NFL Draft Grades 2011: Evan Silva and Rob Rang Like the Seahawks' Picks
by Danny Kelly on May 1, 2011 11:04 AM PDT
Email
Print
It's not all bad folks. I wanted to follow up with the Kiper-blasting by pointing out that not EVERYONE in the national media believe that the Hawks tripped on their Dick Shermans in this draft. Two notable protagonists? Evan Silva of Rotoworld and Rob Rang of CBS Sports.
First, to be completely clear - I'm not one to really believe what anyone says about a team's draft grade, whether it's positive or negative. The fact of the matter is that you're still grading a team's haul on how highly you rate a player's PROSPECT of succeeding. So you take a subjective look at how good you think a player will be and then group it together and determine subjectively how effective all those players will be in aggregate for a team and then give them a rather vague and ambiguous letter grade.
Gregg Rosenthal said it perfectly when he wrote on his twitter account yesterday:
Best tip for draft graders: If you've heard a lot of a team's picks, give them good grade. If not, bad grade.
Now, with that said, I thought I'd cover all my bases and show you the other side of the pendulum with some guys that think the Hawks did a pretty good job this year, if only so you're not as depressed about this draft. You have to weigh the negative reports and then look at the positive ones and take what you will from what the experts say and make your own opinion. I found myself being pretty frustrated after reading Kiper's report but these allayed my fears a bit that it was a national consensus of opinion.
Here's what Evan Silva had to say:
Grade: B+
Overview: Seattle made an effort to get more physical in the trenches, and came away successful. Carpenter and Moffitt are all-out brawlers and could both start in season one. Don't believe what you read elsewhere: Carpenter was NOT a reach. For some reason, Wright flew under the pre-draft radar. He is a high-impact player who, at the very least, will be an imposing special teamer. Maxwell was one of the top gunners in college football, while Durham, Sherman, and Smith all add impressive speed to the roster. LeGree was the premier ballhawk in the draft.
And here's what Rob Rang thought of the haul:
Seattle Seahawks: B
The Seahawks clearly have a plan in place for a quarterback, as they did not take one despite having nine draft picks. That plan might be to re-sign Matt Hasselbeck, find another veteran or simply run with Charlie Whitehurst, the passer they added through trade last year. What Seattle didn't get at quarterback, they certainly added in toughness up front, taking Alabama offensive tackle James Carpenter and Wisconsin guard John Moffitt in the first and third rounds. Per Football Outsiders' stats, the Seahawks gained nothing or lost yardage on a staggering 26 percent of their runs last season. Clearly, Pete Carroll and John Schneider's focus was on improving the running game. The selection of Mississippi State outside linebacker K.J. Wright and Georgia wideout Kris Durham were surprises, given the similar talents of players already on their roster. Of Seattle's seven day three selections, improving the secondary was an obvious focus as the team used three consecutive picks on Stanford cornerback Richard Sherman, Appalachian State free safety Mark LeGree and Clemson cornerback Byron Maxwell. I'm particularly high on the LeGree, a three-time All-American who could surprise as a future starter.
So now chew on that, digest it, compare it to what you ate in Kiper's kitchen. You may find yourself coming out somewhere in the middle. That's basically what I did, and about a 'B-' grade the next day still holds up in my mind. It could easily become an A++ in a year or two though, so that's what I'll hope for.
272 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It seems like Carroll and Schneider basically knew who they wanted and went out and got him.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
Exactly what they should do
“we like this guy hes supposed to go in the fifth”
“well if we target him in the fifth well lose him, take him in the fourth”
Seems like logical reasoning if they like the player
canadian eh
by Unidentified flying orgasms on May 1, 2011 11:24 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
But trades can be made
Lets say you have the 1st pick of the 4th round, and a guy you like is expected to go late 4th/early 5th. If you wait for him in the 5th he might be gone, but if you trade back 15 spots he should still be there.
Theres always trades to be made, the question is whether the gm is smart enoughto make then
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 12:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
In fact there are not always trades there to be made.
Sometimes you have to deal with the pick you have and use it to get the guy you want regardless of whether others think its a reach or not.
You do know that someone else has to want to trade with you right?
Unless we have Cable just going into other war rooms and forcing them to accept our terms, it takes 2 teams to trade back. By all indications, we tried to trade back, but didn’t find a trade partner with a suitable offer. Don’t take it for granted that a trade can be made.
They turned down five offers according to Carroll.
This wasn’t a case of them not being able to find a trade partner. We don’t know what the offers were but apparently the valued Carpenter more than whatever extra picks that would’ve picked up.
Exactly why I said they didn't find a trade partner with a SUITABLE offer.
If we valued Carpenter higher than Carimi and the other tackles in the draft and the only offers would have put us out of the running for him (and quite possibly Carimi or whoever else we had as our 2nd/3rd options) then I would consider that an unacceptable offer, since we clearly wanted to upgrade the line.
I feel very confident saying
That if the saints trade was on the table, but John didnt think it was “suitable” then he is being unreasonable.
