Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Getting "The Guy" or the QBOTF isn't easy



We have gone after them before and it didn't work out well. Their names were Rick Mirer and Dan McGuire. Mirer was only a minor bust because Chicago gave us a first for him eventually. Dan McGuire was a complete bust. Not only was he the first QB drafted that year, but there was an internal fight in the Seahawks FO because Chuck Knox wanted to draft Brett Favre in the second. Who knows if he would have developed so well in Seattle, but he definitely ended up better.

Star-divide

My point is that getting pissed because we aren't taking a risk, or because we haven't taken a risk to move up isn't necessarily thinking it through. How much worse would the franchise be if we had traded up to get either of them? Picks that would get us Carlton Gray, Kevin Mawae, Sam Adams and others who would become good players and some all pro. I would have given them up to get ten plus years of the finished Favre, but that's not who we drafted, or who a lot of teams drafted along the way.

Getting the guy is a great goal, but getting the guy isn't as easy as clicking your heals together and asking for it. We could trade away all of this years draft and next years draft and still probably not have enough to get Luck. To get RGIII it will take the top half of this years and next years draft. You might as well call them QB1 and QB2 because that's about all you really can predict about them. What would you trade for Alex Smith or J Russell or any number of first round busts? What would you trade for Manning or Brees? Both questions are equally dumb because you don't know who you are getting when you draft them. You are getting highly regarded and scouted QB1 or QB2. There are questions that you need to ask based on the capital that it will take to draft them.

Will either one of those guys be enough to carry a team that loses that many draft picks?

In our current form and development we are a fringe playoff team. Are you willing to give that up?

Is this shiny new QB enough of a player to lift us out of that without the help that those picks would give? Very few QBs in the league are, so you are essentially betting that this guy will be a top 3-5 QB in the league, quickly as good or better than Manning, Brees or Brady. That's a huge bet.

Are you willing to risk being a bottom dweller for the next 3-5 years over it? Even with PC/JS and their churning ability, that's what you get if you lose the bet.

I want to get the guy too, I am just being realistic about what is at stake. When all is said and done, if the pro scouts think that they have the guy to carry the team, then it will be worth it. If they aren't sure though, then I don't want to make the move.

Comment 261 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Have we settled on a formula for that?

As long as something is approaching zero I’ll be happy.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 30, 2011 1:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Oh, there's no formula.

Any fan discussion involving the Seahawks drafting a quarterback will, without fail, invoke the names of Rick Mirer and Dan McGuire as “proof” that they should not draft a quarterback in the coming draft. Once the M-M Constant is in play, the discussion has entered an infinite loop of pointless platitudes and anecdotes.

by BrianL on Dec 30, 2011 7:28 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

It's like our own Godwins Law.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. - Al Swearengen

by Lo Pann on Dec 30, 2011 7:31 AM PST up reply actions  

NAZIS!

The artist formerly known as mattlock.

Twitter! -- Facebook!

by Matt Erickson on Dec 30, 2011 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

I hate Illinois Nazis.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 12:42 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

First the thread gets Godwin'd

then it gets Elwood’d. This is why we can’t have nice things, people.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 30, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

4 fried chickens and dry white toast bro.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 1:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Hazbro, I got it even if others didn't. Rec worthy.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992

by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 5:37 PM PST up reply actions  

And then I read on... sigh.

I merely didn’t see the rec’s… beautiful, though.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992

by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 5:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Apparently we can't have nice things because of me.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 6:09 PM PST up reply actions  

As long as we can have a full tank of gas and sunglasses, I'm okay with that.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992

by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 30, 2011 10:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Ewww.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992

by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2011 12:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Thats because they are real

We might not want to talk about them, but they are what happens to teams at the top of the draft nearly every year. Someone is always wrong.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 5:03 AM PST up reply actions  

It is a good thing absolutes are so meaningful

The point of them is that they and the consequences of trading up are real. It might be the right thing to do based on the reward, but there is still risk. Its not an easy decision like some are saying.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 7:58 AM PST up reply actions  

Who is saying it's an easy decision, or without risk?

It’s just not a risk you can avoid. You can pick your time when to take the risk, but as a franchise, there is no way to run very long or very far without taking this specific risk.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions  

The problem is that they're usually used as a scare tactic.

There’s really no reason to single out two quarterbacks from 20 years ago when we could be talking about the success rates of all the top QB picks since then.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 30, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

But invoking McGuire and Mirer is absolutely meaningless.

That happened 15-20 years ago, under a completely different regime, in a completely different NFL landscape, in a completely different economy. Nate Dogg is right, using them as evidence against drafting a high-round QB is just a scare tactic at this point. It adds nothing to the discussion.

by Benne on Dec 30, 2011 9:01 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Yes thats the point and it does add something to the discussion

We should be scared that they get it wrong, or we get somebody injury prone or whatever bad thing happens and we just spent multiple draft picks on it.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 4:51 AM PST up reply actions  

You should understand risks, not be scared of them.

Invoking McGuire and Mirer is just a call to emotion, it doesn’t help anyone understand anything about the risks.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2011 9:04 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Carroll and Schneider have two stellar drafts under their belt now.

Along with pulling obscure FA’s out of their ass (Browner, Baldwin, the backup O-linemen whose names escape me but are still holding the fort well), drafting is one of the FO’s biggest strengths. They’ve given me no good reason to worry about getting a draft wrong yet.

(Somebody here is going to mention Carpenter, to which I’ll just say that he’s a work in progress, was improving before the injury, and Moffit was solidly average before his injury. The jury is still out on them.)

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 7:38 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

reasons...

More reason to understand if they DONT draft a QB in round 1, maybe they see too much bust potential.
or see potential at another position(DE LB)

On the other hand, I have to say that our offensive system is built to be about as QB friendly as is possible in the NFL. All we ask is that turn overs are limited. Almost any Rookie QB should do halfway decent with the reads. The major problem is how long will those rookies last. After all if a sack is a drip, we got one hell of a leaky faucet.

Imagine trading away a few firsts and some other picks to get luck and having him creamed over and over, maybe suffering career ending injuries as a rookie.

As for carpenter i saw him making some pretty good plays near the end, and though i believe Okung could be a high quality OT, i wouldnt be opposed to drafting another high OT to plat OT.

A line of Rookie, Carpenter, Unger, Moffitt, Okung would not only be pretty darn good, but also if Okung’s injuries continue will be easier to replace. Also if the Rookie had an injury okung could move back.

by Oliudyen on Jan 1, 2012 2:20 AM PST up reply actions  

The jury is still out on all of them

It’s nearly impossible to judge a FO structurally or draft-wise within two years time.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:28 AM PST up reply actions  

We don't know:

-What pick the Seahawks have
-What pick most teams in front of the Seahawks have
-If RG3 is even going to be in the draft
-What moves other teams are going to make in relation to finding a quarterback
-Bowl results for most prospects, combine and pro day results for all of them
-Much more

It’s way too early to speculate on what the Seahawks should or should not do in relation to this years draft. I know people here have been doing that, including myself, but a “sky is falling” stance on if the Seahawks trade up to draft a QB is a bit much. If you don’t see any scenario in which Seattle should trade up to draft a QB, that’s fine. But you can’t speculate that it will take “two entire drafts” to do so for Luck and “one and a half entire drafts” for RG3.

The sky is not falling. And even if Seattle traded 5 draft picks for a QB, I’m not sure how that would make a team with cap space and an exciting young roster, “bottom dwellers for 3-5 years”

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 29, 2011 8:49 AM PST reply actions   2 recs

If we lost out on the top end of two drafts in a row

We wouldn’t be able to fill a lot of holes that we have now, because free agency can only do so much, look at our current team.
Our young roster is held together with by veterans and extra bodies who will probably be out of the league or playing well below their current level in the next three or so years. Expecting to find enough FA to fill all the holes that would occur from not drafting is unrealistic. To be a consistent competitor you need to add in a few top end draft picks a year. Its hard to compete otherwise.
Even with the genius of PC/JS how bright would our future be without ET, Okung, Carpenter, and Tate?

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 29, 2011 9:10 AM PST up reply actions  

9 of 11 starters on defense are 27 or younger. The entire offensive line with the exception of Robert Gallery is young.

The wide receiver corps with the exception of Mike Williams (who may be gone anyway) is young. Even Marshawn Lynch, if we re-sign him, is only 25(right?)

I can’t see how we would go from 7-9 or 8-8 to 4-12 or a bottom-dweller of any kind over the next 3-5 years even if we only made minor additions. We’re probably going to upgrade the QB position as it is, but if we returned mostly the same roster next year, with some FA additions, my early guess would be that we’d at least be a 7-win team.

I’m not advocating for trading 9 draft picks or something extreme, but Seattle isn’t an old roster by any stretch of the imagination.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 29, 2011 9:44 AM PST up reply actions   2 recs

Defensive End is about the only position where I could agree with stufr.

Some other positions do have holes but not age-related, just talent-related. So pretty much, I’m with you. It wouldn’t hurt us to move up, but I’m into following the plan as they have it. The OL and secondary have much more potential after what they did in the draft (and out of the draft) last season. There are a few more positions that could benefit from a makeover so if they feel like drafting lots of players in this draft they still could build a lot more. Mostly the front 7 seems to be the most pieced together part of our team, and it could get a lot more talented at a couple of positions.

by cashless on Dec 29, 2011 10:25 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, don't get me wrong, we need upgrades at several positions.

I’m not even close to concerned that they’d trade a crazy Mike Ditka bounty for one player anyway, let alone two.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 29, 2011 10:46 AM PST up reply actions  

If the right QB was available, I'd skip a year's worth of drafting for him.

It’s not like the rookie year of that QB we’re going to win it all. But I’m not understanding the impatience of needing that drafted QB to be now, and not 1-2 years down the road. As much as we like the improvement, this is not the finished product. I like the draft-day strategy so far of this front office, and would like to see it continue as often as it can be done.

by cashless on Dec 30, 2011 12:03 AM PST up reply actions  

There are only a few current starter holes

but we get really thin if you go past the starters. We need D ends and depth at DT and LB. We need a LG and we could use another RB since force and leon seem to have lost a step. Those positions will be built in the next few years.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 29, 2011 1:22 PM PST via Android app up reply actions  

But the point is that we have ET, Okung, Carpenter, and Tate already.

