5 Questions for Seahawks Draft Blog's Rob Staton
Rob Staton is a draft expert that runs the Seahawks Draft Blog - a respected and invaluable resource for anyone interested in the draft, but especially for Seahawks fans as he concentrates on the Hawks quite a bit. He's agreed to provide some draft coverage for Field Gulls, and in a weekly segment, I'll ask him five questions that may be on the forefront of your (read: my) minds.
DK: There have been more rumors heating up as of late that Carson Palmer or Kevin Kolb are real options for the Hawks via trades. If the CBA doesn't get worked out before the draft, do you think the Hawks' draft strategy is changed? Ie, do they still draft a QB early anyway to develop down the line, or do the go elsewhere position-wise and bet on being able to get a trade done later?
RS: I suppose that's the million dollar question. If free agency was active as normal, you could make a case for saying the #25 pick for Kevin Kolb would be a realistic move. He cost the #36 overall pick in 2007. Andy Reid believed he was the long term future in Philadelphia before injury gave Michael Vick the opportunity to forge a comeback. His trade stock is really high at the moment, although I'm a little bit sceptical personally. He's shown good and bad in the league, but he's also had the chance to play on an offense that includes one of the most dynamic players in the NFL (DeSean Jackson) a second-year receiver who had close to a 1000 yard season and scored ten touchdowns (Jeremy Maclin) and a running back (LeSean McCoy) whose pass catching stats are comparable to Seattle's best receiver in 2010.
Let's say the CBA isn't sorted before the draft, or at least the possible injunction doesn't force some activity. Do you trade a future first round pick for Kevin Kolb? A trade such as this demands some element of instant gratification. If Kolb struggled in year one, the cost of his acquisition increases with each defeat. Are you comfortable firstly with that pressure to perform on what is still a 7-9 team with offensive line issues and a lack of playmakers, and secondly with the prospect of investing a possible top-ten pick on a 27-year-old quarterback? I'm not sure. I suppose if you really believe in Kolb you don't worry about those things.
Palmer is more of a stop-gap option and one they're probably more likely to explore if the draft doesn't come up with the answers. I suspect it may be playing some part in the team's draft strategy. Investing in a quarterback for the long term has to be the priority. Maybe they have to start exploring moves up the board? Maybe they expand the search and start to look more closesly at the second tier prospects? Either way they need an answer at quarterback as soon as possible.
DK: You've got Marvin Austin going to the Hawks at #25 in your latest mock draft. Can you give us a little more about why you like Austin for the Hawks and where he fits into their plans? Is he a day one starter or someone that you work in spelling for other guys? Is he a reach at #25?
RS: Austin is a guy with all the athletic and physical attributes to be a special player. However, he never extended himself at college. When I watched North Carolina tape in 2009, I gave Austin a grade in the late second round. The effort and consistency isn't there. Missing the whole of 2010 was a major concern and you start to wonder if this guy wants to be as good as he could be.
Then he turns up at the Shrine game and puts on a clinic. His performance at the combine was sensational and he followed it up at the UNC pro-day. You start to remember the potential - if only the light would remain switched on. Perhaps missing a year was the wake up call?
The Seahawks have taken calculated chances on prospects in the last twelve months. Golden Tate wasn't a polished receiver, but they invested a second round choice in his playmaking potential. Brandon Marshall and Vincent Jackson were both courted despite some character concerns. Mike Williams got a fresh start and they traded for troubled Marshawn Lynch and Kentwan Balmer. Even the Leon Washington trade was a bit of a gamble considering his return from serious injury.
Austin would be a similar gamble. He needs to be motivated and this is a coaching staff who will provide that. If it works you could be looking at a Pro-Bowl three-technique. Based on the athletic qualities alone, #25 is not a reach. He can play in year one and help the defensive line depth. If you think this guy is serious about making the most of his freakish physical ability, you have to consider taking the chance.
DK: Talk for a moment about OT Derek Sherrod. You've stated in the past that you don't see the Hawks going with a OT in round one, and that drafting a left tackle to play on the right is not good value. But if they were looking to improve the right side with their first pick, is Sherrod the guy for them? If not, who do you think would be the best fit to bookend the line at right tackle?
RS: I think drafting a right tackle in round one is a luxury that should only be afforded to good teams. After all, what is a right tackle? Most of the guys playing the position were blind side blockers in college who weren't considered athletic enough to play the same role in the NFL. They get a lot of tight end help and they're covering the quarterbacks strong side. You can find guys like that later on, no question. James Carpenter, Joseph Barksdale, Will Rackley - these guys can start at right tackle. You don't need to have two first round picks playing tackle to be succesful.
The Seahawks have such a dearth of talent at the premium positions (QB, DE, WR, CB, DT) that I think a right tackle is unlikely this year. You'd have to grade a tackle much higher than anyone else on your board at #25. I think Gabe Carimi is a really limited prospect who I graded in the round 2/3 region. Nate Solder and Anthony Castonzo are finesse tackles with great height and struggle with leverage - not ideal for the right hand side.
The two players I would consider are Tyron Smith and the guy you mention Derek Sherrod. Smith has the athletic qualities to be very good, even if he's largely unproven. He won't make it past the top twelve picks. Sherrod could be there at #25. He has sound technique, he's not a flashy player but he'll get the job done. He can play the left and right hand side which is paramount for me if I'm taking a tackle in round one.
There are too many players I grade at a similar level to Sherrod to go in that direction at #25, but he is the one player in that area that I'd at least have in the discussion.
DK: If you had to guess, what are the odds the Hawks stay at #25 and why?
RS: It's impossible to project. Last year I felt sure they'd move around at #14, but then Earl Thomas is available and that's their guy. This year they're going to see names coming off the board because they pick so late. I guarantee there will be at least five names on Seattle's board and when two or three get picked, they'll be anxious. Do they move up? I don't rule it out at all, especially if there's a quarterback they really like. Trading the #25 and #57 could get you as high as #11-#13. Fans hate the idea of trading away high picks, but that would be a good deal to try and tie up the quarterback position long term.
Alternatively if they stay put at #25, there is a very similar talent pool from #25-#35. They may get opportunities to trade down. In both scenarios you need a partner and they aren't always freely available.
DK: Explain to the Field Gulls readers your philosophy of "Quality over Quantity" when it comes to drafting. Many would prefer the Hawks trade down for more picks but you've stated that's not necessarily the best course of action. Why?
RS: It's only a philosophy I carry for the Seahawks' current situation. They're a 7-9 team in year two of a rebuild. Generally I prefer to be pro-active when drafting, but I also understand the value of trading down and accumulating depth. However, you need to have a good core of players to put yourself in that position at the end of round one. I appreciate that teams have found great value throughout every round of the draft and the late first/early second is no exception. Even so, the top-end talent will always go early and really that's the range the Seahawks should be picking in to continue this rebuild.