What if john’s idea of a “suitable” trade is 2 1st rounders for our 25th?
Just because john didnt find it “suitable” doesnt mean the tradeoffers werent good.
If that is your argument, then you are just reverting back to the “John is the gm so he knows more than you” line of thinking.
John DOES know more about football than me, but that doesnt mean that I can’t have better judgment on the value of a trade.
Trading #25 for #56 +2012 1st rounder would be a very good deal.
I cant prove the offer was available, but if it was and john turned it down, then he showed poor judgment
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 4:03 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I doubt the Saints made us the same offer
We were not a competitor for RB. Nor was anyone following us. They traded at the first spot they feared competitors for RBs might appear.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll go a step further.
I don’t believe turning down a trade was showing poor judgement.
I promise you that at least one of the Bears, Steelers, Packers, or Patriots would have taken Carpenter had we not. And then what? We move down and take a lesser RT in our scheme, a guy that pundits may have rated 2 tackles higher, but don’t fit our system and philosophy?
SWEET! Now we’ve got an extra mid round pick, and it’s a damn good thing too, because not getting the guy you really want is totally worth getting an extra 3rd 4th or 5th round pick.
“John DOES know more about football than me, but that doesnt mean that I can’t have better judgment on the value of a trade.”
Pretty arrogant of you, really.
Also, there’s a damn good chance that the “2012 1st rounder” from the Saints would have been 25th-32nd, which makes it an even worse trade. You don’t get better in the short term, you don’t build the line you want right away (and allow it to mature together) and you don’t really move up in the 1st round in the future year.
How is that so great? This is the Saints, not the Broncos, who when they came calling it was pretty evident they’d be lucky to be giving us worse than a 15th overall.
This isn’t Madden, man. You don’t just trade picks and get better players. We did our homework and found a guy that fits the system today.
A Seahawk on the line is worth 2 in future drafts.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Why would they have moved down and drafted someone that they don't like?
I can’t believe you’re trying to convince people that James Carpenter is better than moving down and picking up and extra first round pick.
You have positioned yourself to be contrarian to anything I say now.
I don’t even know what you are saying here.
I’m saying they wanted to fix the OL before the DL, and they knew if they traded down, the value gained would have to be great enough to trump the loss of the ability to fix the OL.
I am absolutely convinced that Carpenter (who they scouted and like enough to draft ahead of other higher profile tackles) would not have lasted if they traded down.
I am absolutely convinced that Carpenter is the guy they see shoring up our line, not one of the others who may have been available.
And if it was the Saints offering a 1st round pick— you have to doubt the pick would be very high in the first round— 15 or worse, more likely in the 20’s.
So then you ask, is a late 1st rounder worth waiting a year to fix the line, while also having a QB situation in flux and trying to fix the offense through being able to run the ball. I just don’t see the value there, sorry.
It isn’t as good of a value as a 1st rounder would seem to be. Now if it was Carolina’s 1st rounder, I’m pretty sure they make that pick no regrets. But it wasn’t, it was (according to the hypothetical we’re working off of) the Saints offering.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Thats just absurd.
You’ve convinced yourself that Carpenter was the be all end all offensive lineman for the Hawks. Theres no reason to think that, theres no reason to think they wouldn’t have been able to find another offensive lineman that would fit what they’re looking for in the second and theres no reason to think that Carpenter is going to be an extra first round pick more valuable over another option.
I’m disagreeing with everything you say because you’ve gone to an unreasonable extreme. I get that you’re happy they targeted the offensive line in the draft but I don’t think you honestly believe what you’re saying here.
Well, at least part of that is wrong...
“theres no reason to think they wouldn’t have been able to find another offensive lineman that would fit what they’re looking for in the second”.
“No reason” to think this? Phooey. There is certainly such a reason—Schneider, Cable both said so, in so many words. Now, whether what we would have gotten at 56 in 2011 and a low first in 2012 would have been as good as Carpenter alone in 2011, dunno. Depends on a lot of things.
Well...
they didn’t say there were 12 equal guys but we decided to take the first one off the list instead of grabbing a future year pick.
To be less sarcastic about it, I think Schneider has proven through his time in Seattle and the mindset the FO he came from in GB to be a guy who is willing to trade down for more picks/future considerations. If they didn’t trade down when a trade was offered, it was because they weighed the risk/reward of doing so and deemed this the best path from which to move forward.
You can call that an appeal to authority. Fine. I think it is deferring to a group of people who prepared for exactly that situation, had their ducks in a row and made solid choices, the right choices, when there was opportunity to get greedy and lose sight of the overall vision and miss out entirely on what it was they wanted to do.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, first...
we’re going on briwas101’s estimation that we would be getting a 1st round draft pick in trade. That alone is a huge reach to begin with.
So, there were 5 more OT’s taken in the 2nd and 3rd (plus 2 more in the 1st.)
You’ve convinced yourself that Carpenter was the be all end all offensive lineman for the Hawks.
