Dave Razzano's Thoughts on the Seahawks' Draft Strategy
by Danny Kelly on Apr 21, 2011 2:01 PM PDT
Email
PrintLast July, ex-NFL scout Dave Razzano put together a piece that profiled 20 rookies that he thought would have a big impact in the 2010 season. While most people in the know could look at a team's depth chart and surmise which early-round players will have a big impact in their first season, it takes a little bit keener eye to pick out late round guys that will surprise in year one. Razzano showed pretty remarkable foresight in his piece dated back to July when he hit on Green Bay RB James Starks and Tennessee WR Marc Mariani. As we saw, Starks contributed heavily to Green Bay's Super Bowl run and Marc Mariani made the Pro Bowl as a punt return specialist. I doubt many people had both of these guys in their preseason impact player predictions.
I've done a few articles about him already, but if you're not familiar, (according to his blog bio), 'Dave Razzano is an NFL scout and Playmaker Mobile correspondent with more than 22 years of professional scouting experience with the San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals under NFL coaches including Bill Walsh, George Seifert, Chuck Knox and Dick Vermeil.
He's been a part of five Super Bowls with three Super Bowl wins (49ers, 1989, 1990; Rams, 2000) and he consistently delivers independent unfiltered opinions on college and pro football talent.'
I got a chance to talk to Dave about the Seahawks' draft strategy and drafting in general. It's great to get his point of view - he's a guy that been around NFL organizations his whole life (his dad was a legendary NFL scout as well) and has seen inner workings from every angle - from inside the war rooms to on the road scouting players. He's had a lot of contact with and influence on NFL GMs so you he brings a lot to the table in his analysis. Though he's not always right, as I pointed out in the past, he has a track record of success and at worst gives us a great look at some of the methodology scouts and teams use, and offers some opinions that go against the grain with respect to the general consensus surrounding players. Here's a few answers he gave me about some things the Hawks have to consider as the draft draws nigh.
DK: From a 'scout's perspective', what would be your recommendations to the Hawks regarding their situation at QB? (ie, do they go for a 1st round guy, Mallett/Locker, or try and wait for a Kaepernick in the 2nd round? - explain what you'd do there and why that player may fit for the Hawks)
DR: Would grab Locker in a minute but they will have to trade up. He never gets out of top 20 picks. Would not touch Ryan Mallett. Someone will become enamored with his rocket arm. Immobile guys who are "shady " like he is would not interest me in any round. Hawks were waayyy too hasty in getting rid of Nate Davis. Nobody seems to like his locker room demeanor. Games are not won in the locker room. They are won on the field of play and this guy Davis is BIGTIME!! The niners screwed up by not playing him and it cost Singletary potential millions in earnings. Whoever plays this guy will look like a genius! Nobody thought much of the "laid back" Kurt Warner sitting around Rams facility for 2 yrs. That is why we traded for Trent Green. He gets hurt, Vermeil has no other choice but to put in this mild mannered camp body and the rest is history. Point being until you put a guy on the field....last time I looked Davis has ZERO attempts in a regular season game, you just don't know. Moot point, he is gone and that's too bad.
Anyway, Kaepernick is another QB I feel will be very successful. Everyone is targeting for round two. He will go either late one or early two. Again, Jake Locker, to me, is a Brett Favre clone and the same things people say about Locker they said about Favre coming out of S Mississippi. Poor accuracy, can't read defenses etc. Not shocked when I checked out favre's total college stats vs Locker and they were identical Favre in college....55 td 35 int 53.2% completion. Locker...53 td 35 int 53.6 completion percentage. This is why you can't put emphasis on the stat sheet. Most of the stats is the team you are on and the system. Joe Montana did not have overly impressive stats coming out of Notre Dame. When you studied him closely he made plays when team needed them most..Had "winner" written all over him, just like Locker does today.
DK: Do you have any favorite - (either high profile or sleeper) Defensive Tackles (3-tech) that you think will have a lot of success rushing the passer and creating havoc on the line? If so, who and why do you like him? Anybody that no one is talking about yet?
DR: The Hawks really need help in the front seven of their defense. As for DT's, it will be interesting to see if Pete Carroll has big interest in a player I feel is being completely overlooked early, DT Jurrell Casey of USC. Looks like a Casey Hampton (Steelers) clone. Short and compact, very strong and explosive, high effort. Folks seem to be knocking his "work ethic" just like they did Ryan Pickett coming out of Ohio State. It is extremely difficult to find good defensive linemen and most don't have great work ethic, which is why they are big in the first place. You don't need choir boys for the position. Just disruptive and nasty players like Casey. If the Hawks are smart they are targeting this player!
DK: What offensive linemen are you most high on? The Hawks have needs at every position on the line except LT - who do you see as some guys that could excel in the Hawks' zone-blocking scheme under Tom Cable?
DR: The OL is much better off than the DL right now, especially with very strong back-ups like Stacy Andrews, Paul Fanaika and Breno Giacomini. If they decide to go with an OT in the first round a name to remember is James Brewer of Indiana. This former basketball player is a bit off the radar but, believe me, scouts and OL coaches know all about this guy. Instant starter at ROT who can also play on the left side. If they want a versatile kid who can play all three positions then go get Will Rackley of Lehigh. A solid OT in round two would be Marcus Gilbert of Florida.