That’s a reality that could make trading a number of picks for a QB rather palatable — not that I want them to at this point. Just pointing that out.

The artist formerly known as mattlock.

Twitter! -- Facebook!

by Matt Erickson on Dec 29, 2011 1:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Those four alone don't make a superbowl winner

You have to keep adding a couple of guys like that every year to contend every year and not just be a flash in the pan.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 5:04 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes to this...

There’s always attrition. The ‘adding’ of new guys isn’t always adding, sometimes it’s replacing, say, a Left Tackle whose ankle issues shorten his HoF potential career or if Carp doesn’t come back from his knee injury, or – heaven forbid – ET blows a knee out on opening day next season.

Depth.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:29 PM PST up reply actions  

If RGIII doesn't come out then their is no point talking because none of the other QBs appear to deserve a first round grade

We may grab somebody in round 2 or 3, but none of the others will vault themselves up to being high end first round prospects. A bowl game and the combine don’t change things that much unless you are the Raiders.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 29, 2011 9:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Why go up at all?

Even if RGIII is available, getting him is to expensive from a future standpoint. We have many more needs as others have written. If anything, we could trade down and still get a LG and a RB to put behind Beastmode. We also need LB help and a pair of DE prospects like what Houston obtained this year. Then, we can talk about being a QB away.

by Aztecs on Dec 30, 2011 8:12 AM PST up reply actions  

If PC truly believes that RGIII is the guy then we should

But I’m not convinced that he is. He might end up being a glorified Vick, which is fun to watch and impressive, but injured and not winning very far in the playoffs.
If we had a shot at Luck or Barkley I would be willing to sacrifice in the short term to get them cause four or so years from now I will still be watching. I just don’t think the talent will be available at a reasonable cost.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 8:30 AM PST up reply actions  

I also was not nearly as impressed...

…with Griffin against the Husky D as I was with Price against the Bears’ D.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:32 PM PST up reply actions  

Funny

When Jake did that last year he was condemned for it.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 1:17 PM PST up reply actions  

It's not fair to compare the two.

Yes, everybody made excuses for Locker’s struggles, but those excuses were legitimate. He came in when the program was at rock bottom. Sark needed to clean house and bring in real talent, and never really got to do that before Locker left. That he got to a bowl game at all was an accomplishment—seriously, UW was a fucking dumpster fire then.

Keith Price sat behind Locker for a year and won the job over a blatant nepotistic fan movement to start Montana. By then, Sark’s offensive overhaul was mostly complete, and he thrived. The defense? Um…let’s never speak of that again.

Point is, the two QBs broke out at completely different trajectories in the program. Locker came in at the nadir, and was forced to raise it up to “watchable.” Price came in at the “watchable” period, and made the team a legitimate threat to play in January. Now that defense…fucking hell Holt, you’re holding us back. Go away.

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 7:49 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Don't fucking remind me.

Fire Holt. Fire him into the sun.

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 7:40 PM PST up reply actions  

I have decided he was a product of PC

And without him he isn’t much. He might work as the Seahawks DC.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 7:45 PM PST up reply actions  

He's never sniffing the NFL at this rate.

After failing at UW while being the highest paid coordinator in the country, and people realizing he was just Pete’s puppet at USC? He might be lucky to land an FCS job at this point.

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 7:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Sark was the offense

and Carroll was the Defense. Holt was Carroll’s ball boy.

The Huskies got the O and the Seahawks got the D.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 1, 2012 7:31 AM PST up reply actions  

You didn't hear?

He was canned earlier today.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 31, 2011 8:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Just heard that.

Looks like it was leaked in advance.

FUCK YEAH

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 9:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Of course the risk is great. That doesn't change the narrative at all

It’s a necessary risk. Trying to plan for your franchise without a franchise QB just isn’t viable in the modern NFL. Just because a move is risky doesn’t mean avoiding that move is the best way to go. In fact, it usually is not. Really, y’know, I’m just repeating this. It’s about opportunities, and cost, and opportunity cost. Could it be that this next draft we again don’t have much of a shot at a QB of the future? Possible, I don’t really know yet, for reasons Kenneth states. Is “we shouldn’t risk it, the cost is too great” really a viable attitude to take when running a franchise over half a decade? No, it is not.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 29, 2011 11:30 AM PST reply actions  

I agree

If a franchise guy is available and at a livable cost. if we sacrifice a lot to get it we might have set back the rest of the team a couple of years though. If it works it will be worth it.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 29, 2011 1:26 PM PST via Android app up reply actions  

I agree with Beekers, I would give up the farm for one of the 2 quarterbacks...

But I don’t think P. Carroll or J. Schneider would. I remember Carroll saying something about wanting players that had one extraordinary ability that could be exploited. Could Kellen Moore’s career completion percentage be one of those abilities? I wonder if both Schneider and Carroll would take greater satisfaction in finding that next Brady or Romo than selling out the future to trade up. It certainly seems Carroll and Schneider have taken an unconventional approach in rebuilding the roster, but they have done so successfully. Would they draft Kellen Moore in the 4th? 5th or later? And then bask in that glory if turns out beneficial. (who wouldn’t?)

Not that I’m advocating for Kellen Moore in any way, shape, or form. In fact I’ve barely seen him play. Truly all of this conjecture is reading, and hearing the hype. Does he have enough arm to make all the throws? How much of the success of Boise St. does the system play; did he make it work, or was it the other way around? I certainly haven’t seen a lot of NFL success come from the skill position players on offense. But who knows? I just think the next couple of months are going to be very interesting in seeing what their thought process is, and I’m extremely excited to be a Seahawk fan.

Glory Glory

by bdeviled11 on Dec 29, 2011 7:30 PM PST up reply actions  

For the record...

Kellen Moore is a four year starter, has played well against elite competition (when the BS BCS allows it), is know for his good accuracy legendary accuracy, is reported to be a high character guy and good leader, and since he was a coaches kid has been immersed in football from the time he was immersed in amniotic fluid.

I’d be shocked if Moore doesn’t wind up a successful NFL quarterback if he gets anything ressembling a shot, and would be stoked for the ’Hawks to take him as early as the second round.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:40 PM PST up reply actions  

The knock on him

Is that he is a little on the small side and only ever played on great offenses. It has been said that the rest of the offense has always held him up. I don’t know where this comes from but we could get him in the 4-5th and I would be happy. Especially if the cost of moving up was too much.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 12:44 PM PST via Android app up reply actions  

Yeah, plus his jersey is usually too clean.

Who knows how he’ll fare against pressure.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 31, 2011 3:28 PM PST up reply actions  

I think that's situational.

Because risking too much on a player just to try and make need a part of your draft is bad draft process. In theory I’m with you, but that doesn’t mean I think this has to be the year we have to make that leap, throwing a lot of resources into it.

by cashless on Dec 30, 2011 12:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Didn't say it was

Of course it’s situational, that’s why I said this is a risk you count over several years, not from year to year. But it’s a leap you have to make eventually.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Realistically, how many 1st round picks would it take for the Colts to trade away the 1st pick (assuming the Colts get the 1st pick)

I heard somewhere on the radio that the price would probably be around 4 1st rounders. If Pete/John are convinced that Luck is that guy, I would totally be up for trading 4 1st rounders.

by SeahawksPhan on Dec 29, 2011 11:37 AM PST reply actions  

I think Peter King always sticks to 4 1st rounders

But that’s not happening. Any trade that scale will include players, and the question of how many 1st rounders depends completely on where you’re at in the draft yourself. If a top-5 team wants to trade up to 1 it won’t cost as much as for us as a likely 14-18 team.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 29, 2011 12:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Of course it isn't easy

For every Cam Newton there’s a Ryan Leaf. And for ever Aaron Rodgers there’s Brady Quinn.

The draft is largely a crapshoot, Seattle cannot be scared out of it for the millionth time because obviously they aren’t terrible enough to suck their way into the top 5.

Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters

by SSreporters on Dec 29, 2011 2:03 PM PST reply actions  

Exactly

We can’t continue to be scared of taking a QB because we can easily grab a QB good enough for us and also being an upgrade on Tarvaris.

by biju on Dec 29, 2011 5:38 PM PST up reply actions  

The multi-million dollar question

Who do you take? Realistically, RGIII is likely too expensive from a draft picks to trade standpoint. However, this front office is proving to be pretty good at drafting talent. It is likely that they will find a diamond in the rough QB in the 2nd to 3rd round that ends up surprising us with value in the long term.

Clipboard Jesus is likely gone and they need someone to challenge Portis for the #2 QB in 2012. Who knows, maybe Portis is the QBOTF, but to believe in that requires me to OD on kool aid.

by Aztecs on Dec 30, 2011 8:40 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I completely disagree with you

We wouldn’t feel the effects of two lost drafts during the years that they happened, but starting the year after that and more in 2014 it would start to really hurt. Not only do we have holes, but our depth is non-existent all over the place. Plus the fact is that you are assuming that the talent we have seen this year will continue to perform and develop. BMW is the perfect example. He looked like the second coming last year, but all of a sudden this year for multiple reasons he isn’t. Solid drafts year after year are what make a perennial contender, not just in starting talent, but with depth and insurance for the talent that ends up being one year wonders. So go ahead and believe what you want, I’ll stick with the reality of the NFL and realize that there are ramifications for screwing up two drafts in a row.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 5:02 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Why

If we finish in the middle of the draft then that’s the price. Might not be in picks alone, might be picks and bodies, but it will be two or so top of the drafts worth of talent.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Do you really think that will move us from 15 to the top 5?

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 8:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe that and a couple of starter level talents

But I think you are underestimating what it will take.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 8:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Prove it.