I’ve convinced myself that, given the fact we chose not the trade down and took Carpenter before the 7 alternatives over the next 2 rounds, that he was exactly what the coaching staff deemed to be the perfect fit, and was worth not missing out on by taking a “lesser” tackle later in order to pick up another pick that may or may not have been a 1st, and if it was, would have been a first near the end of the 1st round, in the proceeding year. Not sure what’s so crazy about that.
" theres no reason to think that Carpenter is going to be an extra first round pick more valuable over another option."
Well, there is the fact that he was the premier OT for the premier team in the nation, starting immediately from JC, something that is a rarity for Alabama, and appears to be getting better all the time as opposed to be a maxed out polished low ceiling guy.
There is the fact that he projects to be able to play any of four spots on the line relatively well. I did not hear that said about any of the players that went after him.
There is also the fact that a 1st round pick next year is not worth an improvement this year, if the improvement this year is part of a vision and you are a team that cannot afford to lose out on talent that fits now because of the dogfight you are in.
I’m disagreeing with everything you say because you’ve gone to an unreasonable extreme. I get that you’re happy they targeted the offensive line in the draft but I don’t think you honestly believe what you’re saying here.
I absolutely believe what I am saying here. What’s more, I haven’t gone to an unreasonable extreme. I’ve said they wanted to FIX the offensive line. Not improve it. FIX it, so they don’t have to spend excessive time and resource on it later. Perhaps you are right and any of the 8 OT’s that went prior to the 4th round could just as easily play 4 spots across the offensive line, been a physical mauler, and been able to come in and start and succeed from day 1. I just don’t think so, and the more I’ve read and heard on Carpenter, the more I think he is an elite talent who was worth going after as opposed to taking a chance on a lesser talent working out in order to get a marginal 1st round pick the following year.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree, it's highly unlikely that they were offered New Orleans first next year.
But if they were offered an extra first and turned it down to take a right tackle then they’re out of their minds.
I will still disagree with you on this.
A future year’s 1st is downgraded to a present year’s 2nd. And we’re talking a late first in the future year.
So we’d be, under that “proposed trade” be giving up a 1st for what is essentially a 2nd and a 4th. That’s just not worth it, particular given the deferred value of the 1st vs. the need to get better now.
But then again, this is all academic as we don’t know what the “fake” offer really was, anyway.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions
He is not being absured.
There is reason to think that Carpenter is the guy, the reason is our FO scouted and then drafted him, most likely (unless you believe they are morons) because they believe he is the right player to fill the need and shore up the OL. I would be willing to bet that if a better option in their eyes had been available they would have done it. You don’t have to agree but you also can’t claim simply because you don’t like him that there is no reason to believe he is the right player.
Seems to me that it is you who have “gone to unreasonable extreme.” We get that you don’t like this draft, that is your right, and a couple years from now you might be proven right. But just because you don’t think these were good picks does not make it so.
I don't dislike Carpenter.
Carpenter was obviously the highest rated tackle on their board at that point. What I’m saying is that doesn’t mean he was the only guy that would have worked for what they’re trying to do. They obviously think he was the best at that spot, I don’t think that means he was the only.
That's fair.
And I suppose I like the idea that they got the guy they fully believe in as opposed to trading down and getting an extra pick but not getting the ideal guy.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions
According to everything I've heard Pouncey was the guy they fully believed in.
Carpenter was the guy available.
I also don't think they thought they would get Pouncey as he'd be gone.
So they took the next best on their list.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
We CAN be that way, sometimes...
Nate Dogg and I have been on the same side of discussions too. It’s just not this one.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 7:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I have no idea what offer was on the table.
But considering he proved that he will move down in the draft by trading our second round pick, he’s obviously not afraid to pull the trigger on a trade. This was also a tactic used frequently while he was in the FO of Green Bay, which turned out pretty well for them , now didn’t it?
It is just downright stupid to claim I am using the argument that he is smarter than us and we should just all shut up and to claim that he is not willing to accept a reasonable offer when all evidence points to the contrary. We will never know what offers were on the table, but it seems pretty clear from how he handled our 2nd round pick and how he handled things at his previous job that he will readily accept an offer than benefits our team.
According to Carroll
of the 5 offers that were attractive, the best two “fell through”. Draft day trades are a tricky business. Just because you’re getting some good offers doesn’t mean that the other team is definitely going to pull the trigger. They may have just been trying to get a feel for what the Hawks were going to do with their selection.
Lot's of trades fall through
because the trade partner is targeting a specific player, and if he get’s picked before your slot—no deal.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Honestly? I think they're lying.
I think he would have traded down for a high 4th but couldn’t get one.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on May 2, 2011 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
There are always trades to be made.
But if you make a trade, expecting a guy to go in the late 4th/early 5th, and he goes in the mid 4th, or the other team who wants him then trades up and picks in front of you, what do you do then? Just take another random guy that the pundits rank slightly higher because “he’s a good value” even though he doesn’t fit your team needs as perfectly as the other guy?