They made a great start last year drafting a left tackle for the future (Russell Okung) and a playmaker in the secondary (Earl Thomas). They're both top-15 picks. I think I'm right in saying the Seahawks would've picked 15th overall had they played in any other division last season and had the same 7-9 record. In that case, you're looking at potentially having a shot at one of the top-four quarterbacks, one of the high quality defensive ends or cornerbacks. Nick Fairley and Corey Liuget could go in that range. Either way you're adding another key-note player to the roster. When I look at the players touted to go in that #25-35 range, I see a lot of gambles and a lot of 'safe' average players. There's quite a drop-off in quality.
I know that a lot of people hate the idea of moving up and being pro-active to get a better player, but I also think there's a bit of a misconception sometimes with accumulating picks. The draft is rarely about filling multiple needs because it's such a lottery. If you come away with two starters every year, it's a fantastic success for me. Sometimes the quality of a draft can be defined by hitting on one guy. Having 2-3 early picks instead of just one doesn't guarantee you'll find those starters. The question is - can a top-15 player have more of an impact for Seattle in this rebuild rather than 2-3 guys in the early second round?
I don't think the Seahawks can find an answer at quarterback staying at #25. I don't think they'll find a key defensive end unless Jabaal Sheard is available or there's a surprise faller. The top three cornerbacks will be gone.
For the sake of a late second round pick, if I can get that top-15 talent that I think can add to the work started by Okung and Thomas, I make the move. You won't dwell too much on not picking in rounds two or three if you get a player in round one who would never make it to #25. If the Seahawks can add one more premium acquisition to this roster through the draft, that would be a success because there's no quick fix here. The aim is to one day be in a position where trading down and acting like the Patriots is a practical idea. One day you hope depth is the key. Right now, it should be about getting the best possible talent onto this roster even if it costs a little bit extra.
--------------
Thanks again Rob, much appreciated!
119 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I understand the Redskins at 10 are offering up their pick to trade.
Is Seattle’s first and second enough to reach that high? And if so, is Mallett worth the effort?
Rob talks about one of those key components on the team, a top-15 guy, and I can’t think of anyone else in the draft with the potential impact Mallett has (if you buy into the likelihood, as I do and many others don’t, that he is the top QB in the draft and likely to be a great NFL QB).
Just not liking the other QB options facing Seattle...
…second tier guys (Dalton, really?); trading for Kolb – costly and his value uncertain; Palmer – short term fix at best; Leinert (should probably sign him anyway, if PC thinks he can truly compete for the postion); CW – ideal #2 for the Seahawks; Locker – a player with serious questions about his future in the NFL, and who very well may not be available without a trade up; Hasselbeck (please no). Did I miss any?
Every other position can be had/helped in later rounds. Unless a miracle occurs, the only really good QB a team will get is by drafting one very high. The Brady’s and Vick’s are the exception, not the rule. Holding out for Luck or Barkley is a fools errand.
If Seattle goes aggresively after Mallett, and he turns out to be as good as I believe he will be, Seahawk fans will forget what he cost. On the other hand, if he turns out more like Curry seems to be, then yeah, there will be lots of bitching and second guessing. But that’s part and parcel with the draft. If you want certainty, ride the trains in Japan.
A factor you seem to overlook
is where the teams ahead of us actually value Mallett. I think there’s a fairly good chance he is there at 25 and I wouldn’t want to move up for him unless that’s the guy the Hawks really want and they think someone ahead of them wants him too. I haven’t seen very many serious analysts putting Mallett in the top 15, if they move up that far I hope its for a player they’re sure will make an immediate impact and know wont be there at 25.
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 1:58 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Good point. That's a million dollar question.
Until recently, all the mocks and experts on the web had him outside the first, so 25 would have been ‘a reach’. Nowadays, not so much, with his projection in some cases cracking the top ten.
But the team talent evaluators keep their opinions to themselves, so we don’t really know. If I am right in my evalution, I’m not the only one seeing Mallett as someone special. Obviously so do all the teams who need a QB.
Unless they know something we don’t (not only likely, but near certain in that they have access to personal interviews and far more expertise than we can ever hope to muster) and in that information judge Mallett as being flawed, then they will pass, and he will fall.
Well according to the draft value chart,
The 10th overall pick is worth 1300 points and our 25th + 57th picks equate to about 1050 points, so we might have to throw in our 2012 third rounder for a fairer deal.
More than likely, however, Mallet would fall to us at 25, considering that Redskins and Vikings are both high on Jake Locker, while Jacksonville has pressing needs besides QB.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I honestly don't think Mallett is making it to 325
I think he’s going to be taken by Miami.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Miami's probably going to trade down or pick up a O-Lineman like Pouncey.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
It's possible.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess the questions I have for you is who do you see that would be willing to trade up to #15 and would have the ammo to do so and why?
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Well a number of teams:
Tampa Bay, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Baltimore all might want to move ahead of Jacksonville and New York to pick up a quality defensive lineman (and in the case of the Colts, offensive lineman). New England has plenty of picks to move up to 15, but since they own the 17th pick as well, it will be very unlikely unless some player falls.
That’s not to say it won’t happen, but Miami has little to no selections at 15 that they are forced to move.
And of course, Miami could trade up too (though this will be unlikely.)
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I think all of them are unlikely.
I think the Bucs are going after Justin Houston, and they won’t have to trade up to get him. He is almost certainly going to be available at #20.
For Baltimore, Brian Baldinger had this to say:
“I know for a fact that if Cameron Heyward’s there at 26, the Ravens are not passing him up.”
Heyward has a very realistic shot of being there.
I think Atlanta is targeting a TE more than they are targeting any D-linemen. They should have the top TE prospect available at #27. They won’t need to trade up. Of course, if there’s a D-lineman who is falling that they are in love with, they could take the chance to move up, though I think this is unlikely.
The Colts should still have their choice of a top O-lineman available, unless they wanted Tyron Smith, which would mean that they’d need to move into the top 10, not the 15th overall spot.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it would be extremely difficult for Miami to find trading partners.
But if I had to guess.. I’d pick the Eagles because I know that they need and want a CB this year. If they feel that someone like Jimmy Smith won’t make it to them, I can see them trading up to get him.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
#25*
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 10:51 PM PDT up reply actions
If the Bengals draft a QB at #4, that could open the door for Palmer to be dealt to Seattle.
If I’m Carson Palmer, I know Mike Brown wouldn’t want to pay 2 QBs premium cash, so(unless he is 100% completely against the idea of playing in Cincy again) I agree to return once the new CBA is approved. Brown saves face by not being forced into the trade, although Palmer would have to risk the possibility of continuing to play for the Bengals. Palmer may be a safer bet to play well for the Seahawks, might not cost as much to acquire (I wouldn’t give up a 2012 1st rounder for him, but perhaps a conditional pick plus a player) and gives us more time to groom a replacement.
That would be a better-than-decent option if the Top 4 is out of our grasp.
Palmer has been hardline.
He will retire before he plays another game for the bengals.
Mike Brown has been equally firm that he will not trade him. I think brown bends before carson.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 17, 2011 10:34 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Technically, Palmer can retire, get released from the team, then un-retire and become a FA right?
So the only reason why Brown is firm in not trading him is to increase his stock, which is incredibly idiotic
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I do believe the Bengals would own Palmer's rights for the remainder of his current contract.