And don’t say “Aren’t you hearing that it could take up to 4 1st round picks to move up?” because that’s not considered proof.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 8:49 AM PST up reply actions  

We just have to wait and see

There is no way to prove it. We are in a new draft pick trade era.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 8:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes

Along with 99.9% of people here. I gave an opinion. It’s an opinion that is built off of the many people on this site who think that we should trade whatever to get on of the top couple QBs. It is my opinion that the risks are probably too high based on the talent that is reasonably available.
If you don’t want to read opinions, then my apologies, that’s all I read here so i thought other opinions were welcome.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

You didn't state your assertion of what it would take to trade up as an opinion, you're using it as a fact to try to back up your argument.

When it turns out that “trading two entire drafts” to get Andrew Luck can’t be proven with any evidence, then you state that it’s an opinion. When people keep telling you that you’re overstating the cost, you use this argument like it’s the way that it is, not that you “think” it “might” take two entire drafts or one and a half drafts to get one of the top two quarterbacks.

Beyond that, we don’t know if Seattle is picking 10th or picking 19th or picking somewhere in between. The difference in trading up from those positions is monumental.

Your assertion has no evidence. You can take a stance against people that would trade “10 draft picks” for Andrew Luck, and you’re right that they do exist and comment here, but your post also assumes that THEY are stating it as fact. Nobody knows what’s going to happen, but if you have a best guess, then feel free to use the evidence necessary if you can find it.

Even your examples, like Sanchez, don’t come close to back up your assertions that it will take two entire drafts. They kind of prove those of us right that it might take 2 first rounders and 2 2nd rounders. Not “everything you got plus players”

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 11:37 AM PST up reply actions  

If you couldn't figure out that it was a guess and opinion, then there isn't much I can do

If you disagree with that, then just say I disagree, like Beekers.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Didn't mean to

I think Beekers is right and we have to do it, I just don’t think its an easy decision or one that we have to make this year. Unfortunately things are lining up against us and I don’t we will pull the trigger again.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 12:05 PM PST up reply actions  

We'll see what happens, who is available, where Seattle drafts, etc.

Hypothetically speaking, would I support trading 5 or 6 draft picks for one player? Yes, if he was the right QB and the organization felt that good about him.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 12:12 PM PST up reply actions  

He'll never get the nomination flip-flopping like that

Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer

by EthelGemerman on Jan 3, 2012 12:06 PM PST up reply actions  

What did the Cardinals give up for Kolb?

Luck or Griffin is going to cost more than that, I’d think.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:48 PM PST up reply actions  

To get Sanchez it took the 17th and the 52nd pick plus three rotational players

That was so that they could have the 5th spot and the contract that used to come with it. Most thought that they reached on him since he might have been available at 17. He just wasn’t that highly regarded. It used to be difficult to move a top 10 pick because the contracts were huge. They aren’t anymore, which will make them more valuable since the selling team isn’t getting out of the huge contract. Add in that there are multiple clubs that will be vying to get RGIII and you set up a bidding war.
This is also just my opinnion

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

What?

There’s no way 10 spots will cost you significantly more than that. Atlanta traded up 20 spots for 2 1sts, 1 2nd and 2 4ths. C’mon.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:32 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

That was without a bidding war

Which could easily happen this year.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Could. It could also not.

But we’re not as far down, nor do we know how far we’d want to move up. So. Panic mongering by throwing around ridiculous claims on picks/players (we’ll have to give up ET!) is kind of counterproductive.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 11:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Agreed

My intention was to point out to the large crowd out there who is screaming trade up at all costs, that there is a cost and we have to be sure of what we are getting to make it worth it.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions  

I think that will make trading up a sellers market

And cost us more

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 4:51 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

This is true, and the Colts are in a very unique situation.

If they decide Peyton is not worth the huge bonus he’s due in March, they can let him walk and take Luck. But if Peyton is okay, then they have the best of all worlds: draft Luck, or trade the pick for a king’s ransom to fix their defense.

by Benne on Dec 31, 2011 7:55 PM PST up reply actions  

In terms of the draft point value system:

Two firsts and two seconds (at average #15 draft slot with 25% value drop for next year’s picks) in consecutive years:
1050 + 787.5 + 430 + 322.5 = 2590 draft points.

Starting bid on the 5th pick in this year’s draft is 1700 draft points. Even with the premiums placed on desperation, that’s a bad value, and no promises that anyone will still be there worth drafting at #5. Two first and two seconds puts at about even with pick #3 overall

For reference, the entire 2012 draft (picking 15th overall) is worth 1815 points. The 2013 draft is worth 1361.25 points (right now). So trading two firsts and two seconds in consecutive drafts at the 15th overall draft position is mathematically the same value as 1.1845 drafts.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Sorry. Math got messed up.

Two firsts and two seconds at pick 15 is worth. 1.4269 drafts.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

To clarify

it’s worth 1.4269 of THIS YEAR’s drafts.

I was trying to figure out what percentage it was out of this year and next year’s discounted numbers, without taking into account that they are only devalued for trade purposes on one end. By the time next year’s draft comes around the 15th pick will be exactly what it was worth this year.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions  

I really, really don't think the draft value chart has any meaning anymore

Then again, it’s as close a guestimate as we have.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 11:30 AM PST up reply actions  

The Julio Jones trade

kinda indicated that it has regained at least a bit of relevancy.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe

Personally I believe it has become too complex for a single chart, and every trade depends very much on context, competitors for the spots, need to move up, strength of the draft, needs of both trading partners, etc.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 11:36 AM PST up reply actions  

In case you were wondering

The Browns gave up 1600 in one pick
The Falcons gave up 1672 in 5 picks.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Cooooiincidence?

Perhaps. Small sample size and all that.

But the league is much closer in line salary wise (adjusted for inflation and etc) to when Johnson originally made the chart than it has been in recent years with the hyper inflated rookie salaries.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions  

Still, that was before the new CBA, though they knew they were going to fix the problem with rookie contracts.

This will be the first true year of drafting with the CBA and the rookie contracts. I assume that the value of picks will go up, but I still think they will be slightly overvalued. It matters what you do with the picks you have, not how many picks you have. Green Bay, New England, Baltimore, have all stayed on top by having the best talent evaluators when picking in the low 20s and 30s.
I’m honestly mostly looking forward to this season being over so we can start using real positions when someone wants to talk about “trading up”

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions  

I've been using #15

because it’s basically the average between the best case scenario (10th) and the worst case scenario.(19th) we’ve been operating under for a few weeks.

Doing what you can with the picks you have is great, but it doesn’t really do anything to the trade value of the picks you have before you make them. Their potential value is pretty much the same, regardless of what team is actually holding them. (as far as trades are concerned).

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Also

Green Bay and New England are notorious for trading down and stockpiling as many picks as they can get. So I’m not sure that your “It’s not how many picks you have” part of the equation is quite supported. The more picks you have, the better chances that a competent drafting team will increase the talent level of a team.

One could say that it doesn’t matter WHERE you draft, but it matters more how MUCH you draft.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:51 AM PST up reply actions  

What you said in that last sentence is better than what I said.

It still takes a talented team of scouts to trade down and be a GB or a NE.

follow @casetines

by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 30, 2011 12:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed.

And I think this is exactly what we may have in the PC/JS era. Which is why I think we should trade down. :)

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 12:14 PM PST up reply actions  

It's a lot easier to trade down,

when you have HOF QB’s that can get you to the playoffs all on their own.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 1:22 PM PST up reply actions  

It's a lot easier to be a HOF

QB when much of your team, backups included are among the best at their respective positions in the NFL.

This is called the “Reverse Sam Bradford”, or the “Tom Brady would not be as good if the Seahawks had drafted him” argument.

Neither HOF level QB in question was in the top 10 drafted which means that neither promote the conclusion that you have to trade all your draft picks for a top 10 guy to find “a HOF QB”. That is merely one way of finding him. (and it doesn’t look statistically like it’s one of the better ones) IMO there are maybe 4 sure HOFers playing right now. And three of them were not drafted in the top ten.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 2:03 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't think you got my point.

I’m not talking about chicken or egg or how to build a team.

I’’m just saying that when you’ve got a HOF QB in his prime, it’s a luxury to trade back, mess up drafts, stockpile depth at various positions, etc. They are operating from a position of strength that gives them more flexibility than other teams.

But if you’ve seen the Patriots this year, you can see they’d be kinda bad without Brady. They’d be just like the Seahawks, except no running game and no Defense. They’d just have some good receivers and nobody to throw it to them.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 4:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Your point is not hard to "get".

I just think it’s glaringly and obviously incorrect.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:19 PM PST up reply actions  

Look at the Patriot drafts, they've been largely bad.

Brady makes them go. Deion Branch is a super bowl MVP there, comes to Seattle and isn’t productive, and then goes back to New England and suddenly regains his form. Brady makes players look better than they are and he’s good enough that Belichick can be secretly bad at player personnel and the Patriots keep winning.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 30, 2011 11:41 PM PST up reply actions  

You are still not getting it.

Tom Brady didn’t come out of college highly touted and set the league on fire. He can not win in a vacuum. .

Deion Branch was the Super Bowl MVP cause he had a great game. Before and after that ONE GAME he was/is largely mediocre even in New England. He has never had a 1k receiving season or more than 5 TD in a year. EVER. Don’t mistake the Seahawks buying him like a bunch of suckers for him being actually “good”.

And I think you are short changing the Pats drafts.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 12:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Tom Brady was developed

and had access to a great team, and a great gameplanner and he grew into the Tom Brady you see today who is capable of carrying a mediocre team. He didn’t START that way.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 12:09 AM PST up reply actions  

This seems to be a very different point than the " it doesn’t matter WHERE you draft, but it matters more how MUCH you draft" point you made above.

Tom Brady inherited a team that went 5-11 the year before and was 0-2 when he took them over. As for the Patriots’ drafts, they’ve done well in the first and second rounds but have had very little success after that. A surprising number of players don’t even make the team as rookies. Having to start two receivers as defensive backs this year is an example of how little they’ve gotten out of their recent drafts.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2011 12:38 AM PST up reply actions  

It's not.

trading back gives you the best opportunity to increase the talent on your team. Including at QB.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 10:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Sorry, but a lot of smart people don't quite see it the way you do.