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
This is basically what Minnesota did with Ponder.
And it’s something I’m very, very happy the Seahawks didn’t do with Dalton.
Agreed.
I have no doubt they wanted Jake, and started hoping for Gabbert, but were forced to settle for Ponder (who you KNOW they tried to trade down to get later) and then pretended he was their pick all along.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Getting the player you want means nothing
The raiders wanted jamarcus russell and they got him. The niners wanted alex smith and they got him. Millen with the lions almost always got a guy he really wanted.
If getting the guy you want is all it takes to make it a good pick, then there have been zero bad picks in nfl history
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 11:47 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I disagree with this
It like saying the Panthers wanted Cam Newton….I highly doubt they did, but having the number 1 pick, they had to go with the most athletic QB in the draft or disappoint their fan base…
I wonder, if we had picked first, would we have to choke down Newton?
No, you absolutely do not have to please the fanbase
The gm’s job is to produce a winner. If the gm does not think newton is the guy, then he is a bad gm for taking him.
The texans got heat for not drafting bush, but they ended up with a much better player in Williams and they made the right decision
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 11:55 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
True
But you can’t compare Newton (a potential franchise QB) to Bush a RB. Both teams made the right choices, the Panthers needed a franchise QB and he fits the bill. The Texan got it right because Bush was considered a one way dimensional back. Meaning he wasn’t a between the tackles type running.
Only way the Panthers weren’t taken Newton with the #1 pick was if they already had an established QB on the team. Lets face it the ONLY way to win a super bowl these days is with a Franchise QB. And whether you like it or not Newton does give the Panthers the franchise QB it desperately needs.
plenty of guys have been selected when the team didnt want them though
teams don’t always select the guys they want. Often they take the perceived BPA when it’s a player the don’t necessarily want or need just because their guy wasnt there so they “have to” take them, ex. Aaron Curry!
Aaron Curry is not a good example
Ruskell WANTED Aaron Curry.
He didnt take him because he was bpa, he took him because aaron curry was Ruskell’s favorite player in the draft. He DESPERATELY wanted to draft curry.
Thats why he traded Peterson to the lions. Why would the lions use the #1 pick on Curry if they just got JP?
As for curry, I predicted bust 2 years ago and I couldnt’ve been more right
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 12:01 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Fearless Frog is back?
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you are right
Only been on FG for a couple of months and sounds like him.
I personally would welcome him back. Water under the bridge. Plus, he keeps things interesting.
He's blown all of his chances.
Last straw was him sneaking an alternate account in a few months back to hijack a thread to Curry bitch. If you’re going to break the rules and be completely remorseless about it, you don’t get to keep your commenting privileges.
Yeah, with the exception of Curry, he was a solid commenter.
But, that’s like saying Prudhoe Bay is an awesome place to live, if you don’t mind the cold.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
No idea who that is
Im briwas101 on seahawks.net, espn.com, and this place.
I post under no other names, and I find it frustrating when people assume I am someone else.
I am briwas101, thats all I have ever been or will be
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 3:41 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Pretty sure it was a joke.
Fearless Frog was a poster who vehemently disagreed with the Hawks taking Curry, so much so that he’s no longer allowed to post here.
It wasn't so much that he disagreed with the Hawks taking Curry
it was that he hijacked every thread and every comment section to bitch about the choice, even if said thread had nothing to do with Curry.
That's right, forgot it went that far.
Didn’t he want Sanchez?
Yeah, it was pretty obsessive.
“We have an issue at Quarterback.”
FF: If we just wouldn’t have taken Aaron Curry…
“Fucking Mora was all over Mare and it was poor coaching and irresponsible leadership, and it looks like this ship is sinking.”
FF: It all goes back to drafting Aaron Curry instead of….
Off Topic Thread—
“I’m pissed at the Lannisters, they’re a bunch of arrogant pricks.”
FF: They remind me of Aaron Curry, all style no substance.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
As annoying as his comments may seem, I applaud his effort to fit "Aaron Curry" into everything conversation he is in.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I like Jaime and Tyrion a lot. Dislike Cersei just as much...
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm working my way through the audiobooks and on the 3rd one now
and the names still look weird in print, after a few times reading them.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 2, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I've never "listened" to a book like that.... not sure I would like to.
I like to have my imagination run wild. But I’m not against it entirely, mind you. As long as folks read a little too….
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I just torrented them, in anticipation of the tv series
I listen to them at work, the gym, during the commute, etc.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 2, 2011 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, no offense on that comment... it was a jab about the Curry thing.
As long as we’re referencing the past and our statements about the team— about 4 months ago, I was tore apart by the majority for arguing that we should focus on the OL and RT specifically, in the 1st round.
You can have your Curry claim. I’ll take mine.
I still have hope for Curry, but I see the team following a vision I agree with to rebuild the team. I’m beaming on the inside because I fully believe it was the quickest way to most improve our team over the long run.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Three Year Bust Rules.