Which would make waiting for Palmer to become a FA would be a pointless venture. Brown won’t trade Palmer because he’s a stubborn old man, and he doesn’t want to set a precedent where other players hold out to force a trade. If the Bengals draft a QB I could envision a scenario where Brown and Palmer work out a deal, where Palmer “agrees” to return and then immediately gets traded, just so both sides save a little face.
If Carrol & Co. don’t believe this scenario will play out, then they might want to make sure they come away with one of the Top 4; it wouldn’t surprise me if the Eagles demand more to trade away Kolb after the draft, especially with the only real competition (Palmer) out of the picture.
You are correct
Palmer can’t fake-retire to get out of a contract. The Bengals have to officially release him or he has to actually retire.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
That's what ultimately kept Barry Sanders from returning.
He considered playing for the Dolphins a year or two after retiring, but the Lions STILL owned his rights and nothing was worked out. That might be the case with Palmer if he desired a return in 2012.
I really don't see four quarterbacks going before #25.
How many times has that ever happened? I could see it if there were four quarterbacks out there that were generally considered first round picks, but there sure isn’t the consensus there. In fact, quarterbacks are generally overrated by those supposedly “in the know”. Even Newton and Gabbert appear to have more questionmarks than other highest-rated quarterbacks in years past.
It certainly could happen, as there do seem to be a lot of QB-needy teams out there, but with the value of the available QB’s in debate, I’d think a few of them would wait until the 2nd round, or at least until the late-first to trade up from the 2nd.
Pretty sure that four QBs in the first round
would be a record. I say stand pat at 25.
Record was 6 QBs in the first round of the '83 draft (Elway, Blackledge, Kelly, Eason, O'Brien, Marino)
The last time more than 4 QBs were drafted in the first round was in ’04 with Manning, Rivers, Big Ben and J.P Losman.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Dang mobile....
Took me too long to type it.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 17, 2011 10:29 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Check your history.
1983 there were 3 HoF 1st rounders, elway, jim kelly and dan marino.
Also, tony reason, ken obrien and todd blackledge also went in round one.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 17, 2011 10:28 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Precedence isn't going to help you with your case.
This year, free agency didn’t take place, making it so that teams that needed a quarterback could address their quarterback needs before the draft. This year, it’s reversed. Teams with needs at quarterback will have to go into the draft with it as their first stop to fill needs.
I think it’s very likely that four quarterbacks will be gone before #25.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, Phillip Taylor and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 17, 2011 10:48 PM PDT up reply actions
It could be, but then the chain reaction is that there will be more QBs avaliable in FA/Trading period
It’s a tit-for-tat policy.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
But there's an unusually high amount of QB "controversies" plaguing NFL teams this year.
- The Seahawks are down to Charlie Whitehurst and free agent (as well as old and ineffective) Matt Hasselbeck.
- The Cardinals are choosing between 3 lousy QBs at the moment.
- The Niners appear finished with Alex Smith.
- The Vikings are left with Joe Webb and Sage Rosenfels (AKA “none of the above”).
- The Bengals QB is almost certain to retire.
- The Titans are almost certain to jettison Vince Young.
- The Jaguars could draft David Garrard’s replacement this year.
- The Redskins don’t want McNabb around anymore.
- The Dolphins are very unsure about Chad Henne.
That’s 9 shaky-at-best QB situations….and that list doesn’t include the Panthers and Bills (although it probably should), each of whom very well could take QBs with their top choices in the upcoming draft. Since no one is realistically looking at Hasselbeck or McNabb or VY as long-term QBs (or even starters), there are more than a few teams that might overspend to get a good QB in this draft, or overspend to trade for Kolb later on.
With guys like Brett Favre and Kurt Warner out of the league, there just might be more starting jobs than actual starters (or guys capable of starting). I’m not going to assume everything will just work itself out.
Well, yeah, and that fuels my counter-argument against myself.
I said this on another thread – unless Mallett or Locker falls to us, I don’t want the team jumping up. With so many teams in need of a QB, why play the game and try to get one as well? Why not let all those people fight tooth-and-nail for the limited resources of this year, and then take our shot next year at a QB?
And next year's QB class is always better!
Never turns out to be true. Very rarely will you be looking at 4 extremely high ceiling QBs in one draft like it is in this year’s draft.
I wish people would drop this whole idea of “no safe QB in this draft.” Bottom line, no QB pick (or any other pick for that matter is safe). Nobody knows how a kid will react to a ton of money, pressure, etc. Bottom line, identify a QB you like, do what it takes to get him and build to his strengths (scheme, personnel). That’s not saying to be wreckless, but at some point you have to take a chance.
You have to admit that this year's QB class is much more questionable than most years
I mean, in context, is Newton really worth a 1st overall pick? Or Gabbert at top 10, Locker or Mallett at top 15? This is not much players to work with this year, and one has to ask how far did the stocks of these four players rose after Luck stayed at Stanford.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Certainly more risky, but also high on reward as well
With how gimmicky college football is getting, you are going to have to take a chance at some point. There are very, very few Andrew Lucks that come along who come from pro systems and put up pretty stats. Virtually everyone else is running a goofy offense.
So while I agree there is considerable risk, I think this draft also presents considerable reward and is deeper than most years. At some point, unless we plan on being a 0-2 win team, we are going to have to take a chance. If we don’t, then we shouldn’t worry about any Super Bowl anytime soon.
And Remeber, last year Jake Locker was Andrew Luck this year according to many sources
A team waiting for next year might find someone like Robert Griffin from Baylor has become the toast of the NFL and Luck has fallen into the high ceiling but not a sure bet category.
College athletics are corrupt and I suspect wrestling may be scripted
Luck > Locker
Totally different QBs and Luck was rated much higher at both stages.
Luck is as close to a sure thing as it gets outside of injury. I doubt we will get a shot at him.
I'm sure a lot of people thought that the 2006 QB class was VERY safe.
And look at what happened to “certain stars” Vince Young and Matt Leinert….funny how even Jay Cutler has fallen on hard times after the terrific start to his career.
It’s hard to rate QBs in the draft because even strting 4 years at a major D-1 university doesn’t prepare you for starting in the NFL. There is no perfect formula for predicting success.
I don't think the quality is necessarily better this year
but the hype certainly is. I think its unlikely that more than 3 QBs in this draft end up being long term starters in the NFL.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
No, but sitting this quarterback class out because there is competition is.
And really,if this team passes on acquiring a quarterback it almost is giving up.
I never said anything about giving up because there's competition. It's more complicated than that.
It’s supply and demand. The demand for QB’s is very high this offseason. The supply, considering (in my opinion) that the QB’s available in this draft seem somewhat more questionable than normal, is low. Thus, unless things work out perfectly (i.e. Mallett or Locker falls to 25 or close to that), taking a quarterback is likely to work out not as well as it would in a later year.
Believe me, I want a new quarterback for the Seattle Seahawks…. I just don’t want them to have to reach to get one. Spending our 25 and our 2nd rounder for a player that isn’t a very, very good bet at QB is dumb team management.