DK: Do you have any mid to late round WR or CB sleepers in mind that you think will make a big impact?
DR: Another USC player is a DC sleeper of mine and again, will be interesting to see if Pete Carroll lobbies John Schneider for the services of the very field smart and talented Shareece Wright. A couple of WO's who could fall down some Draft boards are Vincent Brown of San Diego State, an excellent player who ran 4.70 at Indy. Throw out the stopwatch, Anquan Boldin ran a 4.71! This kid is legit!! Another WO I love is Greg Salas of Hawaii, a Poor Man's Hines Ward. This kid caught 115 balls last year and is one of the most competitive route runners and downfield blockers you will see. Again, will get knocked down some due to his 4.60 play speed.
DK: Talk a little bit about the Hawks' 2010 draft class - do you see any big hits or misses? What are your thoughts on their later round guys - CB Walter Thurmond, S Kam Chancellor, TE Anthony McCoy, DE Dexter Davis, and FB/TE Jameson Konz - did you have high grades for any of these guys?
DR: As for the 2010 Hawks Draft class, wasn't thrilled with 1st pick OT Russell Okung. Thought he was best on the right side and would not touch a ROT in 1st. This player struggles athletically to play consistently on the Left. Loved Earl Thomas. Very consistent playmaker from game to game on tape. Love his play demeanor. Did not like WO Golden Tate. Thought he was a mid round tweener at best. Lacks explosiveness and not fluid enough to be a consistent outside threat. Mid rounds picks were very average but LOVED a couple later picks like TE Anthony McCoy and especially OLB Dexter Davis, who I had rated in the 2nd round and a guy who can line up and get after the QB!
Overall, there is great promise for the Hawk fans due to the front office cohesion between the fun and energetic Pete Carroll and the very talented GM John Schneider. Talented and "solid" people who will create an environment that does things the right way with "winning" the only goal!!
---------------
Big thanks to Dave for taking the time to respond to my questions. Let me know if you guys have any more questions for him and I'll try to pass them on and get some answers! Check out his blog at Playmaker Mobile for more insights.
157 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
he doesn't like Okung???
say that again when hes a pro bowl left tackle for the next 5 years mister!!
by gimpycb on Apr 21, 2011 2:08 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah that surprised me too.
I hope he’s wrong! The other points he makes are pretty damn interesting though
haha I was like "Eff you!!" when i read that
I think we can all agree that Okung’s play when he was healthy clearly showed that Razzano’s opinion is not panning out. Okung is plenty athletic. He’s a beast out there. (remember when he laid the dude out after the fumble/int?)
the rest of his comments were interesting however
Yeah he may be off with that one. He's not the only one that didn't have Okung rated highly though coming out last year.
There were many people who thought he wasn’t athletic enough. I think Okung has silenced a lot of those critics but Razzano isn’t the only one that thought this.
What I don't understand about his criticism of Okung is that Russell has a "traditional LT" body.
He’s tall and big but not fat; he’s strong as hell and could play RT, which I think just goes to show how valuable a LT Okung really is. Leading up to the 2010 I hadn’t heard anyone else say the same things about Okung that Dave is saying now.
Yeah I don't think it was at all the consensus - hence the 6th pick
but I went back and looked and found some people doubting his ability against top level pass rushers. He did pretty well though in his rookie year.
I never heard that talk either
I did hear people saying that about Trent Williams (pre-combine), Anthony Davis and Bryan Bulaga, but never about Okung. Not once. He was supposed to be the rock-solid LT of the draft. And with a year of 20/20 hindsight, he still looks like the rock-solid LT of the draft. So I don’t know where that comes from.
by Suburban Shocker on Apr 21, 2011 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions
just an example or two
that's true. But a LT that can't be quick enough/strong enough is a de facto RT
I see your point and dont’ disagree with you about Okung – I think he’s going to be a pro-bowl player, just pointing out that he’s not the only one that had/has reservations about Okung.
So I think we’re on the same page haha.
I'm not so sure about that
“Not quick enough,” yeah, maybe so. “Lacks athleticism” or “poor footwork” might also imply RT status. I see hints of that from Staton, but not Farrar (who compares him to a couple of Virginia products who are both playing LT in the NFL). The lukewarm reviews look more like they think that instead of being a Pro Bowl caliber LT (hence worthy of a top 6 pick), Okung will just be an average starting LT (worthy of a late-first).
But yes, we’re on the same page and I don’t wish to belabor this point. Suffice to say, the vast majority of voices out there pegged Okung as a LT a year ago, and he’s only confirmed that since then.
by Suburban Shocker on Apr 21, 2011 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
I like what he has to say about Schneider
Both in this article and both. It’s more and more looking like we’re in good hands.
by B.B.Finnegan on Apr 21, 2011 6:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I have a confession.
I didn’t want Okung at #6 the year before….
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 21, 2011 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions
Who exactly did you want? Berry? Williams? Clausen?
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
You mean outside of Sam Bradford or Ndamukong Suh?
My dream scenario was that the Seahawks traded up for one of those guys.
But staying pat, I wanted Trent Williams at #6 and either Mike Iupati or Earl Thomas at #14.