Sorry, if a guy doesn’t get it his first two years, then boo hoo. But don’t label a guy a bust, when a true bust is a guy who hasn’t recorded a sack ala vernon ghoulston.
Give it a year, and then maybe we’ll talk about it. A true “bust” is someone who greatly doesn’t follow expectations. Underwhelming, maybe but not BUST yet.
Not to mention
Curry has had 2 different defensive scheme in 2 years.
Well, I'm sure there were more then just nine players in the draft that the Seahawks wanted
I’m sure they target players they want in each round and then were they think they can get them. I doubt any player selected in the draft is a “reach” according to each teams individual draft grades. It just so happens that the Raiders, Niners, and Millen suck at evaluating talent. Hopefully PC and JS are better.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 1, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
More than 9, but not by much
I always thought teams had a list of about 100 players they would consider drafting at various points in the draft, and would cross names off as they go.
I havent heard how many people were on the board, but it sounds like they only came into the draft with about 3 people in each round, which comes out to about 20 players they would consider drafting.
If that is what they did, it would explain why they reached on most picks, they didnt have enough people on their board to be able to take players where they should go.
They came into the draft very unprepared
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 12:08 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I don't understand why you consider them to have "reached on most picks"
Maybe 1 or 2 picks could have a semi-coherent argument that it was a reach, but calling most of the picks a reach is ridiculous. And it seems like they had a very good plan going into this draft. It may not be one that you agree with, but that hardly indicates that they were unprepared.
Not to be a Dick Sureman...
But you say dumb things…
by DJ C-Raig on May 1, 2011 12:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Wow.
“They came into the draft very unprepared.”
Do you seriously believe that? That may very well be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard on this site, and there have been some beauties.
I think you don’t understand the process that was applied by our FO if you think you understand what other teams do and what we do and you think we came in
“very unprepared.”
Frankly, I’m appalled at that evaluation.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
AGREED
very unprepared my foot.
we got LB depth, speed, size and coverage ability
we got CB size, speed, press coverage, athleticism and ball hawking
we got a potential starting WR who runs 4.4 40ies who is also 6’5 217
we got 2 starting OL who are big, nasty, aggressive road graters with pass coverage skills
unprepared my ass, we got everything we needed except LG, QB and DL depth and the DL help could be overrated considering before we got decimated in the oakland game and red went out with injury we were one of the best run stop defenses in football. also we had at the end of the year about a 16th rated sack total
by Pessimistic Hawk on May 1, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually think a couple of those guys were picked for their special teams abilities with little concern for any other contribution
PC values it that much.
i agree
but i also think pc/js are always looking for below the radar future talents hence why they search for and find big athletic players who fit their character mold those players can help on special teams and can fill voids we had last year in the bandit scheme and give us inside the franchise depth in case of injuries.
another point to make is that teams like the packers, steelers and patriots who are consistently good have enough depth on the roster that they dont have to typically go outside the organization for players when they have injuries. therefore i see a lot more depth in this and last years draft than many might see
by Pessimistic Hawk on May 1, 2011 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you're both right here.
I see a couple of those guys being certain special teams contributors with long term potential to do more. That’s all you can ask for from round 5 on, really.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Special teams, with attendant field position and turnover ratio advantages, are the quickest way to get better.
And the number of big, fast DBs on the roster will be large – the Bandit package was very successful (Curry as a 3 tech!!!), until everyone got injured.
by bleedshawkblue on May 1, 2011 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions
You don't really think
they came into the draft with 20 players on their list do you? That is pretty absurd to even think that. I am pretty confident that whatever player they drafted they thought was the best player for whatever need they had or even in some cases their favorite player on the board.
I heard
they only scouted about 6 guys
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on May 1, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I heard
they took Mel Kiper Jr’s big board and flipped it upside down.
by farmer cam on May 1, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Schneider said when he came here that the Seahawks would set up their draft board the same way as the Packers.
If the Packers built a team that won a superbowl, and should contend every year for awhile now, by only having 20 players on their big board, then maybe it’s a sound strategy. But I think you’re full of it.
by Mind of no mind on May 1, 2011 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
No, it absolutely does not "mean nothing" to get the player you want.
But, you have to have an overarching vision and philosophy for the franchise, then that player moves you forward in a direction.
You tell me what vision aside from speed/athletic ability/physical tools the Raiders had when they picked Russell. You tell me what vision during the Millen era the Lions had? You tell me what philosophy possessed the Niners to take a non-BCS QB 1st overall?
It very much mans something to get the player you want. The real question is whether you believe in the philosophy and direction of the franchise, not whether you can magically move down 5 spots every round and still get the guy you wanted.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Rang vs Kiper...
Also, Rang has a lot more credibility with me than Kiper does.
The only football personality I like less than Kiper (and Priscoe) is Lucy van Pelt!
Rang is also a fan of the Hawks, so his view of the Hawks is going to be far more intensive than is Kiper.