So no, it’s not common sense.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 31, 2011 11:14 PM PST up reply actions  

That's not how this works.

If you’re going to be condescending and argue things to the death, you need to be able to support your position.

by Nate Dogg on Jan 1, 2012 4:59 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Me condescend YOU without providing evidence?

Funny.

Would you like a spreadsheet that details the correlation between number of draft picks and dynastic level winning percentage?

data collected between 1994-2010

Teams who have adopted the trade down/stockpiling picks strategy do win more often than teams that have less picks. Teams you can make a case for being a “dynasty” or showing those types of tendencies are at the top of the list. Teams that flash and have a good year or two, then fade… they are at the bottom.

There, now where’s your spreadsheet? The one that shows you can build a dynasty by trading your picks away? It’s only fair. Hell, you can look at the one I provided and tell me which of the bottom 10 teams you’d consider to be a “dynasty”. Or the math that explains how having 9+ chances a year to draft great players is less desirable than having 6 chances a year to draft great players. I eagerly await your snide retort.

if you can’t handle being condescended to – maybe you should work on being more polite to others yourself. You’ve really been nothing but rude to me in nearly every post you’ve made.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 12:54 AM PST up reply actions  

The Titans, Rams, Bills and Jaguars are all top ten teams on that list.

That’s not exactly damning evidence. And we’ve discussed how the Patriots have actually been fairly poor drafters.

by Nate Dogg on Jan 4, 2012 11:23 AM PST via Android app up reply actions  

As for successful teams in the bottom ten there are the Ravens and Saints, along with the Jets, Chargers, and Falcons.

Again, far from damning evidence. It doesn’t look like there’s any correlation between team success and number of draft picks.

by Nate Dogg on Jan 4, 2012 11:29 AM PST via Android app up reply actions  

Except that this chart shows

exactly the precice mathematical correllation between team success and number of draft picks in plain terms.

Try not to let your bias discredit simple math buddy.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 4, 2012 11:45 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not seeing where you're getting that from.

Is the chart cut off in that picture?

by Nate Dogg on Jan 4, 2012 8:26 PM PST via Android app up reply actions  

Uh...

I don’t really feel like explaining math to you right now, so here’s a wiki link that explains how correlations are made. Ignorance is not a counter argument

I proved my point and provided you with proof to back up my statement. The numbers are the numbers. There is a significant and provable positive correlation between drafting more players and sustained winning percentage. If you think a .38 correlation is insignificant, that’s YOUR problem, It’s not.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 5, 2012 1:03 AM PST up reply actions  

It'd be cool if you could have a normal discussion, instead of trying to piss on everyone that disagrees with you.

If we’re looking at the wiki article you linked, a correlation coefficient of .37 is right on the border between medium and small correlation. So, no, I’m not convinced that its all about how MUCH you draft. There’s also the problem that first round picks correlate with losing according to those numbers. Even if you think first round pick salaries are prohibitive, and thats only really true of top ten picks, a -.36 correlation is counter intuitive at best.

by Nate Dogg on Jan 5, 2012 10:30 AM PST via Android app up reply actions  

Ok well

I’m 90% sure you are being ignorant on purpose, so I’m going to take this opportunity to stop capitulating to your circular trolling of me in this thread now.

Cheers.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 5, 2012 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Do you not realize how abrasive you are?

You’ve done nothing but call people on this thread wrong, trolls, ignorant, stupid (in so many words).

All over minutia. All the while proclaiming yourself correct while you’re the only one who believes what you’re saying.

Your opinion, while not completely invalid is only a part of the whole story and you’ve been trying assert it as black and white set in stone concrete fact and the only thing that matters.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Jan 5, 2012 2:26 PM PST up reply actions   2 recs

You started this.

So I’m not sure where you and your cohort get off lecturing me.

Evidently you can take it but you can’t dish it out.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 6, 2012 7:59 AM PST up reply actions  

"Trading back" is as context-sensitive as anything

Obsessing with getting draft picks does not automatically lead to good teams, stockpiling is a means, not an end, that’s what I sometimes fear Schneider is missing. Decisions to trade up or down should always be determined by the specific case at hand, not by a vague notion that trading down is always the thing to do.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:31 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

What I'm getting at is that

If you trade at all, trading down and acquiring picks is statistically more likely to help you than trading up and giving up picks. This is not really situational, it is a relatively simple and universal concept.

When trying to pick a selection of players that are ultimately of unknown quality with good players and busts mixed together and educated guessing to try and tell them apart – the best way to get a good one (or more) is by picking a lot of them. The more picks, the more chances that you’ll get good players. Most NFL teams are not made up of people mostly taken in the first round.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 1:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Its the

dont put all your eggs in one basket/diversify your portfolio/inbreeding is bad thing.

Everyone seems to fundamentally understand that more chances is better, except some football fans. :)

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 1:23 AM PST up reply actions  

No, we understand

We just also understand it’s a rule of thumb that should be applied in most cases, but every such rule has exceptions.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 5:52 AM PST up reply actions  

In looking at the chart

the people who take exceptions to the rule are not doing so well.

I don’t think it’s quite fair for you guys to browbeat me about not providing evidence, then when I do, dismiss the evidence without any counter evidence. Beeks, please show me teams with long term success who have traded a good portion of their draft to move up for one player? Show me how it doesn’t negatively affect a team please, since your “understanding” is that sometimes it’s necessary to do so.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 11:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Eh?

I’m not challenging you on the contention that accruing picks is a good tactic, just on the contention that this then means you should always, no exception possible, trade down, and never up.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 12:09 PM PST up reply actions  

What I said:
If you trade at all, trading down and acquiring picks is statistically more likely to help you than trading up and giving up picks.

which is not:

you should always, no exception possible, trade down, and never up.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 1:22 PM PST up reply actions  

And yet all I said is its context-sensitive

So what, we’re both misreading each other’s posts?

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 1:41 PM PST up reply actions  

And I disagreed

What you are saying is that depending on specific player needs, you think that the statistics I provided are irrelevant. You believe I am speaking of trading down is a “rule of thumb”. It is not. It is a proven and measurable statistic advantage. It does not become less so based on the events of one draft.

If you trade up, you are sacrificing a statistical advantage of long term success. Again. Not saying that in all situations this is a bad idea or that it’s impossible to build a dynasty with less than 8 draft picks a year. If you are in a “Win Now” mode – trading up may be beneficial. But in terms of team building and dynasty – it is a poor gamble with statistically the poorest odds of success among all three options.

I am reminding you that those statistics provided include all NFL teams over the past 17 years who have been in all conceivable situations. Therefore they are not irrelevant at all. The data is the data. :)

There is a mathematically significant and provable correlation between long term winning percentage and number of draft picks. This does not change in one year, or in one situation, or in one pick. The percentage is still the percentage until enough data counters it to change the statistical percentages.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 3:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, you are misreading what I'm saying

I agree trading down is the best tactic in general, but that this should not be taken as a dominating factor when thinking about a single draft, and that there are situations where you should trade up. So you don’t disagree with me at all.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions  

I think that most times in a single draft

The trades are anomalies in the data and the status quo and first option is to take the BPA at the pick you are given. But teams looking to improve at a higher rate than the curve should try and gain statistical advantages wherever they may find them. Trading down is one of the easier ones. :)

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Maybe

recording other team’s practices is another one. :)

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 3:13 PM PST up reply actions  

There are complicating factors.

There are things that mitigate the “relatively simple and universal concept” you are proposing. I feel like we had this discussion the other day with the guy whose every post appealed to “Logic 101” or some other “101”.

Here’s one complicating factor you are ignoring: the roster cap. It’s great that the Pats can draft 10 guys in the first three rounds every year, but they’re having to cut a ton of those guys just a few months later. You want to have a lot of picks, but what you really want, bottom line, is an eye for talent. If you can plug holes in late rounds and with UDFAs, there are times when you spend picks.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 2, 2012 1:26 AM PST up reply actions  

Obviously not every player you draft

will pan out. And sometimes you have to cut good players loose because you don’t have room – but this happens to every team.

The Pats seemed to be able to keep both TE they drafted last year, even though they really only needed one.

Having a limited amount of space doesn’t mean you shouldn’t draft as many players as you can.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 1:29 AM PST up reply actions  

None of that invalidates my point.

There are diminishing returns to acquiring multiple draft picks.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 2, 2012 2:42 AM PST up reply actions  

Why are you re-phrasing my point?

This was all explained very well to me in Diminishing Returns 101 which I recommend to everyone.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 3, 2012 1:23 PM PST up reply actions  

I am asking for a clarification to what you said.

Not trying to re-phrase anything.
You said that there are diminishing returns in selecting draft picks?

I asked how. (which I could, I suppose be “when” as well.)
When do you think that having more players available to you every year becomes a diminished return?

The purpose of drafting more players is to give yourself the largest pool of talent to evaluate and choose from. Therefore giving yourself an edge in attaining the highest quality talent over a 52 man roster.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 3, 2012 2:53 PM PST up reply actions  

I agree with the point of drafting more players.

Diminishing returns means the value of going from 1 to 2 second round picks is greater than the value of going from 2 to 3 second round picks. The reason is this: because guys get relatively few reps, OTAs and then training camps, the roster cuts come very quickly. So, a team with a lot of draft picks has to cut more guys, more high-quality guys, in general. There just isn’t time to fully kick the tires on everybody. And it must suck to watch this talent you’ve had to kick to the curb go on to star for other teams.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Jan 3, 2012 3:14 PM PST up reply actions  

Pats

do the bulk of their drafting late, by the way. Per the chart.

by Tokyo Slim on Jan 2, 2012 1:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Given the state of the Pats defense

and the fact the offense is pretty much Brady, I’m not sure it’s working for them.

Now, that’s not to say it’s a bad strategy, mind, but I’m just not sure the Pats are the best example of the strategy working anymore.

by BrianL on Jan 3, 2012 3:27 PM PST up reply actions  

Pats were 11-5 in 2008...

with a bum replacement-level QB.