I’m pretty happy with how it turned out, because I really, really, really wanted Earl Thomas.
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 21, 2011 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Struggles athletically on the left? Huh.
I thought he did well when he wasn’t getting his ankles plowed under. I would’ve attributed most of his problems to that.
Work hard, play harder, rest easy.
There were quite a few scouts that were low on Okung originally
I’m pretty sure that even Rob over at SDB didn’t rate him that highly. Okung held up pretty well against some major pass rushers this season considering his ankle issues but it makes me want to go back and look at the tape.
I do remember Rob questioning Okung's strength....which is weird because he seemingly has had no trouble with that aspect of the game so far in his young career.
I think Russell is still growing and learning as a LT prospect (he played high school football but wasn’t that into it, apparently), so perhaps he has “grown out” of a few issues that plagued him in college.
Theres a pretty huge difference between 6'1, 217lb Anquan Boldin running a 4.7 forty
and 5’11, 197lb Vincent Brown running a 4.7 forty.
Also, why does he recommend recommend Brewer as a RT in the first but then later say he’d never draft a RT in the first?
Just goes to show that there'll be plenty of decent RT options in the 2nd and 4th rounds.
Hell, it’s not like EVERY team needs a right tackle this year.
In his mock, he has us picking Sherrod in the first
“Another team with a huge need at the OT position. Sherrod should get every chance to play early at ROT.”
He was probably just winging it, he made some wild and contradictory assessments. But it was good to to get more prospects that could fit and some views against the grain from a former scout. You’re doing a great job with the site.
No, I think Danny is right.
Just because he wouldn’t draft a RT in the first doesn’t mean teams don’t do it. I had misread the part about Brewer when I made my comment.
I also thought part of that was implied with how early in the first Okung was, but I could be wrong there.
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 21, 2011 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
whats with this guy's thinking on the o-line?
we are most definitely not better off on the o-line than on the DL, and the “very strong back-ups like Stacy Andrews, Paul Fanaika and Breno Giacomini” are just that, career backups. OL is much more of a need than DL, the only reason you see so many drafts with the hawks picking DL is that it is a position of considerable depth this year.
Do you know a lot about Fanaika and Giacomini?
I don’t, so I can’t necessarily agree with you one way or another. He must know something about them from his scouting days to point them out.
Also something to keep in med: The Seahawks were playing musical chairs with the o-line all season.
Other than Okung and Spencer (and knowing full well that Locklear sucks), it’s really tough to get an assessment on this o-line as a whole. Continuity matters. We do need to make an upgrade or two, sure, but things might not be as dire as they look.
I guess i shouldn't have spoken so quickly
but my understanding of Fanaika and Giacomini is that they were snatched from the Green bay practice squad. I can’t say for sure, but I think Schnieder liked them for some reason(might have been desperation at line depth). I also know that Fanaika was drafted in the 7th round by Green Bay and Giacomini in the fifth by Philli. I have no idea what type of players these guys are. My point was that I would rather go into this coming season with help on the offensive line than on the defensive(assuming we keep mebane). I know continuity was an issue. But given the players we are loosing to FA, and the apparent inability for these guys to compete for spots at guard or right tackle is concerning. Thats not to say they wont possibly have wonderful and illustrious careers. I just want to be able to run the ball better and give our QB some more time, thats all.
Mebane
Why does everyone just assume that Mebane will re-sign? I mean in one post you said “assuming we keep Mebane” and a sentence later said “given the players we’re losing in free agency” when talking about the o-lineman.
Right now the D-line is UGLY. We’re relying on post surgery Red, Cole (mediocre at best), some combination of Balmer and Terrill at the 3 tech, and then Clemons who came out of nowhere last season and there’s basically nothing behind them.
Not that the O-line is in much better shape. I guess it’s pretty obvious why Schneider is locked in on adding picks and improving both the lines.
His agent says he wants to re-sign
And the team gave him the original round tender. No, it’s not a done deal, but the probability is such that I wouldn’t go looking for his replacement in this draft.
by Suburban Shocker on Apr 21, 2011 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions
I sure hope so.
An original round tender isn’t exactly big stuff.
Personally,
I think if Mebane was an important part of the plan he’d be signed. I think the RFA tenders are probably going to be thrown out with a new labor deal, but who knows. We heard all this “we almost signed Hasselbeck” business, but nothing like that about Mebane. I wouldn’t count your chickens yet.
I didn't think he was very effective last year. He's much better suited to the 1-tech
Another team running a more conventional 4-3 might be a better fit for him
by hawksfan1401 on Apr 21, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
It's not that simple.
You don’t just re-sign a player because you want him bad enough. There’s a lot that goes into negotiations that the results don’t tell nearly the whole story.
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 21, 2011 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
The Seahawks did place a 3rd round tender on him.
That doesn’t guarantee that he’ll come back, but what it does is expose which teams are actually interested him, and gaging what kind of trade offers would be available (as you saw last year with Brandon Marshall & Charlie Whitehurst, the new teams didn’t sign them to new contracts, but both teams worked out a trade and then the player signed with the original team, then immediately got traded).
Unless something weird happens with the new CBA, it’s very likely that Brandon Mebane will come back to Seattle.