Kiper did his somewhere in the mix of another 31 reviews. Rang I’m sure had a far more detailed interest in the Hawks.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Rang got high on the Dalton hype-train towards the last few days,
calling him a solid 2nd round pick. That’s a red flag for me. I think his full-time job prevents him from doing as much first-person analysis as he’d like and he ends up following the crowd a bit.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 1, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sold he wasn't a solid 2nd round pick anymore.
But he certainly wasn’t a 1st, and just because he is a solid 2nd doesn’t mean he was a fit for us in any way shape or form.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
The fact is, all these so called "experts" have never worked in the NFL.
I’ll defer to our front office people, thank you very much.
by Magnificentbutcher on May 1, 2011 11:37 AM PDT reply actions
Actually, many of the older ones have.
Kipper was with the Chefs I think.
by DJ C-Raig on May 1, 2011 11:38 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Not as far as I know. Kiper has never worked in an NFL front office.
by Magnificentbutcher on May 1, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Oh right, I'm thinking Casserly.
by DJ C-Raig on May 1, 2011 11:50 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Casserly was GM of the Texans for a while. He was fired and they got better.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes.
He also brought in Eric Winston, Demeco Ryans, Owen Daniels and Andre Johnson. Thats not a lot of talent to leave behind after taking over an expansion team.
He was a proponent of Mario, but I've come across some things that points against him being the decision-maker.
I’ve got a buddy who is pretty damn smart and a Texans fan that gave me more details that I can’t recall. And while I don’t disagree with what Nate Dogg wrote, the Texans fan was not a fan of Casserly, so take that as you will.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
He was fired and they got better.
Same logic can be applied to Schnieder. Once he left GB won a SB.
Not really the same thing. And not my point, anyway.
My point was that my buddy who is a knowledgeable Texans fan was glad he was gone and had a list of reasons why. I’ll defer to him on this.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha
How can you say that? He left for one year and they won a super bowl. Who do you think help build that super bowl team? No way you can use the same logic and apply it to Schnieder. Last I recall why the Texans have gotten better they have YET to reach the post season.
The former colts GM agrees with you.
It doesn’t seem that he has the greatest opinion of him. Tobin vs Kiper
Right, it was Tobin
I was thinking Polian — wrong era.
by The Ancient Mariner on May 1, 2011 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I remember ESPN looking like that too...
I call it watchable.
There used to be some great talent on air there… and much less corporate censorship. ESPN is bigger than ever, and yet a shell of itself from those days.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Very young looking Olberman and Patrick. I remember watching this in sophmore year of college. Damn... besides Rick Mirer those were good times.
Doesn’t mean much of course but I still felt a smidgen of pride looking at those ’94 third round pics and seeing that the Hawks pretty much drafted the most productive player of the round. At least after he pushed past his car crash fiasco.
* This isn't 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.
by JeebusonCleats on May 1, 2011 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
This is the same argument people made when we had ruskell
Someone would say ruskell had a bad draft, and hawk fans would come on and say “Ruskell knows more than you or I, so I will trust his decision.”
It is a fact that there are bad GMs in sports. Bad GMs are allowed to keep their job because almost everyone assumes that every GM is qualified.
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 11:52 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree, we should be critical, or we run the risk of the ol appeal the authority argument
So far, I can’t say I’m unpleased with the draft. The first few picks bolstered probably the weakest link on our team and can be fixed now, everything later is a bit of a crapshoot.
by B.B.Finnegan on May 1, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
The appeal to authority is not why I like this draft.
I like this draft because we attacked a desperate need, changing a weakness that has been a weakness for 3-5 years into a strength.
I like this draft because we got bigger and stronger and meaner.
I like this draft because we added a ton of athletic late round talent to the defensive secondary, another area that has been a concern for more than a couple years.
I like this draft because we took a freakishly rangy WR who appears to have strong hands and the ability to compete at the NFL level… in the 4th.
I like this draft because we’re now younger, faster, more athletic, meaner, quicker, stronger and we’ve gone a long way to shore up two significant areas of weakness.
But, feel free to be a cynic. Just don’t call the front office “very unprepared” for the draft. They got some guys that I think will be steals, and I wouldn’t be surprised if we get at least 5-6 contributors from the draft, including 2 guys who will be the core to a great line for years to come. And that’s what makes a draft a success, not getting the currently fashionable pick.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 15 recs
I agree, and would add...
I like this draft because I like EVERY draft.
My draft cup is always two thirds full.
I drink the kool-aid every time and it tastes good!
The bitter aftertaste of a bad draft doesn’t kick in for years, and by then I have the beautiful taste of their replacements in my mouth to dull the sharp bite of their bustiness :)
Hahah!
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure it is,
and your assumption that the Seahawks only had about 20 players on their board is just as lazy.
by Mind of no mind on May 1, 2011 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions
The only knock I had against our draft
Is our failure to draft any DL of note. Elite Gunner or not, trade Maxwell for Guy and I’m happy. Although, if Maxwell does become an Elite Gunner, i’m going to name him “Turret” or “Howitzer”.
by DJ C-Raig on May 1, 2011 11:37 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Im holding out optimistic hope for levingston
Personally, I would give the Hawks a D+ for the draft. They couldve traded the 25th pick to the Saints for the 56th pick + 2012 1st rounder, which would go a long way towards rebuilding.