’Hawks have been 11-5 or better twice. =(

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:55 PM PST up reply actions  

They were 16-0 with Brady.

He took a good team and made them one of the best of all time.

by Nate Dogg on Dec 31, 2011 1:37 PM PST up reply actions  

"I just think it’s glaringly and obviously incorrect."

I gotta ask: what’s your deal?

The point is simple. I’m not talking about how they got there, I’m talking about where they are.

And where they are is in a position where they can waste picks, trade back, and take risks in the draft and still make the playoffs year in and year out. Because they have a Tom Brady and an Aaron Rodgers and those guys will win games.

No team makes this more clear than the Colts. They drafted bad for years and still were contenders because they had one of those elite QB’s. And without him they are crap.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 31, 2011 7:46 AM PST up reply actions  

Where they are

is because of how they got there.
You can’t just take a veteran, fully formed HOF QB and demand we get one without building the environment that builds them. Unless you are talking about a straight up trade for Manning, Brady, Brees, or maybe Roethlisberger.

If you want to develop a HOF QB, you need to develop a TEAM.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

Is that right?

The Carolina Panthers went from a total shit show to a competitive team overnight with Newton. And they’d still be a shit show without him.

The Packers were on the decline before Rodgers developed. He is the difference.

Neither the Packers or the Patriots are even a playoff team without their elite QBs. They are bad teams.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 31, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions  

I think it is more about coaching and collecting the right talent

Of course the HOT QB is the difference maker though. The real question is which one would have developed on a bad team? Manning did, but Rogers and Brady developed on the bench and on good teams.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 12:22 PM PST via Android app up reply actions  

So the Bucs in 2010...

…then in 2011… oh… yeah.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:58 PM PST up reply actions  

The Packers were on the decline before Rodgers developed.

2007 Packers (13-3) Favre: 356-535-4155-28-15
2008 Packers (6-10) Rogers: 341-536—4038-28-13

The team regressed, not the play of the QB position.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 1:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Ron Rivera

And the new coaching staff have nothing to do with Carolina’s success? Its all because of Newton

by eohawkfan on Dec 31, 2011 1:52 PM PST up reply actions  

Fox is not a bad coach.

He’s got the Tebows and that mediocre team on the verge of the playoffs.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 31, 2011 2:07 PM PST up reply actions  

Steve Smith and the entire running offense was ignited.

Because Newton has been more competent of a QB than Delhomme or Clausen did for two years

"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff

by EequalsMc2 on Dec 31, 2011 2:27 PM PST up reply actions  

If That's your idea of competitive:

The Carolina Panthers being 6-9… that must mean the Seahawks are one game more competitive with Tarvaris Jackson at QB.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 10:55 PM PST up reply actions  

apparently

you haven’t read anything I’ve said. So I’ll stop talking to you now.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 31, 2011 10:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Also

I just mined some Falcons board pre-draft and there was speculation that they’d trade up for Jones/Green and someone was like “No F’ing way they should do that. They should just stand pat and draft BALDWIN.”

I had to lol.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Fantastic find.

I actually laughed out loud reading your comment. It was one of those sinister diabolical type laughs. My 3 year old took that as a cue to attack me. Good times.

by brugg on Dec 30, 2011 3:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions   1 recs

This is backwards.

The CBA should make it more relevant now than it’s been in years, since the value of the picks is not blown out of proportion by insane rookie salaries.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:05 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

this

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 4:54 AM PST up reply actions  

It's not backwards

Because the landscape has completely transformed since the chart was drawn up, first by the salaries inflating, then by an entirely new CBA. How is the current NFL and draft comparable to what it was when the chart was drawn up.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 31, 2011 6:23 AM PST up reply actions  

Are you familiar with the history of the chart? A lot of bigger changes have happened than this new CBA

The chart was drawn up in the 80s. At the time, NFL rookie contracts weren’t exhorbitant. Then they became so. They are no longer so. The rookie salary cap, if anything, has brought them MORE in line with the contracts at the institution of the chart than LESS so. Throughout these changes, the chart has endured.

Meanwhile, we’ve had a number of changes to the CBA since then (1993, 1998, 2006, 2008, 2011) without huge changes. I don’t know how the minor changes to the last CBA would compare to the introduction of free agency, the hard salary cap or the later introduction of restricted free agency and the franchise tag. High draft picks became very valuable at the introduction of the chart, then they became less so and now their value is returning. Yet throughout these changes, the chart has endured.

The chart has always been a rough guide for teams, but it’s been surprisingly consistent over the years. Beyond this, the recent changes to CBA should only bring the value of high draft picks MORE in line with their value at the introduction of the chart, not LESS so.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions   1 recs

I didn't argue against it being "less so" outdated

But that’s just a gradation, it’s still really outdated.

Also, how do you know the chart “endured”? I really haven’t seen any concrete behind-the-scene words that it is actually in use, it just happens to coincide with trades sometimes.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:34 AM PST up reply actions  

This is what you argued
I think that chart’s usefulness just got destroyed with the new CBA.
by Benne on Dec 30, 2011 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
This is backwards.
The CBA should make it more relevant now than it’s been in years, since the value of the picks is not blown out of proportion by insane rookie salaries.

by Tokyo Slim on Dec 30, 2011 11:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s not backwards
Because the landscape has completely transformed since the chart was drawn up, first by the salaries inflating, then by an entirely new CBA. How is the current NFL and draft comparable to what it was when the chart was drawn up.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Dec 31, 2011 6:23 AM PST up reply actions

Let’s not practice revisionism.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 10:44 AM PST up reply actions  

If we want to look at the relative value of draft picks over time

we can compare the values of traded draft picks. For example, the Falcons gave up ~1650 points of draft value (depending on the valuation of the future 1st and 2nd) for a 4th overall pick valued at 1800 points. This is a difference of less than 10% and, as you’d expect, slightly undervalues the higher pick.

This trade occurred over 20 years after the adoption of the chart in the late 80s. No change in the recent CBA was as big as the big changes (adoption of FA, adoption of a hard salary cap, astronomic rise of rookie salaries, etc) that happened during those 20 years.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:04 AM PST up reply actions  

Another example is the Redskins trades

which turned the 10th and 144th picks (1344 points) into the 16th, 79th, 105th, 146th, 178th and 217th picks (1339 points).

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:08 AM PST up reply actions  

I made a mistake here

The Falcons traded up for the 6th pick (valued at 1600 points), not the 4th pick (valued at 1800 points). The absolute difference would be reduced (to ~3% from ~8%) but the sign would be changed.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 1, 2012 11:10 AM PST up reply actions  

When did BMW look like the second coming?

Were we watching different teams in 2010? He was our most productive WR, true. But, that is more an indicator of how devoid of talent our WR core was in 2010 rather than showing BMW to be elite. Not trying to be rude or insulting, but BMW was a poos excuse for a #1 WR.

by Aztecs on Dec 30, 2011 8:43 AM PST up reply actions  

True

But most thought that he would progress this year. At least a little, not regress.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 30, 2011 8:49 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree on the progress part

I think Thomas had an earlier post about this exact subject. I agree with most of what he said, including the part where TJax will not throw to a “covered” WR because he may turn the ball over. Well, if that is true, why in the hell did we go and get some huge WR, including retaining BMW. The growth part of BMW will likely be more apparant if he hangs around and we change QB’s.

by Aztecs on Dec 30, 2011 8:53 AM PST up reply actions  

The question is not why we got WRs in the mold of Rice and BMW

The question is why we matched them up to Tarvaris.

The answer is: because there was no better alternative at a reasonable price. These tall WRs still have PC’s preference, even if they do not match up that well right now.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:35 AM PST up reply actions  

I don't think he showed any room for growth

But his statistical output could increase in a better situation.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes

He played inconsistently after a significant hiatus from professional football. It wouldn’t be out of the question to expect improved consistency with more time playing and practicing. Not that it means much, but he, himself, mentioned his desire to improve and become more consistent.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 30, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions  

Who's banking on BMW?

More than a few of us expect him to gone next season.

And this non-existent depth you speak of? We’ve got an army on IR right now and still are playing competitive football. Line depth, receiver depth, TE depth, secondary depth, special teams depth. We could still upgrade a few positions, but in reality the holes are few.

Non QB holes:

LB/DE. A pass rushing OLB could complete the D. Brock and Hill could be replaced. Hill should still be around next year at least for depth.

RB. Forsett should be replaced

CB. Trufant may be back next year on a restructured contract, or he could be replaced. Truth is he wasn’t missed and his absence resulted in Sherman’s emergence. I’m not concerned about the position as a “hole” though.

That’s 2 or 3 players outside of QB that qualify as holes in the roster. Other positions can be improved, but they don’t fall into the dire need category.

I can see some more OL depth, especially if we lose some of our backups to FA. But speaking of FA, we’ll be buyers again too.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 1:14 PM PST up reply actions  

That reminds me

I’m not sure where the whole pass rushing OLB idea came from. We’re not a 3-4 defense, our LBs have always been significantly slower and bigger than 3-4 Ds have. Right now our OLBs are by far more dedicated to covering flats/gap containment than pass rushing, and having a dedicated pass rushing OLB is basically a sell-out defense. This D’s problem is lack of pressure from the front four, before its problem is lack of blitz pressure.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 1:23 PM PST up reply actions  

It's just the idea of trying to kill two birds with one stone.

USC was linebacker U and I’m pretty sure Pete could make it work.

70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.

by hazbro24 on Dec 30, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions  

It's just speculation, but it's a compelling idea

While it’s true that we don’t have a prototypical 3-4 defense, neither do we have a prototypical 4-3 defense, either. While our current LB personnel wouldn’t fit a 3-4, it’s likely that our 2012 LB starters will look significantly different from our 2011 LB starters.
Also, Clemons has been dropping back into coverage with some regularity and KJ Wright was thought to be a LEO-style passrusher by some when he was first drafted. This is all before we consider that the defense or defensive personnel we have now might not be the ideal scheme or personnel that the coaches envision or will use in the future.