Steve Wyche said yesterday
on Total Access that from everything he has heard Mebane is going to be a hot commodity in FA. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone offers him some big time money to go somewhere else.
by CMoney87 on Apr 22, 2011 1:55 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
That would make me one sad panda
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 22, 2011 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Why did they only give an original round tender?
They could have upped it to a higher round, 1st or 2nd. It would have cost more to match/sign, but it also would have guaranteed either him or more value for losing him.
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 22, 2011 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
No idea. Maybe a negotiation tactic?
Or a sign that they understand that that the RFA tag may not be valid but that they want to demonstrate to Mebane that they want him back?
Or an effort to recoup a 3rd if they can’t bring Mebane back on the cheap (because they don’t value him that highly)?
I’ve got no idea. I only know that the only moves they’ve made on the contract front ahead of the new CBA have been for very small stakes.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 23, 2011 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions
I suspect because they're fine with keeping him or letting him go
and maybe even more interested in a 3rd rounder than in keeping him.
If I saw that guy on another team’s roster? I wouldn’t give up a 2nd round pick and a free agent contract that had to beat a Seahawk offer. Earlier I thought teams would, but free agency is after the draft, now, and it’s pretty expensive. A 3rd rounder? I’d definitely consider it.
I expected them to tender him higher because the monetary cost difference is small but the compensation difference is greater. But they didn’t and I think they would love to move him. Fit.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Apr 25, 2011 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Last year we saw all of our Dline men.
And only a few really are going to make the cut. With Mebane up in the air we need Dline help bad.
Our offense lost Gibbs right before season and was injury plagued too but we did not see all of our players.
We already brought in Cable, and a health Okung and Unger will improve this line tremendously. Add a possible free agent in Gallery and this line will be a whole lot better than last year. So please lets fix the Dline first.
Love Razanno
Great insight, not afraid to truly believe in what he says. Very refreshing.
Draft day just can’t get here quick enough. I really will not be shocked by any move/pick we make in round 1 at this point. I’m just glad that I have complete faith in PC and JS, whereas I dreaded every move Ruskell made and draft day was almost an event I cringed at.
by MTJ on Apr 21, 2011 2:33 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Indeed he's heavily caffeinated
But I appreciate a guy who holds his ground, especially in such a subjective field where everyone has new favorites every week.
It was "Dexter Davis this, and Dexter Davis that"
all through minicamp last year. Then he disappeared during the regular season. Whats the deal with that?
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
Chris Clemons/Raheem Brock
Davis fell to third in the depth chart. Sort of what happened with Golden Tate I guess.
"winner" written all over Locker?
I’d find this more persuasive if he had more of a history of, you know, winning.
Yeah, I know, QBs don’t win games by themselves, but Razzano brought it up.
by Suburban Shocker on Apr 21, 2011 2:46 PM PDT reply actions
I think he meant "winner" in a different, less obvious way.
There are guys that play.
There are guys that play hard.
There are guys that play hard until the very last second.
There are guys that play hard until the very last second and will never, ever, ever give up even when against all odds.
Locker strikes me as the last one. And that’s what I think he means by “winner”.
That fire, when misused, leads to bad decisions, taking the team on your shoulders, and taking matters into your own hands. (Sound familiar?). But when wielded correctly, you have a leader that a football team will jump off a cliff for; a motivator that few people can be; a guy that can change the course of football games.
I don’t think many players are like this. I do believe Jake is one of them, however.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Dumb son of a bitch should have gone to Florida and Tebow to UW.
Then we’d have gotten to see if Thom Brennaman was still so in love with Timmy Tebow.
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 21, 2011 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
" Immobile guys who are "shady " like he is would not interest me in any round"
“Shady”? Really? I’m not a Mallett lover (though I am curious) but this is some pretty weak-ass analysis.
Also shady: Ben Roethlisberger.
You can correct behavioral problems, but you can’t “coach up” arm strength.
Was Roethlisberger considered 'shady' coming out of college?
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
I don't think Big Ben suddenly became an asshole once he got to Pittsburgh.
That is to say, I don’t know. Except for that motorcycle crash and getting suspended for 5 games, it seems that being an asshole hasn’t stopped Roethlisberger from being a really good QB.
With the exception of Troy P.
I think most of the players in Pittsburgh are dickheads. So it wouldn’t surprise me if he was negatively influenced by the people there.
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
My point is: you're not comparing apples to apples.
If Roethlisberger DID have ‘character concerns’ coming out of college, he’d be an apt comparison to Mallet.
But if he didn’t, Roethlisberger is just like most every other college QB coming into the NFL. He simply let the fame / money go to his head and he made some stupid decisions.
Mallet is a kid. He could come into the NFL, get absolutely whipped by his coaching staff, and could mature into a normal adult. Who knows? Everyone is different.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
If Roethlisberger had character concerns coming out of college, he probably would have been picked 10-15 spots lower than he did.
But I doubt that would have actually affect his pro career. Where a player gets drafted doesn’t define him for his entire life.
And then in the very next sentence about Nate Davis, he turns around and dismisses character as important.
Kinda confused by that.
http://17power.blogspot.com
He seems to contradict himself
“This is why you can’t put emphasis on the stat sheet. Most of the stats is the team you are on and the system.”