But the ONE THING they atleast got right is that they drafted players that atleast fit what they will be asked to do in the nfl.
Red bryant is not your typical DE, and we had success with Bryant. Levingston was drafted to back up Red.
He will probably never be as good as Red, but we didnt have anyone else to fill that role.
But obviously its hard to get excited about backups
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 12:23 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
You don't know they could have traded the 25th pick to the Saints
Just because the Saints traded with someone else does not mean the same deal was on the table for us.
by wadswerth on May 1, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Rec'd
for pointing out the flaw in every argument briwas101 has made on this whole threat in 2 sentences.
I'd give you a D+ for your evaluation.
You do realize they got a guy to shore up the offensive line that may turn out to be the steal of the 1st round, and at worst will be a half decade starter, barring injury?
Also, if you were in the Jimmy Smith crowd (and I was at the time when we didn’t draft him), I would bet a pitcher of beer 5 years from now Richard Sherman will still be in the NFL and Jimmy Smith will not.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm sorry, that was rude.
I came down a little harsh on you by throwing out a grade on you. My apologies.
But I still think you are quite wrong in your evaluations.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you
really think the the Saints would have offer a 1st rd pick to just move up one spot? I don’t think Josh McDaniels was running their draft. And 2nd even without trade the 25th pick there is no way you can give the Hawks draft a D+. At worse case scenario the Hawks had an average draft which would result in a C grade. But I give them a B- for getting the players then needed and best fit the teams needs.
ineresting:
whilelooking up info on Kris, I found a lot of similarities to Vincent Jackson. This struck me as very interesting in that the Hawks were one of the teams rumored to have interest in him when he was feuding w/ the chargers. We’ll see what happens, but maybe this was a pick to try and get that type of player they wanted before.
Also, lots of Georgia fans seemed to like Kris just as much, if not more than, A.J Green because of his work ethic and character. He always shows up to play and works his ass off day in and day out. There was a lot of anger when Kris was neglected entry into the NFL combine.
I am not sure if it had been mentioned but Charlie Whitehurst and Kris have been working out together in Atlanta all Spring.
by Trojan Knight on May 1, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
And we can't underestimate the idea of "chemistry" between a QB and WR
although neither Charlie nor Kris may end up playing many regular-season snaps.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 1, 2011 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I for one hope they do.
This draft was built to let Charlie lead this offense.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions
yup, its a CharlieO
If charlie has a game this is the O for it. A few playmaker versatile backs, an offensive line that others can recognize as an offensive line, some big recievers, a TE that might be allowed to play TW and Charlie to stay on his feet, move around a bit and distribute the ball.
On D a couple of ball-hawks and hopefully a resigned mebane and a healthy red.
I’m expecting a totally different team, their schedule is wicked so I expect 7-9 and see what 2012 brings.
i am high on kris
i hope to see him opposite to bmw
just think if we went 5 wide and put williams durham tate butler and carlson on the field at the same time. someone is going to need a diaper
by Pessimistic Hawk on May 1, 2011 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
who knows with clipchick,
he might actually do do pretty well with a real oline. matt was stinking it up trying to swing it to beast or leon,… a little pa takes some pressure off staring down the #1 the way chuck does, beast not getting hit 3yds before the los… this all could seriously help clipchuck, then the d can get some rest… curry, cole, mebane and red as the front
by hawkster on May 1, 2011 12:50 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Charlie Whitehurst & Kris Durham = how many touchdowns this year??
Alert the front office! I’ve decided I’d rather go with Charlie at QB than Palmer . As others have pointed out, Palmer is liable to slow the rebuild. Whereas Charlie will either be our QB, or put us in position to get one next year.
by broadbill birdwatcher on May 1, 2011 1:03 PM PDT reply actions
I say 5 TD's for the combo.
With two in one game, in which Charlie gets NFL player of the week. Durham will have a solid year, but our TD’s will be spread around nicely, so he’ll have to settle for 80 yards a game instead of a ton of TD’s.
Yes, I’m sipping the fucking kool-aid.
It tastes fucking GREAT!!!!
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I'm on my second cup.
I want to believe in this front office and I want to believe in Charlie. If they do fail at least it won’t be because of lack of imagination, not having a plan, or worse still obeying “common wisdom” about how to build a football team. Most of what I hear from the mainstream media is regurgitated rubbish. Go forth JS/PC and be not followers of trends by pioneers!
clip chuck
How man clips could a clip chuck chuck if a clip chuck could chuck clips?
LAUGH!!!
i like it. can i have a glass
by Pessimistic Hawk on May 1, 2011 3:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Mile High Report?
You’re comparing me to a Bronco fan? Really?