I agree that our pass-rush needs help. We take Red off the field pretty regularly and Brock hasn’t really been getting it done on those passing downs. I think a pass-rush specialist to match-up with (and backup) Clemons on passing downs would help, but another idea would be to add another LB to the mix that could blitz on earlier downs (with the LEO possibly dropping back in coverage).

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 30, 2011 1:54 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

Clemons dropping back has been sporadic at best, and is often firezone rather than 3-4 based.

Even if we were closer to the 3-4, you’re still left with the problem of where you get the pressure from in base formations before you consider getting pressure from specialized blitzers. Firezoning the leo end with an OLB really fixes nothing because you’re just replacing one dedicated pass rusher with another. You’re looking to either overload the soft side or get pressure from both sides, which ideally we did with two normal if undersized DEs on passing downs (the Colts pass-rush model, really). You can not with great regularity sell out to blitz a fifth guy on passing downs, and even if it was a viable model of defense with our personnel, it is not an answer to the actual problem, which is that we don’t get pressure from our front four.

Also, Red kicks inside much more than he’s taken off the field, over the year.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 2:30 PM PST up reply actions  

How many 3-4 defenses get great pressure from the 'front 4' in a base package?

The problem isn’t that our base defense isn’t producing enough pressure, it’s that our defense, as a whole, isn’t getting enough pressure. An easy solution to this is to (a) upgrade the ‘Raheem Brock’ position and (b) get more production out of the blitz. This might be accomplished by drafting a single player. I think Aldon Smith’s emergence (not that we’re likely to find a player like him in this draft) demonstrates the value of even a part-time pass-rusher.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 30, 2011 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   1 recs

The 3-4 defense don't have a front four, they still have to be capable of producing pressure without blitzing, that's what "base pressure" means

In fact, that’s exactly why Aldon Smith can’t start.

And yes, the problem is exactly that the base defense isn’t producing enough pressure. The buck always starts and ends with your base rushing process, not with blitzing gags, not even for the Saints.

And I can’t stress this enough: WE’RE NOT A 3-4. People are getting a little confused about this. We don’t two-gap, so our linebackers have to hold gap containment. That locks them up, so they need to be bigger and harder hitters rather than quick guys. Could this system change? Sure. But let’s not wildly misinterpret what it is now.

I don’t think there are any easy solutions to fixing this defense, because I’m still not sure it’s not structurally flawed. A specialized DE to play opposite Clemons on long downs would go a ways, sure, but that’s not a structural solution.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 7:35 PM PST up reply actions  

We call it the LEO but at USC it was called the "Elephant LB"

Here’s something from the way back in 2010:

*It sounds like Seattle will be sticking to a 4-3 defensive alignment, which is the same system Carroll has been running for over 30 years. However, Carroll said he could use some 3-4 principles within that system, which includes using a stand-up defensive end on the weak side.

"We can play 4-3 principles, which is what we’ll do, with 4-3 personnel or 3-4 personnel," Carroll said. "It just depends. Meaning it’s a defensive end vs. an outside linebacker-type.

"That’s the first thing I took a look at to see what’s Aaron Curry all about. Can he be that kind of player who is an outside rusher, where you would rush him more like two-thirds of the time he’s a rusher and some of the time he’s a dropper. As opposed to the other way where he’s an outside backer, where he drops 80 percent of the time and rushes in pressure situations 20 percent of the time."

USC used Brian Cushing and Clay Matthews as stand-up ends during part of their careers with the Trojans, and Seattle used Darryl Tapp and Nick Reed in that capacity at times last season. USC calls this the elephant position, which you can learn more about here. But expect Curry to be used in this capacity as well, as Carroll believes he plays better at the line of scrimmage, and I tend to agree.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2010/01/22/morning-links-carroll-talks-scheme/

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 12:28 AM PST up reply actions  

And more here:
"It’s a position that can take on different sizes and shapes, but it is a spot – a little bit of a hybrid position – that is kind of a linebacker, kind of a defensive end," Carroll said. "We picture it as a speed-oriented guy."
"This new role is something that I’m comfortable doing," Clemons said. "You get to do all of the things you do as a linebacker and you get to do things you do as a defensive end. I’m comfortable in both those positions, which is why I think coach Carroll wanted me to play this position."

http://www.seahawks.com/news/articles/article-1/Just-call-him-%E2%80%98Leo%E2%80%99/b7b6abb4-3cbd-4140-9806-a46c2c813322

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 12:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Is there anyone here who didn't know this already?

Not sure why it’s brought up.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 31, 2011 6:24 AM PST up reply actions  

It's this bit that I've been trying to address
I’m not sure where the whole pass rushing OLB idea came from. We’re not a 3-4 defense

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

The reason why I think this ground is worth covering again

is because we have to map our terminology to the larger lexicon of the league. So, we can call our guy a Leo, and Elephant, a gibbon or a axolotl for all I care— the question is, when draftniks talk about, say, a great OLB pass-rushing prospect— does that mean he’s a great prospect for us, in our scheme.

I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. Just thinking out loud. I assume we would take Von Miller 2.0 if he’s available.

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 31, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions  

I think there's plenty of evidence that the coaches are very flexible with the DL

the question is how much we’re invested in Red (a FA) and Clemons (an older guy), how soon (or if) we’d like to find replacements and whether or not those kind of guys would be available in the draft.

We may not be able to find a Von Miller anytime soon but we certainly worked guys like OLB Justin Houston as recently as last year.

by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 31, 2011 7:51 PM PST up reply actions  

Because we're not

People are starting to get too confused by this, schematically our defense is nothing like a 3-4 defense. The only thing it has in common with the typical 3-4 is that three of our hands-down players are really big and the fourth is closer to linebacker size. That’s ignoring how we don’t have three two-gappers like traditional 3-4 does (or only one-gappers like the Phillips 3-4 does), that our linebackers (including those drafted by this FO) do not have the size/speed makeup of 3-4 linebackers (in any scheme). Our defense, especially up front, is most similar to the one-gap 4-3 wait-and-see (as opposed to one-gap attacking style) that Bradley/Wash also coached up in Tampa Bay. I’m not a huge fan.

I should maybe do a writeup on the scheme, if not schemes in general. There is pretty mass confusion.

Now if the whole point of this hullabaloo is “we should add a Colts-type DE as a rush specialist” then, well, sure.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:41 AM PST up reply actions  

One specific point that is a bit odd here

You guys do realize we don’t actually have a standup end as a base defense concept, right? Especially not since Wash took over and traditionalized the line.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:58 AM PST up reply actions  

So why does this preclude a rushing OLB

Denver switched to a 4-3 and they got von miller as a pass rushing OLB. Seems to be working for them. Think Julian Peterson, the guy was a freak, and when his number was called to rush, he got there.

its not so much a manner of a 3-4 defense that uses a LB to rush every down, but of making blitzes count. That forces the offense to hold more players in to block and then chess ensues. If you blitz your LB and he never hits home, never gets pressure its not good!

Wouldnt changing Red bryant into a pass rushing end cause more philosophical changes in the defense than adding an OLB who can get home?

I could not find blitz percentages, but with only 7 sacks from LBs and 1 sack from our safeties, The bucs are last in the league at 18% blitzing, and the hawks are soemwhere above that.
The Hawks average 66.6 defensive plays per game, Though i cant find the blitzing percent for the hawks this year its between 18% and 47.9%, that calculates out to 12-31 blitzes per game.

If we are on the low end, our LBs hit home with a sack once every 22.5 blitzes. if we are on the high end we hit home at a one in 58.1 blitzes. not knowing the actual blitz rate of the Hawks, averaging the two out, its about 1 LB sack every 40 blitzes. A good pass rush OLB could improve that ratio quite a bit.

Im not saying sacks are the end all be all, QB hits and hurries matter too, but can anyone deny that not only does the team lack QB pressure in general, but our LBs do as well?

Hill is by far the best at hitting home(50% of LB sacks), the rest are pretty terrible at getting home. I dont see how you CANT see this as a need.

by Oliudyen on Jan 1, 2012 1:10 PM PST up reply actions  

Because our current system doesn't call for a rushing OLB

And I repeated TWICE that that does not preclude us changing to a system that does, so because apparently twice is not enough, here it is a third time: that does not preclude us changing the system.

But, my point about 3-4 defense is that I suspect this whole “lets add a rush OLB” comes from lazy comparisons of our system to the 3-4 even though they’re functionally very different when it comes to LB play.

Also, I never denied an upgrade in our LB group was a need, I think our LB group is pretty poor overall, but a high need or answer to our offensive woes? Nah.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 2, 2012 5:57 AM PST up reply actions  

OK

So you said the same thing three times, but no mater how many times you say it doesnt make it right. Didnt work for chicken little.

You keep harping on a 3-4 system. Do you think adding Suggs would hinder our defense? excluding cap space concerns, cause as a rookie you make what you get drafted at.

First a calrification of Blitz, a Blitz is when you send more than four players in an attmpt to stop a running back behind the line of scrimmage or disrupt a QB.

The league averaged 22 blitz a game. Our LBs get a sack once in 40 blitzes at this ratio. If you have a quality blitzer you might dial up half of those blitzes with that player. that is 11 blitzes for that LB. if he is twice as good as the average Seahawks LB he will get 176 chances and land 4.4 sacks. If your name is Wright or Hawthorne you land one sack every 80 attempts.
if he is twice as good at rushing the QB as the average hawks LB , he will get 8.8 sacks, or one in every 20 attempts. Rookie LB who can pass rush 1:20, Hawthorne/Wright 1/80

This is only an increase of 4.4 sacks(over average, 6.6 over Hawthorne/wright),
but you are not changing any scheme! scheme has nothing to do with it! Only now offenses have to plan for a very good pass rushing LB, this could open things up for other people to succeed as well. If your name is Wright or Hawthorne you land one sack every 80 attempts.

The Hawks have 35 sacks on the year and the top teams(tied) are at 50
Pick up two of thoserushing LBs and suddenly the hawks with out changing scheme or anything else, now suddenly would be at about 47.2 sacks, thats near the top of the league.

