Wisconsin
Nigel Bradham – OLB – Florida State
Emmanuel Acho – OLB – Texas
Nick Foles – QB – Arizona
Ricky Wagner – OT – Wisconsin
Audie Cole – ILB – NC State
My Pick: Nick Foles to me is a 2nd round pick to a team that missed out on top 5, but most rankings I look through everyone is saying 3rd round… if that is true, take him here. If he is not here I like Audie Cole – ILB – NC State.
Obviously there are many players that will be available… I’ve looked over various sites, mock drafts, rankings etc to get the names I’ve listed. I did actually look over game tape for most of the players I’ve put here. so in a nutshell my first 3 rounds are: 1) Whitney Mercilius – DE – Illinois 2) Chris Polk – RB – Washington 3) Audie Cole – ILB – NC State
I could live with that
But I think we need to pick up a QB, so I say Austin Davis in the third.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