“Another WO I love is Greg Salas of Hawaii, a Poor Man’s Hines Ward. [b]This kid caught 115 balls last year[/b] and is one of the most competitive route runners and downfield blockers you will see.”
You know why he caught 115 balls? Because Hawaii throws the ball 45 times a game. Also he caught 119 passes but that’s moot.
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
Bold fail :(
To improve, they should try to become the musical southern cal of the west. - bRuins Nation poster on the Stanford band.
Love the reactions
At worst, these are opinions that aren’t normally expressed so it gives you pause to reconsider your thinking. He may be wrong on some stuff but it’s an interesting point of view and he’s got a lot more experience in the field than any of us (I assume – let me know if you are an ex-NFL scout) so he most likely knows a thing or two.
I am keeping in mind that many opinions I form, NOT ALL, but a lot of them, are based on reading other people’s reports on players rather than first-hand eye witness scouting.
As for the Okung talk, he might be basing his opinion on scouting Russell at OSU.
I believe that, even from his senior season, Okung has worked hard at becoming a better LT; maybe I’m mistaken, but Okung looks like a player much improved over just a single season.
Also, I’m not sure how a tackle once considered to have power issues should be moved to the right side. Then again, I’m no scout.
I don't know either. Maybe just by default?
Too tall for Guard, still pretty athletic (though not athletic enough for left side), so they become de facto RTs.
I was convinced after watching him manhandle Julius Peppers in week 6
by hawksfan1401 on Apr 21, 2011 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions
In all fairness
it wasn’t the flawless game everyone made it out to be. He got away with more than a couple mistakes. It was still awesome, and he did do plenty of “manhandling.”
Don't take the responses personally.
I, for one, may not agree with everything he says, but he puts himself out there and sticks to what he says. Even after Okung flashed some absolutely amazing talent in 2010, Dave isn’t convinced. I find that very refreshing. He sticks to his guns and is OK with being wrong.
Professional scouts and analysts are typically a bit more guarded and will change their opinions. And I don’t blame them; it’s what brings home the bacon, and no one wants to get fired for holding strong to too many opinions that went the other way.
"Pass rushers enter the world of Okung but never leave." - JM
Author of The Seahawks Asylum: http://seahawksblog.wordpress.com
Refreshing to hear from someone who doesn't fall in line
with the talking heads around TV and the internet. I mean this guys got a pretty strong resume, I’d be willing to trust his instincts on some of the stuff he’s saying. It’s also nice to see him endorse a few players I’ve had my eye on for a while like Drake Nevis and Vincent Brown.
I don't agree with all his opinions
But it is great to hear an expert with a different point of view from the mainstream media.
NFL Network
Just did a re-val of last years top 5 tackles and the 2011 drafts top 5 prospect tackles and put Okung #1.
Portland transplant to Boston.
Gimme a helllll yeah.
… hellllll yeah!
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
There was an all NFL rookie team on ESPN last year
done by Clayton or McShay, I think, and Williams was #1 at LT but only because of Okung’s injuries. The GB OT was the starter at RT, but only because he played RT all year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 21, 2011 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions
His analysis makes sense considering that the Hawks want to trade down from 25
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Great Get, Danny
Awesome interview! I don’t agree with everything he says, ie: his Locker/Mallett comparison, or Okung observations (surprising Nate Davis comments, too) but I’m more than willing to admit that his opinions are thoroughly backed by personal research.
Besides, it’s just nice to get a new source.
I've got ridiculous upside.
Agreed
I love the input from all different types of sources. You don’t have to agree with everything that’s said but it still nice to get a lot of different opinions in here.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 21, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
What an interview!
I love his enthusiasm! The guy USES exclamation marks for emphasis when writing things!
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 21, 2011 4:46 PM PDT reply actions
Regardless of the rights or wrongs that was a great read
Interesting stuff all round. Everyone on the team has a chance to prove him off base.
So close to that draft now. I’m watching all the rounds, just like last year. Really entertaining but very difficult to explain why to anyone I know.
Side note.
FUCK YOU NFL. For ruining the draft.
I used to have NFL draft parties on Saturdays with friends who loved all teams. It was incredibly exciting, drinking beer, playing horseshoes and pool and watching the draft all day. Everyone can be an optimist that day, and I was even able to tolerate hanging with Broncos fans watching football all day.
Then the NFL made it more “TV Friendly” and completely fucking ruined it by making the 1st round one day on a god damn weeknight, the 2nd another, and the weekend an afterthought.
Meh.
FUCK YOU, GOODALL. First you ruined the draft, then you decided that wasn’t enough, and you’ve ruined this entire offseason…. and you’re trying like hell to fuck up our season too. Bastard.
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 21, 2011 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 10 recs
Agreed
The NFL does whatever it can to fuck over the West coast.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 22, 2011 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions
This isn't just west coast though... it's all fans.
For instance, a lot of my married/relationship friends could get off a Saturday to “play with the boys and watch football.” But they don’t get 4 fucking days off, unless they want the 5th day on free as well…
My best draft gatherings were in Denver. We had a guy from N’awlins do a crawfish boil, a guy from KC do bbq ribs, i’d do a bunch of smoked salmon, etc, and we’d all hang with local Denver fans and not hate each other for a few hours…it was awesome.