Another benifit, is that pass rushing LBs usually have very good speed, that helps in coverage, though that doesnt guarentee great coverage, it is one of the physical needs.

Again it has nothign to do with scheme, and everything to do with getting more bang for your buck. Its like putting Payton Manning in our offense. We keep the same 50-50 ratio of balance, same scheme, only now we get more play from the position.

Now if after you pick up that pass rushing LB, you wanna tweak or change the defense to greater accomidate them, thats a different story.

by Oliudyen on Jan 2, 2012 11:41 PM PST up reply actions  

I don't harp on the 3-4

I’m trying to transmit an understanding of how our scheme differs from the 3-4.

I didn’t say blitz is not useful, I said it’s not a replacement for base pressure. Teams that need to sell out for pressure rarely do well. In particular, this debate is skewed by the way you present it, by just counting sacks. Blitzes are good for getting sacks, that doesn’t mean they actually improve your defense. Earl Thomas blitzing gets better pressure, but several weakens our pass defense.

Pass rushing LBs do not necessarily have good coverage skills. See KJ Wright, or Aldon Smith. If you’re discussing simply upgrading the OLB position with a player who can do everything better than our current ones, that’s another matter, and not one I’ve been discussing so far. I’ve been responding to talk of an OLB rush specialist.

And no, you can’t just add a pass-rushing OLB to any scheme as if it’s a scheme-transcendent position. It’s not. It doesn’t fit in Tampa 2 defenses, it doesn’t fit in our current scheme. Could we change the scheme to add an OLB? For the fourth and hopefully final time: yes. I never once denied it’s possible to change our scheme again to accommodate a pass rushing OLB. It would’ve made more sense for last year’s scheme than this year. But people are seemingly ignoring the changes it would necessitates, and how our defense differs from 3-4 defenses or defenses like Denver’s that work well with these concepts. It’s odd, when I suggest replacing Red to fix the pass rush I am told off for trying to fix a system that’s not broke, but it is apparently not clear why a pass rush specialist who would make an actual difference to this defense necessitates pretty big changes.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 3, 2012 9:33 AM PST up reply actions  

Denver isnt using a 3-4 this year, they run a 4-3, they stack Dumervil and Von miller on the right side

I know it seems odd, being that denver has been a 3-4 team forever, and because Fox is one of the best 3-4 defense callers(a hard skill to master) but he saw what they had and decided a 4-3 would be best, he occasionally changes back to 3-4 scheme, but they just dont have the big bodies for a 3-4.

KJ isnt good at pass blitzing nor in coverage, so I dont see your corrolation.

I havent watched enough tape to see Aldon Smith in coverage, so if you have ill give you credit for that. Like i said though it usually gives them the physical speed to cover, but if their technique is off, well they could be crappy in coverage. Technique is teachable, speed isnt.

I 100% agree that blitzing isnt a replacement for getting pressure with your base package in a normal 4-3 defense. The concept of our scheme is quite different though. I dont know every minute detail of our defense, but listening to Pete, and his philosophies, seeing how the defense works, its clear we need better coverage from the LB position, we also need WHEN WE DO BLITZ to see better results, over all our LBs are pretty slow, most mobile QBs we faced this year can out run our LBs.

I think everyone can agree we would rather have a complete pro bowler at the strong side DE spot, one who gets pressure and stops the run we would take that, Those are expensive though, and honestly Seattle isnt the best FA spot, maybe with JS that changes.

Can we make this defense top 10 with Red hell yes, can we make this defense Elite with Red, maybe.

I dont discount the fact that sacks and pressure in general are important, but the Hawks are fourth in the NFL in INTS. Some people might say thats just luck, but I dont think so. We put people in possition to have to be one dimensional. That might be why no one is running around saying the defense is broke. As far as pressure goes

I 100% concede that more pass rush in those situations will help the defense. No one is telling you off because you say Red bryant is the reason we have reduced pass rush. Saying Red bryant is the reason our defense is broke, is another story.

We are 7th in points allowed, 9th in total yards allowed per game, 4th in INTs, 9th in PD, and middle of the pack in all other defensive categories. By NLF.com standards we are the 9th best defense in the league. We are 4th in DEF EPA, 5th in pass EPA, 6th in pass WPA, even Football outsiders has us as a top ten defense. Its hard to hear our defense is broke after years of it actually being broke. When you are used to Russel, Grant(i think he is good) Jennings, wilson, and trufaunt. no pressure at all, givign up big run plays and big pass plays, and playing some kind of cover 11 zone with Mora, well…

Clearly something is working in the philosophy and talent of our defense.

As for using Sacks, by all means show me a different stat that encompasses pressure better, that shows the seahawks are worse than middle of the pack and ill be happy to hear it. Its clear that the hawks defense DOES have issues keeping it form being elite.
Lack of pressure/sacks
Lack of LB coverage/hitting home on blitzes
Terrible offense

I think every one of these needs to be addressed. Our defense had the 9th most snaps in the league, that isnt terrible, but its bad. most of that can be pinned on the offense for not controlling the ball. A lot can be placed on the LBs who lose coverage to faster backs and TEs coupled with lack of rush(its easier to cover for a 2-3 seconds than 5-6). Penalties hurt us pretty bad as well. Defensively we gave up 907 penalty yards. a little over 56 yards per game.

Shoring up half of those might move us into elite status. There is more than one way to skin a cat to become more elite, it just seems Red is the easiest target for pressure.

As for Pressure Lbs not being effective in Tampa-2, in 2005 Leroy hill had 7.5 sacks in Tampa-2, in 2006 Julian peterson had 10 sacks in a Tampa-2, in 2007 Julian peterson had 9.5 sacks in a tampa two. If you remember this was the first guy i used as an example as a LB who can yes, transcend the scheme to bring pressure. Ware and Suggs would be modern day equivilents, their numbers would not be as inflated as they are now, but they would trancend the scheme. Were’s 22 sacks would probably be closer to 12-14 in our scheme.

Another major factor in pressure is getting a big enough lead to force your opponent to have to become one dimensional, something the seahawks did not excell at this year. That alone could ratchet up the pressure.

by Oliudyen on Jan 3, 2012 11:23 AM PST up reply actions  

I said Denver is a 4-3

But they play a different, more attacking style 4-3 than we do. Not all 4-3s are functionally identical.

Wright is good at blitzing.

Pete Carroll can say a lot, but our defense is a one-gap-and-contain, reactive 4-3, where the linebackers are tied up in gap containment and flat coverage over being free to blitz. That’s pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying. This 4-3 defense is not a good fit for a rush OLB specialist.

I already pointed out I don’t mean to argue I hate this defensive scheme. But when people talk about pass rush OLB, I think of 3-4 OLBs, and that doesn’t fit our scheme.

Marshall ran a very blitz-heavy package. That’s not Tampa-2 style at all, Tampa-2 is all about pressure in the front four. But as I mentioned, I’m talking about a pass rush OLB because that’s what I figured people were bringing up. Julian Peterson and Leroy Hill are not good examples of that.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 3, 2012 11:44 AM PST up reply actions  

Pete Carroll can call a carrot an apple

I’ll still call it a carrot.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 31, 2011 6:24 AM PST up reply actions  

I do think it would doom us to the 5-11 to 9-7 range for five years though.

Little depth, a few injuries and pow suck.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:43 PM PST up reply actions  

We've just rebuilt in two years, how is a five year sentence possible?

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."

by shams on Dec 31, 2011 3:44 PM PST up reply actions  

I think he has a point

It’s very easy to get stuck in a mediocre rut. In fact, the Seahawks have often done so.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:44 AM PST up reply actions  

I still believe Josh Portis has a bright future.

He looked impressive in preseason. He’s mobile, has a strong arm and reminds me of Jackson. I would like to see him play more (maybe this week?) to prove himself but so far I’m happy with him as our QBOTF.

by luciuswolfey_96 on Dec 30, 2011 9:40 AM PST reply actions  

Banking on Portis to be the QBotF based on one preseason and an incomplete full season on the bench would be beyond folly

The FO knows more than we do here, obviously, but you don’t like at an UDFA QB who does fairly well but is too raw to analyze within one year and go “well, that’s the QB spot settled then”.

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Dec 30, 2011 10:36 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree with all that you pointed out.

What I meant to say in my post above was that I don’t think he is the QBOTF right now but I would like to see him play more so we could get a better read on him. In my mind he has the tools to be a star but as you said he is too raw.

by luciuswolfey_96 on Dec 30, 2011 12:07 PM PST up reply actions  

that DE

We drafted from Oregon looked amazing in preseason as well and is no longer on our roster. It’s preseason, there was a reason Portis wasn’t drafted and why he is still behind the pedestrian TJack and inept Clipboard Jesus.

by Seahawcla on Dec 30, 2011 12:09 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions  

Nick Reed?

I understand more about where you guys are coming from.

by luciuswolfey_96 on Dec 30, 2011 4:01 PM PST up reply actions  

I'd trade every draft pick in the next 2 drafts for Luck.

Schneider loves his picks though. I still doubt a trade up will happen.

by MT Olson on Dec 30, 2011 2:24 PM PST reply actions  

I really don't think Luck is all that he is hyped up to be.

I think he will be decent but not amazing. Then again I felt the same way about Newton.

by luciuswolfey_96 on Dec 30, 2011 4:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Luck does not have many faults.

"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff

by EequalsMc2 on Dec 30, 2011 8:01 PM PST up reply actions  

Totally disagree

Watching Luck carry Stanford he is the reason they are getting attention. He is polished and ready to play day one in the NFL his ceiling is HoF QB, floor is franchise QB.

He has the tools and commands the offense no better/safer prospect since Peyton.

by Seahawcla on Dec 30, 2011 9:00 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions  

"Hawcla" uses less extreme language only seconds after that

He notes that there has been “no better/safer prospect” since Peyton. I’d say that’s the best way to put it.

by djafrot on Dec 31, 2011 3:59 AM PST up reply actions  

extreme

Over the top on the floor, outside of injuries I can’t see this guy flopping.