Now, if the team feels that Locker and Mallett are very, very good bets, than great, go get him. But that means them valuing Mal/Lock higher than many draftnik’s or scouts, so as of right now I’m anxious about such a move.
Completely reasonable perspective, and concern.
If there is any question in PC/JS’s mind that Mallett (I don’t believe Locker will be in the conversation about trading up) then it would be foolish to spend more than pick 25, and perhaps not even that, depending on how deep their concerns.
On the other hand, if they view Mallett as being the franchise guy that they can build a multiple-year contending team out of, then the price to trade up will be well spent.
I don’t completely understand the thought process echoed on this board that goes something like “no need to work hard to get a top QB right now – we can fortify other positions and THEN get the guy.”
How does that work? At some point the team decides to obtain a franchise QB and then ‘Voila!’ they get him? If you have a chance to get a top-rated QB, even if you already have one that may be aging (Manning, Brady for instance) you pull the trigger. Like Greenbay did with Rodgers (a decision Schneider was part of, BTW). The only teams that wouldn’t do that are ones already invested in a top young guy (Detroit, St Louis, two obvious examples).
You can’t wait on Luck or Barkley (and the funny thing is, Luck could end up just like Locker, in that he was the proclaimed front runner like Locker last year prior to any scouting scrutiny – we’ll see how he looks this time next year. I don’t know anything about him, just pointing out that Clausen and Locker received the same kind of media love long before the draft took place, and well, you know the rest…)
Or Luck could end up like Sam Bradford.
Consensus #1 overall prospect one year, return for another year, and still end up being the #1 overall pick in the draft. That he still went #1 overall despite getting injured twice is impressive, that that’s a different story for another day.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 18, 2011 7:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Could be. I sure haven't heard anything but praise for Luck.
Just what I read here and elsewhere, and last year, when I knew nothing about Locker, would have believed he was the second coming of Elway based on posts here.
Just saying, every year I keep hearing about how great next year QBs are, and then I get Sanchez and Clausen.
You know, now that I think about it, we should NOT be worring about QB in the draft at all.
I mean, if we get Mallett or Locker at 25, more power to us, but take a look at the QBs on the block/FA this year:
Palmer
Kolb
Orton/Tebow
S. Hill
Young
Not many QB’s right? But look what happens when we add in the idea that teams could select any of the top 4 QBs in the draft even though they are solid at the position:
Clausen
McNabb
Flitzpatrick
Webb
So if we miss out on Locker or Mallett, chances are there’s always a Plan B or veteran trade waiting to happen. That’s why we should stay at 25 and look at the cards we are dealt – if there’s a good QB, take him. If not, trade down and stockpile picks or select a playmaker, because the QB position can be fixed with or without draft picks
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
None of those options look like a long term solution except Kolb.
Palmer is a stop-gap situation. Can you trust Young? I like Orton but again, is he leading you to contention year in, year out? Clausen, Fitzpatrick, Webb… really? McNabb should retire.
And even with Kolb – there are some concerns. He has a really slingy action, low release. He has good and bad tape available from his time in the NFL. He’s 27 in August and will cost a 2012 first rounder. You have to get that instant impact from a guy like that. If you don’t, he could end up costing a top-ten pick and 12 months down the line you hate that move.
by Rob Staton on Apr 17, 2011 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
They aren't long term improvements for sure,
But since our QB status was so bad last year that any of the players above would have a slight improvement over Matt – and that just might be enough.
We know that this year already has a questionable QB class, and there are more holes for the Hawks to fill. There’s a chance that a Jimmy Smith or a Marvin Austin could come all the way to 25: do we need to trade up for a QB if it happens?
I know in my gut that, without a FA period, teams will reach on alot of their picks, especially with QB. And since there’s a chance that the top four QBs could he gone by 12, I really think that the Hawks should address this position in a less risk/high reward method.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
by EequalsMc2 on Apr 18, 2011 7:01 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Agree on Kolb.
People just assume he’s going to be money as a starter, but he had a great supporting cast and still didn’t blow the world away. He’s not much younger than Charlie, but he’s plenty older than the rookie crew.
More important to me, he would still be a UFA after next season, so you are either going to pay ahead of time (with a 1st round pick and a long term contract) for a guy you could get the following season for free, or you are going to not pay long term and run the risk of losing him long term to someone else who pays after seeing what he did for us.
Or, worse case scenario, you trade a 1st for him, he’s terrible, and you decide not to resign him. Then you’ve given your 1st and 3rd in 2011 for two UFA QB’s at the end of this coming season. That’s just retarded resource management.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 18, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
I should point out that there is next to no chance a team would give up a 1st rounder to acquire Kolb WITHOUT signing him long-term first.
And since the Eagles have been so up-front about their desire to make this trade, I’m sure they’d let the other team negotiate with Kolb before finalizing the deal.
I’m not thrilled about trading for Kolb because I’d hate to give up a 1st rounder AND big bucks to a possibly-crappy QB. At least with the rookies you have some time to mold and groom them into becoming a long-term solution.
Neither Orton or Tebow are available this year; Palmer may either be a Bengal or retire, and Shaun Hill sucks.
Vince Young would be an interesting pickup, but there has been next-to-zero speculation by anyone in a position to know what the Titans are going to do with him. No one might not know (including Bud Adams) until after the draft or even until a new CBA is approved….if I’m running the Seahawks, I don’t make any draft decisions based on what MIGHT happen with Kolb or Palmer or VY or anyone else.
The thought that terrifies me the most
Is that Ryan Mallett will fall all the way to #24. Pete Carroll will suddenly hear his phone ring.
Pete: Hello.
Man: Hey Pete, how’s it going?
Pete: OH its going really great, who is this?
New Orleans Saints GM Mickey Loomis: Mickey Loomis.
Pete: Oh fuck.
Loomis: That’s right, payback’s a bitch! AHAHAHA! This is for Beastquake!
Roger Goodell: With the 24th pick in the 2011 draft, there has been a trade. The Arizona Cardinals select Ryan Mallett, Arkansas.
Pete and John: …
by Hasseltosser on Apr 18, 2011 2:13 AM PDT reply actions 4 recs
Arizona has made it clear they want a stop gap QB
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
by EequalsMc2 on Apr 18, 2011 6:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Smokescreen?
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 18, 2011 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand what Arizona wants to do at QB
after they started Max Hall for a bunch of games last year. And there’s rumors that they’ll pass on a 1st-round QB this year (maybe in favor of Bulger). Its like they don’t even care who takes snaps for them.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions
The Cardinals are too stupid to realize that the only reason that they went to the SB
was because of Kurt Warner. They probably think they’re good enough to get back to the playoffs by picking up a FA QB. Plus Fitzgerald’s contract is up after this season, so they’re probably afraid that they’ll lose him to FA if they don’t do much better.
The smartest thing the Cards can do is trade back a few picks and take Mallett or Locker.
They need a lot of help on their defense, but in this draft they can still get a really good player in the early 2nd round. Let’s just hope they don’t wise up before April 28th.