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 22, 2011 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
This is a very excellent point.
If it was just daytimes on the weekend, I could get away with it. Now it’s so spread out, my g/f is gonna be all “why are you watching this? It’s SO boring?”
I wouldn't expect a scout to be so certain of a highly touted prospect's absolute lack of chance of success.
But he’s very outspoken and intense, and you just don’t get tentative statements from folks like that. Most likely he does have a much more nuanced grasp of scouting than his statements suggest. He probably recognizes the value and limitations of stats. When he says toss em out, it’s probably his rhetorical way of saying the prospect is promising despite the stats. When he uses them, he may have looked closely at the guy and noticed that what his eyes saw also manifested on the stat sheet.
That’s my takeaway. Interesting, refreshing, yes. Insightful, yes. Convincing? Not particularly. I’d be the first to defer to his knowledge over mine. But outliers bring questions about consensus. Outliers do not invalidate consensus.
Head of catering.
Yeah I think thats what bugs me with this interview
he’s too extreme. His blog seems more reasoned though, I’m going back through some of the stuff he’s written and some of it’s pretty good.
I think the interview was entirely off the cuff too
in his blog he does a better job in his explanations and seems more polished and less intense as he appears here.
The only opinion I could agree with...
…was about Nate Davis. I was very hopeful that PC could get the best out of him.
Completely disagree with his assessment of Locker and Mallett (but if you want to bet money, perhaps you would put it on his opinion). And of course his comments about Okung are absurd. Even Washington is regretting they took Williams over him.
But what is really interesting is how professional observers (owners, coaches, scouts, commentators) can take the same info and process it with completely different results. Opposite results, conflicting convictions, which makes the draft even that much more unpredictible, because in the end, only two things count: who your team selects, and how those selections actually perform.
Check out the draft rumors from 17power
Mallet is not on Seattle’s radar???
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
Gah, link fail!
http://17power.blogspot.com/2011/04/seahawks-draft-rumors-april-20.html
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
Thanks for the original post
One of the important things from the original post is that they didnt sign Hass over guaranteed money. I wonder how much Matt was askin for?
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water. The other third is covered by Earl Thomas.
Dude wake up
Russel Okung has the potential to be a regular in Hawaii for the next 10 years. In one of his first few games in the NFL he SHUT DOWN JULIUS PEPPERS. The Seahawks OL outside of that is in shambles Andrews is trash for those of you mental ward escapees.
Rofl statements like these are why you don’t have a job in the NFL anymore buddy.
wasn’t thrilled with 1st pick OT Russell Okung. Thought he was best on the right side and would not touch a ROT in 1st. This player struggles athletically to play consistently on the Left. <<<< Worst assessment of this player I have ever seen. Russel Okung makes pass blocking look effortless. He is more than strong enough to be a dominant run blocker just doesn’t get the push you would like out of a player with his ability , seems lost/confused in the second level from time to time but it’s no where near often enough to be a problem.
Did not like WO Golden Tate. Thought he was a mid round tweener at best. Lacks explosiveness and not fluid enough to be a consistent outside threat. <<<<< SMH one of the most explosive player’s i’ve ever seen with the ball in his hands. Makes everyone else look like their standing still. Super compact frame never seems to want to go down even after contact with multiple tackler’s
especially OLB Dexter Davis, who I had rated in the 2nd round and a guy who can line up and get after the QB!<<<<<<<<< Worth NO WHERE NEAR a second rounder. Couldn’t even beat out a mediocre Raheem Brock for playing time let alone a starting position. Yes Brock had 9 sacks but Davis hasn’t shown much besides good jump of the snap, average speed from a pass rusher of his size, and some limited pass rushing moves.
Come on
Pretty closed-minded, homerific responses here man. It’s not fun to hear criticism of your squad, but come on.
I know I suffer from the homer glasses sometimes
however this guy clearly has never even watched Okung in the NFL. I mean it’s one thing to say he may be a better right tackle but to say you wouldn’t touch him in the 1st round??? That’s utterly moronic. Golden isn’t explosive? DEXTER DAVIS A 2nd ROUND PICK??
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps you should know what his track record is
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 22, 2011 10:23 AM PDT up reply actions
Unemployed?
I really am sorry but I am a very opinionated person. I am all for going against ESPN draft ranking’s ect. but you can’t just pull names out of a hat and make up skills and faults a player posses. To be honest I much prefer much of his assessment’s over many major networks I’ve seen, however no way you call Russel Okung not a 1st round pick in my presence and get away with it.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions
Opinions are fine.
But here is a piece Danny Kelly did to introduce Razzano.
But if you had scouted Okung properly in 2009, after his kick ass 2008 season, where he was just about flawless, there were some flaws coming up that likely would have made you pause on taking Okung in the 1st round, let alone the top 10. I know I had those same concerns that he did.
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 22, 2011 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Well that's great for the both of you.
Yes I did read that article and as nice as all those " calls " were that’s no different than me being 4-1 in calling the last 5 superbowls. It’s nice and all but that doesn’t mean I was the deciding factor. Saying a guy should have been chosen earlier or later has nothing to do with his success.