Luck is the OC on offense he is calling plays, he is the coach on the field. Sack rate is misleading. Pokey presence plays a role. Look at guys like TJack and Peyton and how awareness impacts OL.

That defense is not full on NFLers either. Let’s see what happens when Luck leaves that team is short on talent.

by Seahawcla on Dec 31, 2011 9:37 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions  

Luck is good and should be a top ten pick

But he hasn’t carried Stanford. They run more than throw and they do it really well. The OL that keeps his sack and hit rate down so low and run blocks well for his whole career carries the offense. He helps them too with his play, but they are the cornerstone of the offense. They also have a very good defense that puts them in position to succeed on offense.
I am confident he will be good, if put in on a good team. I don’t know how he will be if you put him on a bad team that is badly coached. He hasn’t had to do that yet.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Dec 31, 2011 5:00 AM PST up reply actions  

At this point, I don't overly care about the possibility of failure

We need to take a risk, have to take a risk, and I’d like to do it with the best prospect in sports since Strasburg.

by MT Olson on Dec 31, 2011 1:09 PM PST up reply actions  

If not this year, when?

I keep coming back to this, because the kick the can down the road or it’s too risky crowd doesn’t seem to realize that it has been 36 yrs, and we’ve never had The Guy. We always seem willing to put off big, risky decisions for another year or two, and then five years, or 30 years, go by and we still haven’t won a Super Bowl. So from that standpoint, the opportunity cost is moot. Who cares what the risk is, because the alternative is another 36 years of mediocrity. Doing what we’ve always done, i.e., trying to develop a diamond in the rough, HASN’T WORKED. Either you find a way to trade up and go get your elite qb when he finally is there (i.e., Luck), or you stay on the outside looking in with mid or lower level picks indefinitely, or hoping some 2nd rounder or some other team’s cast off is going to develop. IF (actually the biggest IF ever) they feel Luck or RGIII is can’t-miss, then they have to be willing to bet the farm to go get him, or take the biggest risk of all, which is staying mediocre to maybe good for the forseeable future with TJ or whomever, but never being a Champion. Thirty-six. years of playing it conservative and worrying about opportunity cost has got us ZERO championships, and that is simply a fact that we can’t ignore any longer.

by Eliteqborbust on Dec 31, 2011 11:22 AM PST reply actions  

Actually we have taken the risk

In 1983 Knox sold the farm to get the guy he thought would put us over the top. A knee injury in the first game of 84 ruined that shot.

by eohawkfan on Dec 31, 2011 2:00 PM PST up reply actions  

You have to keep swinging

Does a home run hitter stop swinging because he strikes out? Of course not.

by Eliteqborbust on Jan 1, 2012 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

And he didn't win.

He was never on a level with a Brady, or Rogers or Brees. Although he was a good quarterback, he wasn’t good enough to win the SB, so ultimate failure is hardly a validation for going that route again.

by Eliteqborbust on Jan 1, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions  

That was the relative team around him

We were one man deep and not overall talented enough to compete year in and out.

they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!

by stufr on Jan 1, 2012 11:05 AM PST up reply actions  

I wanted to "reply" but couldn't figure out where specifically

I certainly don’t subscribe to the theory that coaches and GMs are infallible, so the idea that they always know what’s best is out the window. However, my own philosophy seems very much in line with the Schnieder/Carroll agenda.

I’m not a fan of packaging picks to move up in the draft. Ever, really. That’s right. Ever.

First off, I favor going against the trends – if the NFL says run, I’d pass; if they say pass, then I run – because it allows you to gather premium talent to do what you do. Other teams have no interest in drafting an O-lineman because he’s a shitty pass-blocker, but you can pair him next to a good pass-blocking tackle and he can run-block like a tractor-trailer plowing through Smart Cars. No one wants big, physical cornerbacks because they are too slow? No one wants QBs that are smart and accurate because they’re attracted to cannon-arm and W-L record? Strategize to take the guys that the majority of teams don’t want. This is what I believe the Seahawks are doing (partially anyway).

If your team goes tits up in a season and you fetch the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th pick in a draft and someone your team has scouted and believes in is sitting there (Luck, Newton last season, or some other hard to find commodity like a Terrell Suggs, Barry Sanders, Randy Moss, or Warren Sapp, etc.) then by all means seize him. If there doesn’t seem to be value, trade down. The Jets look stupid for trading up to get Sanchez right now, and San Diego once passed on Michael Vick so they could draft Ladanlian Tomlinson and Drew Brees. Even at the time – being excited to watch Vick – I remember thinking the Chargers pulled off a coup.

Trading up sometimes nets a successful player, but it’s never mentioned who said team gave up to get them. Even if the move up is successful, there’s no way to know that the pick or picks surrendered wouldn’t have helped the team better in the long run.

The whole thing is mental masturbation to a certain degree – which is why we talk about it – and ultimately there’s not a right or wrong answer outside of winning and losing. Since every player coming out of college is an unknowable commodity, I favor the shots on goal theory. Aaaaaaand, I don’t marginalize how much good, stable coaching has to do with a series of draft picks ‘magically’ working out. If ever you doubt that, look at the job Tom Cable as done this year with our O-line.

I don’t watch a ton of college football, so I’m no expert on who – specifically – any team should draft. I have watched enough football to know that scouts draft analysts are wrong as often as they are right (I recall Mel Kiper chastising the Colts for passing on Trent Dilfer, one of many examples). If the ‘Hawks miss out on the “sure thing” QBs in the first round and draft Kellen Moore in the 4th (or something), I’ll root the choice on along with the Seahawks to win every single game that they play.

Most of my cliches aren't original.

- Chuck Knox

by Azimeir on Dec 31, 2011 12:16 PM PST reply actions  

Agreed on all counts. The point of a draft is essentially, a lottery.

Every year, a team is given 7-9 picks out of 230 something total selections in the draft the 50-70 players that would make a meaningful contribution to the team. The adage of higher pick=better player is false, and the idea of draft grades and rankings are stupid.

No one knows how a player would end up in the NFL. Like someone had said, their floor is that they don’t pan out – so if every player has the same, similar chance of succeeding in the league, why would we want to decrease our chances in picking the right guy?

"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff

by EequalsMc2 on Dec 31, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions  

Agreed in principle (and good post)

But can’t agree with your absolutist approach to it. Always sitting pat or trading black comes with a loss of opportunities a franchise might need, especially if coaching keeps it from ever being bad enough to fall to the bottom (like our team).

Formerly knows as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii

by Thomas Beekers on Jan 1, 2012 4:48 AM PST up reply actions  

And we haven't WON a SB.
there’s not a right or wrong answer outside of winning and losing.
Exactly! And we haven’t won a Super Bowl for 36 years. So how does continuing to play it safe make sense when doing so hasn’t worked for us for 36 years? We have to stop fearing risk, and start fearing what will happen if we never take a risk. If you’re a recent hawks fan, I can see the apprehension, but if you’ve been suffering as long as I have, it just doesn’t make sense not to go all in anymore. The alternative is simply 36 more years of what we’ve been doing, which hasn’t worked. If I come across as being too strident here, I apologize, that’s not my intent. I’m just trying to get doubters to take a big picture look here, both backwards and forwards. If playing it safe going forward is good enough, then I’ll eat crow. But it ultimately hasn’t worked so far, and that’s a fact.

Happy New Year everyone!

by Eliteqborbust on Jan 1, 2012 10:35 AM PST up reply actions  

Sounds like a "poker player on tilt" strategy to me...

“I have lost my last 36 hands, so I may as well bet most of my salary this year, and most of my salary next year on this next hand, because at least that way, I am doing something different.” Tilt.

I propose an interesting research article. How many elite QBs, or even top 15 QBs (or all pro player at any position) in the last 20 years were obtained by teams trading away multiple picks/players to draft in the top 5 instead of outside of the top ten. Is there any proof that “trading the farm” is a sound long term strategy? Was the team better (w-l is a pertinent stat here) in 4 years after the draft?

To me, the Sanchez move looks poor, partially b/c he was not clearly an elite prospect, and partially b/c he is not a good nfl QB. R Williams had a solid career but the move was ditkas undoing. J Jones is too young to know…

I am not a proponent of selling out for one player – injury risk alone makes me wary. But I think moving up from 12 to 1 is possible with a reasonable cost – 1st and 2nd this year and a 1st next – if indy decides it doesn’t want to draft Luck. I would be hesitant to give up 2 1sts to move up to 5 to pick RGIII. On the other hand, I think it is far more likely that indy picks luck, and then tries to trade back into the early 1st to pick up an LT. We could conceivably get their 2nd 4th 6th and next years 1st round picks – giving us more capital next year.

Smashmouth is the new sexy!

by pqlqi on Jan 2, 2012 8:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

SEA!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Just How Much Do Close Games Matter Anyway?
Small
Help Me Understand How Irvin Will be Used
Turbin_game_uni_small
Hand Size and Quarterbacks
Einstein_www-txt2pic-com_small
On Pete Carroll and Previous QB Competitions

Recent FanPosts

Avatar_small
The OT Thread---12thrs, Assemble!
Horsey_small
Results from the 2012 Armchair GM Championship
Tasb_logo_small
Consider it Spun: The 5 Worst Moves of Carroll and Schneider Era in Seattle
Small
Plaxico Burress: viable option, or over the hill?
Small
Portland Seahawks Fans: Where You Be?
Small
Should Seattle Go After Kellen Winslow?
Small
Football where the head is sacred

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor/Lead Writer

Screen_shot_2012-05-04_at_10 Danny Kelly

Staff Writers/Editors

Screen_shot_2011-01-05_at_9 Scruffy Lefty

Small BrianL

Avatar_small Benne

Olympiabeer_small Tyler Jorgensen

Madhatter_small Thomas Beekers

Profilepic_small DJ C-Raig

897267_o_small Kenneth Arthur

Sbn_pic_small Jacson Bevens

Photo__1__small Charlie Todaro

Staff Writers

Small Joshua Kasparek

Photo_small 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

Ace_small Ben Harbaugh

Bu_fb_2_small Daniel Hill

Rob_small Rob Davies