They won't trade down with a chance to take playmakers like Peterson, Green or Miller
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
That's if they do want to take a QB in the draft
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
They should; their current QBs suck.
Or did you miss both Seahawks/Cardinals games from last season? Do the Cards want to keep looking for a new QB every year or two, or settle on a “franchise QB” ASAP?
I do know that they suck
But what makes you think they don’t go stop gap for the season and sign a veteran QB like Bulger?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
They very well could; my opinion is that they shouldn't.
But since they are our division rivals, perhaps I shouldn’t be giving the Cards free advice. Anyway, I’ll be relieved if they DON’T draft one of the top QBs this year.
Trade Down and acquire Fitzpatrick for a song
I like and respect Rob Staton, but I could not disagree more with his philosophy. Any QB will fail behind a dismal O-line like the Seahawks have. We need to fill SOOOOOOOOO many holes it’s not funny, and trading down gives us better odds of finding that one “quality” player that sticks. Fitzpatrick was a STUD for Buffalo last year – one of the few teams that is in even worse shape than the Seahawks when it comes to a lack of talent in all major positions, and he can be had for a two-day-old sack of doughnuts and a box-o-joe. Staton’s right that the Bradys of the world are the draft exception gems in the late rounds, but I am not talking about trading down for 27 6th-round picks…I am talking about trading down for a 2nd, a 3rd, and 2 4th-rounders. There is plenty of talent left in these rounds, and you don’t have the headache of signing these primadonnas (don’t think I spelled that right).
by Chief Knockahomer on Apr 18, 2011 6:20 AM PDT reply actions
A lot of suitors at 25, but the offer you give is a bit generous
With the TE Randolph and possibly another QB on the board, I know that the Hawks could get offers. However, I think trading down for a 2nd, 3rd and a early 5th just might be the best offer there is.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
by EequalsMc2 on Apr 18, 2011 7:09 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Our O-line was acutally decent in Pass Pro
Run blocking is a different story but I think that has more to do with a lack of intermediate and deep threat on our offense allowing defenses to pin their ears back.
Let’s not act like Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Roethlisberger are protected by these amazing O-lines stacked with nothing but 1st rounders. In fact, if anything, the Steelers and Packers have very mediocre O-line play at best.
I understand the concern with protecting a QB, but I think in Seattle we have grown accustomed to blaming the O-line for all the offensive ineptitude, when it’s only a part of the whole story.
Pass blocking was good but I remember seeing a lot of 7 man protections
It would be nice to see Carlson, Forsett, Washington running routes for a change. But you’re right we can’t pin it all on the O-Line.
by hawksfan1401 on Apr 18, 2011 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions
You've got to have elite talent
Teams that win the super bowl are not full of “quality” players. They have a few elite players with good players surrounding them that fit the team scheme. We didn’t have a single pro-bowl player last year. That has to change. I’m with Rob. Elite players are more important than depth. Football is about match ups. When 1 of your players requires attention from 2 of the opponents players, that is a huge win. Although, it sure would be nice to have both.
None of this makes any sense.
If Fitzpatrick was a stud why is he available for so little? And if any quarterback will fail behind a dismal o-line, how was Fitzpatrick so good if Buffalo was in worse shape than Seattle?
I like Fitzpatrick quite a bit but I wouldn’t pass on one of the top four quarterbacks to get him.
Fitz is this year's Moore
A QB that came out of nowhere to play pretty proficient football but drew little interest on the trade market or from his own team. I think Gradkowski is similar.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, except Fitzpatrick is more talented than either of those guys.
He’s the perfect stop gap for Buffalo.
You are probably right, EequalsMc2, I was being overly optimistic about #25's value
Back to Brady….he was a success because the Patriots already had all the right pieces around him. We need to get all those pieces in place, first, and THEN draft a QB. Only then, if he fails, can we call him the next Ryan Leaf. Look at Steve Young. As a Bucs fan also (I like BOTH teams formed in 1976), I just remember him with a face full of snow in Green Bay as he got sacked a record 9 times one cold winter day. And yet, he was a STUD for the 49ers. Why? I thought he SUCKED for us (the Bucs). Answer: Because the 49ers had all the right pieces for him to be a success. The Bucs at that time most certainly did not. Why, until relatively recently, we were the laughing stock of the NFL (and, yes, Saints fans, WE were the laughing stock no matter what you say).
by Chief Knockahomer on Apr 18, 2011 7:19 AM PDT reply actions
I can't see it.
I can’t see how this plan is going to work. The concept of putting together the perfect team and then just plug-n-play a QB doesn’t make sense. Should St. Louis have passed on Bradford because the team wasn’t good enough for a quarterback yet? He sure seemed to make them instantly better without “all the right pieces around him”. Tampa Bay should have passed on Freeman for the same reason? The cornerstone of damn near every successful NFL franchise is the QB. Prioritizing every position before you find a quarterback seems ass-backwards to me.
In the case of the 49ers, they didn’t build a perfect team in the absence of a quarterback. In fact, they drafted Joe Montana when they were the worst team in the NFL. But with a stud quarterback in place, they built around him and armed him with guys like Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Roger Craig, and won some Superbowls. That team was still in place when Steve Young took over, they didn’t build a new one for him.
QB is our biggest issue until we solve it. The quicker we do, the better.
With all due respect, is QB our biggest issue?
There’s no guarantee that BMW might repeat his 2010 season or that Marshawn can break 8 tackles every run. Add to that a offensive line that put up more than nine combinations in 18 games, can we really see the franchise QB work without any pieces around him?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
One has to think long-term.
Obviously we have to consider other positions, but if you can get a good QB, you get a good QB. Of course said QB might not win the superbowl next year, but you’re not going to fix the whole team in one year.
Hell yes.
Quarterback is the most important position on any team, that’s not even debatable. And at that position we currently have Charlie Whitehurst. That’s it. Having the biggest question mark at our most important position makes it EASILY our biggest issue.
What hasn't been mentioned in all this QB talk...
…is the correlation between having A GREAT QB and any old starter.
Sure, the Seahawks can acquire somebody to start at the position, but most of the posters above seem to assume that they are all equally valuable options. They’re not.
If Mallett is something special (and of course, that is the key question) he is worth infinitely more than Fitzpatrick/Dalton/Locker/Young/Orton/anybody else. It doesn’t matter if you can get somebody cheap, or substitute any other player for a stud QB, because someone special at the position can do what no number of other players can possibly accomplish.
If PC/JS view Mallett in this way, then they should do whatever necessary to ensure he ends up a Seahawk. Not wait to see if he falls. Not be satisfied with plan B. Get the guy you think can take your team to the next level. QB is the only position that can single-handedly do that. Settling for second best, for any old journeyman that can be had, is a recipe for continued mediocrity.
Mallett is young, talented, committed, and will likely be the best QB in this class. He is the ONLY legitimate first rounder at the position, IMO. So all this talk of how many go in the first round is moot. The fact that Newton and Gabbert are being over-touted, and apparently headed for being over-drafted, has nothing to do with Mallett and what Seattle should do.