Success in the NFL is impossible to predict we just try to foresee the odds of a guy working out in a specific place. For all we know had a guy been chosen earlier the money/fame associated with being a higher draft pick could have gone to his head and he could never have that underdog mentality that makes him the great player he is now and vise versa.
It’s very easy to say oh that guy was a beast in college he should have gone 2 rounds earlier, the hard part is explaining why he should go ahead of the 5 guys in front of him who look equally talented on paper and that’s what I want to see not some arbitrary reasoning of him " not being athletic enough to play LT " or " struggles on the short pass " because he was pressured on 3 throws in one game and 2 of them were dropped.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Dude.
Chill.
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, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on Apr 21, 2011 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry I didn't know
the occasional lol was grammar patrol worthy….
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions
The Brett Favre comparison is fascinating
Sark really had Locker playing conservative in 2010 and that hurt his numbers and overall performance. Jake wasn’t a gunslinger thanks to Sark, but I sense that’s what he’d rather be and when Sark was more permissive with Locker (far fewer throwaways) in 2009 Locker put up better numbers.
Another thing too is that Favre was a 2nd rounder. If Washington and Minnesota pass on Locker at 10 and 12, than you can expect Locker to go in roughly the same range that Favre did.
I don’t agree with everything Razzano says (Okung not athletic and not a LT… are you kidding me?) but I really enjoyed his enthusiasm and mostly agreed with his insights. Great topic and post Dan!
I got to thinking about how many other college QBs had those exact numbers and never made it in the pros.
A ton, I would bet, but we don’t know because they didn’t make it in the pros…
Anyway, Locker doesn’t strike me as anything like Favre. I think Favre is a total dick (although a great QB – maybe the greatest) whereas Locker seems just about the opposite (I am talking pure character here).
In a word, I don’t think they are comparable. Locker will go on to have an NFL experience unique from Favre, IMO, for better or worse.
Without going back and re-reading the interview (once was more than enough) I thought the statistics were his total argument.
He essentially was justifying Locker’s poor showing in college by comparing a HOFers college numbers that happened to be identically poor.
Any other comparison, IMO, doesn’t hold. They are nothing alike. That was the point of my post (and maybe I am wrong and the two are actually related and genetically near-identical).
Nothing alike?
Both have strong arms, both have a tendency for wildness, both are tough, and when he was young, Favre was a pretty good scrambler. Not to Jake’s level, but he was certainly above average.
I don’t think it’s an exact model, but what is? A right handed Steve Young? Jay Cutler? Eli Manning with scrambling ability?
It’s not a completely unreasonable comparison, particularly when you factor in equal stats and possible draft selection range.
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 22, 2011 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Favre was only a second rounder because prior to the draft he spread rumors about his being addicted to painkillers
which was true.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Apr 22, 2011 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
The Locker Favre comparison is one
I actually do give him alot of credit for I never put it together. I would say Locker seems more controlled, but then again Brett Favre is the ultimate gunslinger which is what I liked most about him so that is one major trait he does lack.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Whenever I read anything of him, I ask myself "so why isn't he a scout anymore" and "why did he never rise above scout"
Apropos to nothing though. I remember him writing that Singletary was a great coach for the 49ers. That probably answers the latter question.
His obsession with Nate Davis also borders on the unreasonable. The dude’s not in and out of clubs like that for no reason. If he really had mountainous talent no locker room demeanor would truly blind an FO to that.
It’s fun to read some “expert” sleeper/top picks, but to be honest without any indepth analysis they might just as well be a random set of names. It is an interview format, so eh. At least it’s some analysis on FG again, I guess?
The O-line is "much better off" than the D-line?
We can debate that, although I disagree. But to illustrate his point, he uses Paul Fanaika (who has played in exactly zero NFL games), Breno Giacomini and Stacy Andrews and says they are “very strong back-ups”. That would be a lot funnier if he didn’t actually believe it.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Why don't you make yourself a depth chart
of the D-lineman currently on the roster and think that over again. Neither line is a pretty situation.
But you have 4 starters on the d-line (Clemons, Cole, Mebane [maybe] and Bryant.
You have 1 sure starter (Okung) and maybe two if you count Unger, which would actually be difficult to do.
Stacy Andrews couldn’t beat out Locklear for starting RT last year, and that says a lot. He was a healthy scratch by the end, which makes me wonder how well he could man the position.
Spencer is a FA, yet may be the best option at center. Who starts at guard?
O-line in tatters, d-line at least functional. Pending FA and the draft.
Don't include Mebane
Unless you’re including Locklear and Spencer on offense. Also consider that Cole and Bryant are coming off surgery, in Bryant’s case pretty major.
Andrews joined the team late and subbed in at G immediately for a while. So he supposed to learn two positions and beat out an incumbent starter during the season learning on the fly? I think that’s an unrealistic expectation and unfair way to judge him.
I’m not here to tell you the O-line is in good shape, but this is your D-line:
Bryant Cole Balmer Clemons, like I said two coming off surgery. Clemons may have been a flash in the pan for all we know. Your depth consists of Terrill, Davis, and Siavii. That may be the worst in the NFL, it’s definitely up there.
No question about depth - definitely a major weakness.
However, was Spencer or Locklear even made an offer? Mebane is valued and was tendered. While opinions differ on whether he will be back, we know he is wanted, and Seattle has the option to match any offer he is given. My bet – they are letting him determine his market value, and intend on matching it.
Point being, they will let their starting center and RT walk – because they aren’t worth keeping, whereas they will attempt to re-sign Mebane.
As far as Clemons being a one-year wonder, as far as I know, last year was the first time he was a regular starter in his career, and also the first time he played in that defense. As far as we can tell, he thrived for the same reason he was acquired – he’s good at it.
As far as the surgeries go, they could play the rest of their career without another one, or never play another regular season game. No way to know, and just because another player has never suffered a major injury, or had surgery, doesn’t mean they are any less prone to injury. The football field is an injury crap-shoot.
Spencer is worth keeping
I don’t understand this group-think opinion that Spencer is bad. I mean yeah he hasn’t been a dominant first round pick, but he was the second best player on the line last season. Not “worth keeping”? Come on.
I'm pretty sure the consensus here is that he's a valuable member of the OL
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 22, 2011 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed.
Only Jim Mora and Mike Holmgren disagree, I think…
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 22, 2011 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree Spencer is worth keeping, and have said so elsewhere.
People seem to assume that Unger will be the starting center, I believe based in part on what the organization has said, but I always thought it would be wise to re-sign Spencer to compete for the position.
My only point above is that to my knowledge very little effort, if any, has been made by the organization to bring Spencer back. We hear about offers to Hass, and Mebane was tendered, and of course BMW, Washington and Obo extended, but nothing on Spencer. Why? The silence on the subject leads me to believe that he will not be part of the team next year, leaving exactly one starting o-lineman in Okung.
In tatters, in other words, and based on what we know now, pre-draft and pre-FA, far worse off then the d-line. Or so it seems to me.
It's too bad too... he seems a perfect fit for Tom Cable.
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 26, 2011 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions
BTW
Those “backups” are all guys that Schneider and co. scouted out and brought in during the season because they saw potential. Isn’t it possible that these are some players (Andrews included) who haven’t quite had a fair chance to go through training camp and compete for a spot or guys who have the physical/characteristics that fit that system but need to be coached up? I mean isn’t that kind of the advantage of the ZBS, turning misfit OL from the average scheme into stars in our scheme? I don’t understand how people can just pass judgments like that on players they’ve never seen play especially when an actual NFL scout is trying to compliment the talent evaluators in the Seahawks organization.
Misfit lineman yes occasionally.
But the zone blocking scheme is more reliant on technique, savvy, and athleticisim. Andrews is slow, big, and jumps offside 5 times a game.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I think he's a prototype RT for the NFL
Whether that translates to the ZBS remains to be seen, but the scout wasn’t really talking about that when he complimented Andrews ability. Also, Cable has openly admitted that he prefers a larger player than is mentor Alex Gibbs so we’ll see.
Don't get me wrong.
I am by no means a proponent of undersized lineman, if it were up to me we would have a line featuring a pair of 320+ lb in line run blocking guards, 2 Okung style tackles, and a savvy veteran C who’s still got some pop to his punches.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I saw Breno play in Green Bay and pushed around like a rag doll.
I watched Andrews get benched at guard (perhaps his knee hasn’t fully healed…) and no one has seen Fanaika play so no one, including Razzano, can claim he is a strength quite yet.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
I'm glad he's "willing" to do that.
But he’s wrong, in my opinion.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
...and your opinion is based on never having seen them play
While his isn’t. So I’ll defer to him in this situation.
You have no idea what I have or haven't seen.
You’re awfully combative for someone who really has no idea what they are talking about. I’m only stating my opinion, based on having seen Breno and Andrews play. (No one has seen Fanika play in a NFL game.) You on the other hand are caliming facts. And incorrectly, I might add.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
Locker = Favre? LOL, this dude’s been hitting the bourbon too hard, man.
by Magnificentbutcher on Apr 22, 2011 9:09 AM PDT reply actions
Thanks for the perspective
Whether you personally agree or not is subject to debate…hence this forum. Personally, I really appreciate reading about a different point of view.
So thanks to both Danny and Dave for taking the time to entertain us.
Also what's with the Nate Davis boner?
Sure the guy has a big arm but so does Jamarcus? Saying we should sign him to a 7 year 140 million dollar contract and start making room in the trophy case?
Ok buddy
Cool your jets. Have you seen Nate Davis play? No. There are a lot of people that really love his game. Right now you’re just being a hater for the sake of hating.
So many people love his game that he's not on a roster and has been dropped by two teams.
Neither of which really wanted him for very long after he got there.
He's a lefty with a learning disability and weird laces-out grip
and he got really fat last year. Who wouldn’t want that guy leading their offense?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Apr 22, 2011 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions
He's so good
he’s not even listed on NFL.com anymore.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Nate Davis had a great pre-season a couple years ago...
…and showed a lot of potential. I was happy to hear PC signed him, even though he was stuck on the niners practice squad as a TE. Singletary didn’t like him, which raised him in my eyes.
He could have been a gem, but it sounds like he let himself go.
How did he look catching the ball?
Cause at this point we have more use for him at TE than QB.
by alexander_37 on Apr 22, 2011 9:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