Those of you who are desperate to see winning/dominating football in Seattle should be rooting for PC/JS to work their magic and get Mallett.
by Hawksince77 on Apr 18, 2011 7:22 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Bam! Completely Agree
We can’t win with a game managing QB. Those days are over.
you have a seriously illogical man-crush
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 2:07 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah a bit over the top...
I just don’t see the same player you are describing.
if NFL personnel people agreed with this
then its a moot point. If people around the league thought he had the best chance of any prospect to be an elite QB Carolina would be taking the guy at #1. There’s a reason he’s only recently entered the discussion of even being a first rounder and its only because of the previously stated reasons (lots of needy teams, no sure player at the position, etc.) that its even a consideration. I have heard that with his tools as is he could be the most ready to play prospect but none of the draftnick types seem to be seriously touting the guy as the best QB or even putting him in the top 4. If the Hawks move to get the guy that would mean that they likely buy those arguments and I wont be against it, I just don’t see it happening. I see Mallett as a second round player who might still be there half way through the 3rd. Chances seem to be fairly high he’s still there at 25.
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 6:23 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
in other words...
Mallett looks to me like this years Clausen.
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 6:25 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Ryan Mallett was talked about as a first round pick last year.
He only dropped this year because of off the field concerns, many of which are completely unsubstantiated.
It looks like he has admitted to drug use
so at least some of the rumors were substantiated:
Arkansas QB Ryan Mallett — One GM said Mallett was the first quarterback ever to admit his drug usage to him in interviews, and his willingness to be honest about his past and acknowledge issues is viewed as a positive. Concerns about his history of use could impact his draft position, though. Although Mallett did not produce an official positive test at Arkansas, he has been arrested for public intoxication and carries a reputation as a “big party guy,” per sources who have interviewed him. How much teams believe he has matured will weigh into his draft status. “I would not take him at any point,” one executive not in need of a quarterback said. He still figures to be drafted in the second round.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/04/11/character-assessments-shape-nfl-success
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, although the drug rumors were varied.
Admitting to using drugs isn’t admitting to using all the drugs he was rumored to have taken.
This is definitely a red flag, pretty much regardless of what kind of drugs or how often.
I am not sure how such things weigh in a prospect’s evaluation – anywhere from not at all to total removal from a team’s board, I would imagine.
It certainly raises the amount of risk (already significant for any prospect) so I wonder how this affects the Seahawks. I guess we will find out in a couple of weeks.
Yep.
Cause none of those guys ever use any drugs of any sort.
And pre-draft drug concerns sure hurt Warren Sapp and Randy Moss. And of course, Mallet’s best comparable, Dan Marino.
I honestly don’t think teams care one iota whether players use drugs “recreationally” or not. They know everyone does. They care whether the guy is smart enough to not get caught, and that the guy doesn’t abuse them.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 19, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Carolina is considering it. Look it up if you don't believe me. Mallett is one of the 8 players they are considering taking at #1. IMO, they should.
Anyway, there is nothing comparable between Mallett and Clausen. Mallett won’t slide. This just out from Michael Lombardi (a judgment with which I obviously agree):
What I know
" In spite of all the perceived off-the-field issues, many of them not accurate, Arkansas quarterback Ryan Mallett will be a first-round pick and might be gone before the 15th overall. Teams that wanted to pick Mallett at the bottom of the first round now realize he is not going to reach them.
As the smoke clears (my words) NFL teams will see Mallett for what he is. That happened with Clausen last year, and he fell. It’s happening with Mallett this year, and he is on the rise (at least in the press and on-line – for some teams he was never off their radar, like Carolina, for instance).
I agree with you, Hawksince77...to an extent
If Mallet turns out to be all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips, then we will have been stupid to not draft him if he falls to us at #25. However, hindsight is always 20-20 and the NFL graveyard is littered with “can’t miss” prospects…Ryan Leaf being one of them. I am just saying we need to trade down for more picks and hedge our bets that we pick one winner out of all our draft choices. Yes, a Tom Brady 6th-round success story is rare, but 2nd- and 3rd-round success stories are commonplace…more commonplace than 1st-round success stories, I would argue.
by Chief Knockahomer on Apr 18, 2011 7:28 AM PDT reply actions
2nd and 3rd Round Success Stories, at QB?
Who?
I can’t find the numbers right now, but the overwhelming majority of successful QBs in the recent history of the NFL were drafted in the first round, and I think there might have been more success stories from the 6th-UDFA range than from the 2-3 range.
I guess Brees was the first pick of round 2. Schaub was in the 3rd. Orton in the 4th. And then you’ve got Clausen, Henne, and McCoy of late. That’s, like, two-ish “success” stories. Every other team is trotting out either first round picks or very late picks for their QBs. QB evaluation isn’t an exact science, obviously. People clearly missed on guys like Brady, Romo, Warner, Hasselbeck, and such. But it’s not too dark of an art. Most people who look like they’re worth a damn go in the first round. The people who don’t wash out at an alarming rate.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Apr 18, 2011 8:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Brett Favre was a second rounder..
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 18, 2011 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions
20 years ago and just barely
(33rd pick in 1991).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions
And he should have been a 1st, had Ken Behring not have been a douchnozzle.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 18, 2011 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Also Brian Brohm, Pat White, Drew Stanton, John Beck, Tarvaris Jackson...
I don’t like the odds of drafting an elite QB in the second round
by hawksfan1401 on Apr 18, 2011 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
You could argue until you are blue in the face that 2nd and 3rd round success stories are commonplace, more commonplace than 1st round success stories.
And you would never ever be correct.
You want a new QB (that’s worth a shit)? You’re going to have to spend a 1st rounder to improve your odds.
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 19, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
And the thing about drafting project QBs with no starting QB in place
is that (a) you’re losing out on another year of contention for as long as you depend on that the project QB and (b) you lose out on the production of the pick you spend on the project QB (because they’re not going to be playing on ST or rotationally or starting). If you have a starting QB, its not the worst idea in the world to draft project guys in the later rounds. If you don’t, you better have plans to sign a FA (not likely to work out) or draft a QB high.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 20, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I haven't been following the draft talent as closely as this year, but
From what I’ve seen, the only player I’d trade up for (as the Seahawks) is Ryan Mallet. And even then, you can take the risk and wait until #15. If the Dolphins don’t grab him, he’ll drop to the Seahawks almost guaranteed (barring another team that has already picked jumping up in the draft).
He’s a guy I’ve researched he appears to be the real deal, overblown ‘character issues’ aside. I’ll be very disappointed if the Seahawks spend picks to trade up and pick a player that’s not a QB. Until this team has a solid, established, young(ish) quarterback, it’s going nowhere.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
(reply to chief - can't get the reply button to work). With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you agree with me at all (which is certainly okay).
You seemed to miss my major point. For one thing, I don’t believe anyone in the draft is a ’can’t miss’. The challenge of moving from college to the NFL is huge, for every player, and every player is a risk.
Also, it’s Miami and Minnisota I am most concerned about (12 and 15, I think). Hopefully Minnisota likes Locker, and Miami Ponder, and if PC/JS know that for a fact, they may avoid having to trade up (assuming they really want Mallett, which I have no particular reason to believe, one way or another).
However, after 15, anyone at the top of the draft wanting Mallett will likely trade in front of Seattle to get him. It’s no secret Seattle wants a QB, and if Gabbert, Newton and Locker are off the board, the odds are fair (looking from the outside) that Seattle will take Mallett at 25, making it likely he won’t be there.
This isn’t about 20-20 hindsight – this is about making judgments about an uncertain future. Every QB taken in the first round is a high-priced risk. The trade-off is the high-value possibility in getting a top NFL QB. It can’t be done (with anything short of a miracle) without taking such a chance.
When Vick came back in the league, anyone could have had him, and Phili took a chance. Belichek passed on Brady five times before selecting him. These are the very rare exceptions (and maybe PC can turn Leinert into another Vick – in terms of his success in the NFL, but I wouldn’t bet my career on it).
Drafting Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Rothlessberger, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Stafford, Sam Bradford, Matt Ryan, Josh Freeman—all in the first round—were all risks who may have turned out to be Alex Smith, Matt Leinert, JaMarcus Russell. Then you have those more middle of the road – Eli Manning, Mark Sanchez, for example. All taken in the first round. Nobody knows for sure how a guy will take to the pros. Some will turn into HOFers, others bust out of the league.
Try to make a list like that outside the first round. Tough to do, and the list will be heavily weighted with guys you can’t name, and neither can I, because they never played.
As he Seahawks showed last year
you don’t just have to trade pics but you can trade players. I’m not sure how they determine the points for players, but trading the #25 and say a Golden Tate should get you up into the range to draft Mallett. I’m not saying that giving up on Tate’s potential is wise, but around the league he certainly would seem attractive. Even Curry might make sense to trade since our greatest need is not linebacker. Would you trade Curry for the best offensive lineman in the draft for example (plus a pick or two for later rounds)?
You can't trade players this year
unless the players and league decide to suddenly agree on a new CBA in the next week or two.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 18, 2011 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions
I think Tate's value can only have fallen after his rookie year and Curry would be worth at most a 3rd rounder
Tate probably would have ended up falling to the 3rd if not for the Hawks and who knows what he’s worth now. For the low value we’d get for them now I’d much rather keep them around and hope they develop
by hawksfan1401 on Apr 18, 2011 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Anyone but Dalton @ #25 and I will be fine
I bought 3 different draft publications in February who pin Dalton as a mid-round prospect that could become “a quality #2 QB.” And now he is being talked about in round 1? What changed in a matter of 60 days?
What changed?!?
People forgot the golden rule of Gingers…

What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 18, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
CMoney87, Seahawcla (can't get the reply button to work)
Not illogical. Based on studying everything I can find on Mallett, and being really impressed with what I have found. If you haven’t done the same, then we aren’t arriving at a conclusion from the same sources.
Evaluating (from a distance) QB prospects for the past several drafts, I have been 100% right. For example, I had discussions on this board about trading up to take Bradford as he was the only one last year worth taking that high (although as it turns out, no way the Rams trade the pick). What weighed against doing so was the huge ($50mil) price tag, and questions about whether the Seahawks could succeed another year with Hasselbeck. At the same time, I was completely opposed to drafting Clausen at all, let alone in the first round. As you may recall, the drafting season started out with Clausen as the top pick, with Bradford a question because of his shoulder.
The previous year I really liked Stafford and opposed drafting Sanchez (and Seattle passed, then the Jets reached up to get him). I thought Sanchez overrated, and so it has proven.
So here are my predictions for this year’s top 4:
Newton – will struggle making the transition to the NFL. One year wonder, came out of a simple offense, great physical tools who rarely faced adversity, inaccurate, etc.
Gabbert – will struggle making the transition. This year’s Sanchez/Alex Smith. Spread offense, very poor numbers throwing the ball down the field.
Locker – will struggle making the transition. Great athlete, super character, poor decision maker, inaccurate, mediocre in college. This year’s Garrard, Jason Campbell.
Ryan Mallett – the only QB in the upper tier (Ponder, Kapernick, perhaps others may have potential – I just haven’t studied them as much to know for sure) with no glaring deficiences. Will make the transition smoother than any other candidate. Elite arm strength and accuracy. Been a winner and student of the game since HS. Played in a comparable pro-style offense with incredible results. He is a pure passer, yet has the smarts and the skills to win from the pocket. His competitivess and love of the game comes through loud and clear.
Bottom line – no part of my opinion is irrational. I could definitely be wrong – not claiming to have perfect judgment, simply making a case, based on what I can observe from a distance. If there is anything behind my strong opinion that doesn’t get often displayed is my frustration watching Matt Hasselbeck struggle the past 3 seasons, and anxious to find a top replacement. In that time, this is the first opportunity I have seen to address the issue in the draft. Thus, my focused interest.
its beyond a focused interest
it is your only interest. How much tape have you watched on all these prospects? I have watched highlights from all of them and nothing I’ve watched has said to me that “this guy is the only one with a decent shot at being successful” I just don’t get where you’ve come up with such concrete opinions with anything you’ve seen when the personnel people who have seen/heard a lot more than you or me don’t seem to be coming to the same conclusion. Thus it being illogical. You seem to be so infatuated that you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees, you immediately discount any argument against him and latch onto anything you can to bolster your opinion. The only topics you even talk about is any scenario in which the Hawks get Mallett. If they were to trade every pick to move up to #1 and get Mallett even if nobody in front of us was going to take him I get the impression you’d be perfectly happy. Maybe if you came off as even having the slightest grain of objectivity your point would carry more weight.
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 6:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Wrong on several counts.
“The only topics you even talk about is any scenario in which the Hawks get Mallett.”
Not even close. At the beginning of the pre-draft process, I examined all of the QBs and brought up the then ridiculous idea of considering Ponder. After much discussion and more consideration, I came to the conclusion that he wasn’t enough of an upgrade over CW to warrent taking at 25. At the time I dismissed Mallett as not fitting what PC/JS wanted to do, given his lack of mobility. I too scoffed at his 40 time and his general lack of athleticism.
Setting aside QBs in the draft, I looked at the next glaring hole in the roster – the o-line. I advocated (on this site) taking a RT at 25. At first I liked Carimi, but settled on Derek Sherrod as the guy worth the most at that position.
But a funny thing happened during one of the Ponder discussions. I informally ranked the QBs based on a weighted evaluation of my invention, and someone pointed out that Mallett actually ranked higher than Ponder (the subject of that discussion). That got me thinking (because I try to think for myself and not simply accept judgments from others. That’s one of the reason you have never seen me talk about the d-line because I don’t know enough to have an opionion).
In the course of my researching Mallett, I found this:
This was written by a Miami fan, and does a great job breaking down Mallett’s game and character. Something like 30 minutes of tape along with detailed analysis.
Since then, I have paid more attention, looking for something substantially wrong with Mallett, and I can’t. One person wrote, apparently an insider, something like “There is one thing you need to know about Mallett before drafting him.” The journalist didn’t know what it was, and didn’t speculate, and I won’t either, but I think I know what it is, and it has nothing to do with football.
“The only topics you even talk about is any scenario in which the Hawks get Mallett. If they were to trade every pick to move up to #1 and get Mallett even if nobody in front of us was going to take him I get the impression you’d be perfectly happy.”
Wrong again. Up until recently, I would even consider trading up for him. All my comments were related to who to take at 25. In fact, after some experts posited a situation where Miami trades up to 10 for Mallett, I made the comment that given the talent available at 10, it would be a wasted move on a QB with any questions at all. It has only been recently (the past couple of days) where I am starting to think Seattle should trade up to 10 for him.
“Maybe if you came off as even having the slightest grain of objectivity your point would carry more weight.”
My position is entirely objective (not that I care how much weight it carries). I’ve studied his film, his scouting reports, his interviews, and any other hints I can find on him. I keep looking for a flaw, a character defect (when his character was attacked, I was most concerned with his work ethic, his love for the game, his competitivness – all of which appear to be of the highest caliber). Did he make mistakes? Sure, but the kind any young college kid does. Does he have a drug problem? Good luck finding anything but irresponsible innuendo. If it turns out he’s a coke fiend, then yeah, pass on the guy. But as far as I can determine, there are no facts, no genuine allegations – nothing.
So if you can provide an objective criticism of his game and/or character, I’m all ears. If all you can do is quote someone else’s opinion, don’t bother – I have already heard it.
Im not knocking your opinion
you are entitled to it. I just don’t get how you have come to such seemingly concrete conclusions that few others (many with much more info than you) have jumped to. It seems every comment you have made letely has been related to how Mallett is the prospect with the highest chance of success which is an evaluation I have heard nobody I consider all that credible make. You are touting the guy like he is the next Peyton Manning and frankly I don’t see it at all. I see a guy with a great arm some pro style experience with questionable leadership/character/intelligence traits and a higher floor and lower ceiling. I just don’t see his skill set being one that will improve much past where he is now which in my view is one of a servicable-good starter at best and total flame out at worst. Nothing about the guy beyond his arm seems to project him as an elite player to me. Now if a team truly believes he will be that player fine take him, but he doesn’t seem to me from anything I’ve read or seen to be worthy of dropping picks to move up and get him. You have consistently made these quantified predictions about the level of success you see each prospect achieving, which is truly impossible to predict, frequently stating to the effect that Mallett is the only “franchise QB in the group”. So you’ll have to excuse me mistaking your complete obsession with one guy as an utter lack of objectivity.
by CMoney87 on Apr 18, 2011 8:21 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Here's the thing(s):
You write:
“I just don’t get how you have come to such seemingly concrete conclusions that few others (many with much more info than you) have jumped to.”
First of all, your appeal to authority is flawed, because you don’t know (none of us do) what the decision makers think. It’s quite possible that many of them have reached the same conclusion. Besides, I didn’t reach my opinion by accepting the opinion of others – I come to it by inspecting the available facts.
And then this:
“I see a guy with a great arm some pro style experience with questionable leadership/character/intelligence traits and a higher floor and lower ceiling.”
What is questionable about his “leadership/character/intelligence traits”? You are simply repeating what you have heard elsewhere without providing examples, facts or any reason to come to this conclusion. As far as I can tell, based on what I have read, listening to Mallett, and comments made by people who know him personally, have played with him and coached him, he has all the character traits you’d like to see in a franchise QB.
I thought this comment interesting:
“I just don’t see his skill set being one that will improve much past where he is now…”
You could be right, in that he has already tapped out all the potential he will ever be. If so, he is slated for NFL mediocrity, or worse, because every college prospect at the QB position has to get much, much better if they are to succeed at the next level. The only argument I could make is that he appears to have the drive, the love of the game and the work ethic to make the leap, but you never know. He’s not good enough now – no college QB is – so it’s possible he doesn’t continue developing.
And finally this (good discussion, BTW – thanks):
“…consistently made these quantified predictions about the level of success you see each prospect achieving, which is truly impossible to predict, frequently stating to the effect that Mallett is the only ‘franchise QB in the group1’.”
Agreed, impossible to predict with any certainty. I only use concrete expressions to make what I mean clear, and don’t pretend to any particular expertise. These are discussion boards, and we discuss. The scouts scout, and the GMs make the decisions, and we have fun in the meantime sharing our thoughts. And I don’t think I used the term ‘franchise’ in the context of all the QBs under consideration. But to clarify, the mocks and the commentators (professional and otherwise) have reached a consensus on the top two QBs, and I am not convinced, based on the relative merits of Newton and Gabbert. Maybe Newton ends up elite; I’d love to bet against him, as I don’t believe he has the character to make the transition, nor has he demonstrated the skills at the position. If the average success rate for a first round QB is 43%, I put Mallett as the only one of the 4 with a higher likelihood of NFL success (I think I put him somewhere around 60% – no sure thing, for sure). The others all fall below the average, IMO.
On the other hand, perhaps Mallett is the only one who fails, and five years from now Newton, Gabbert and Locker will all be playing in the pro-bowl.
Hey Petey if your reading this
Ignore the fans. Stick to your game. Fix the oline and dline. Run the ball. Over and over and when the season is over and either St Lou or San Fran wins the division and we have a top 10 pick. Choose a qb. Forget this draft unless Mallett or Locker or Gabbert or Newton drops in our lap.
Run the ball like I know you can. Fill our holes in our team with franchise players that will be available once teams go after hard for a rookie (ok class) qb from this year’s draft.
I am positive someone with elite talent and that fills our many needs will be available in the draft.
Hey Petey, if your reading this, ignore the previous...
…draft Mallett (if you think he’s the guy). If not, then yeah, lets get those big guys up front.
Hey Petey, if you're reading this...
do you mind us, your team’s fans, calling you Petey?
What if we simply took the highest ceiling players, who fit ANY system, and worked out the details later? If we do go that route, there’s no way you can convince me Ponder is a good choice in the 1st round.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Apr 19, 2011 1:32 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm almost certain now
that Seattle will trade down and pick up a middle tier QB. Guys like Dalton, Kaepernick are on the radar…though I’d much rather take Kaepernick than any QB available after the 1st round.
If they're trading down, I don't think they're spending their first choices on a QB.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Justin Houston; 5. Phil Taylor; 6. Jake Locker; 8. Marvin Austin
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright,
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 19, 2011 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I think that's the worst idea in the world
First, you’re dramatically lowering your chance of your QB turning into a starter by drafting the 5th or 8th best guy in the draft class. Second, you’re spending a pick that could be turned into a relatively productive starter at another position on a QB that may never take a snap for you in a competitive game. Third, you’re left with no starting QB on the roster that you can depend on.
Until you have a starting QB, the GM’s number one job is to find one. Getting cute and trying to trade back to draft a guy in the middle of the 2nd just lowers your chances of hitting on the pick.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 20, 2011 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions

by 


