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
Because we disagree and I like the draft? Or because I posted a funny image to laugh at my own optimism?
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions
Really
So we have to disagree and celebrate in our own intelligence or we are just a bunch of mindless lemmings?
I respect yours and Brian’s opinions on a lot of subjects, but W. Chainsaw and I happen to disagree with you on this draft. I see the vision for the team and understand the moves that we are making to get there. I don’t know if it will work, but I am happily optimistic.
That’s not blindly following, its an informed optimism.
by stufr on May 1, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
.
“informed optimism.”
I like that.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions
You nailed it.
I’m the one celebrating in my own intelligence.
You realize you’re saying you guys aren’t blindly optimistic in a subthread where Whisky predicts that a fourth round rookie receiver will catch for 1300 yards and five touchdowns and then says he’s drinking the kool-aid, right?
by Nate Dogg on May 1, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Where did I say 1300 hundred yards?!?
I don’t seem to recall that. I said 80 yards a game.
That’s 1280.
You’re right, it’s high. I didn’t do the math, I just put out 80 as a number. My fault.
I’ll stick with the 5 TD’s, though.
And I’ll drop the estimate to 54 yards per game. Go ahead and calculate that math yourself.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
I gathered that.
Sorry for the optimism, you’re right, it was an overstep. But I do think he’ll still get 5 td’s and have a great year.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions
If I'm not, but he's a contributor and we still score TD's in general, I'll still be a happy guy.
I’m tired of Mare being our sole red zone threat.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions
That dude doesn't score any TD's.
Overrated!
by Hopefulmsfan on May 1, 2011 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
You do realize that you were incredibly insulting above and basically breaking FG rules by just being plane mean
Argue the facts or stop.
Don’t just be mean.
Its lazy and doesn’t prove anything.
Pick one or two, I don't really care
Just don’t call someone an asshole and think that’s ok, because that’s what you basically did.
We are all on the same side here, we just have a different opinion about how to get there and weather we are going there are not.
plus, I’m watching the Matrix because my wife is gone and your negativity is totally ruining it.
Totally OT
If you have ever done a remote assignment to Korea, watch the 1:40 scene from the Matrix. The speech is exactly how you will feel about being their at about the 9 month point.
I think we could get him due to a number of things.
I can see his draft stock dropping due to changes in coaching/o-line. And I think our schedule is brutal enough that we’ll be picking in the top ten next year. Although, after the draft, I do feel a hell of a lot better about the offense. The defense worries me a bit, though.
Good thing the point of the draft isn't to get good grades from pundits...
We made mostly unsexy picks and that’s ok. Honestly the only player whose name I even recognized was Moffit. This draft will help set us up for future drafts where we can address the qb situation and draft sexy position players.
Juss Sayin'
I remember the last time that the Seahawks’ draft didn’t look impressive to the likes of Kiper:
2005
I think the draft was a solid step in the rebuild process.
With a strong offensive line and secondary, they’ve set themselves up nicely for next year, assuming FA goes well, when it happens.
Thanks for all the good coverage Danny. It only took me a day to come around on the Carpenter selection and now the same is being done for the entire draft.
There were a few players I wish we could have taken when they were available but they were merely personal favorites of mine and most likely not even players that were on our board.
Im used to having people disagree with me and think I no sense
But after the 2005 season I said Alexander would never have another good season.
After the 2007 season I said Hass would never have another good season.
After the 2008 season I said Lofa would never be an effective MLB ever again because of injuries and declining skill.
When Aaron Curry was drafted I said he would be a bust.
With every single one of those predictions, I was called a moron or idiot or loser.
I ended up being 100% right with each prediction.
NO ONE likes my predictions, but they all came true.
If im so stupid, how did I know that hass and shaun and lofa were done?
How did I know that “the best player in the draft” would be a bust?
Its easy to call my predictions / opinions stupid AT THE TIME, but no one ever likes to go back and give props to those that made unpopular predictions/assessments that ended up being right.
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 3:53 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Who told you they were stupid?
Because here, for the most part if I remember correctly, those predictions were pretty commonly held beliefs.
Everyone on the espn seahawks board
I just found this site a few months ago, so I do not know what everyone on here thought.
But at espn everyone called me a troll for making such “stupid” predictions.
Usually, people have no problem calling my opinion stupid at the time, but they never gave me credit for being right.
Everyone is free to have their own opinion, and free to think my opinion is stupid, I just want everyone to understand that a “stupid” opinion can easily end up being the correct one.
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 5:51 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
In general, we may call you stupid, but......
we will give a cogent argument as to why you are stupid. Then you can say I am stupid and by the time we get done we have attacked it from every angle and are smarter if nothing else.
If it makes you feel better,
this place is a haven away from those types of places. The ESPN boards are troll pits, filled with the same type of commenters as PFT and various other sites.
Offseason 2011: Kelly Jennings, Craig Terrill, and Matt Hasselbeck...good riddance.
by Wayward Llama on May 1, 2011 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think you are stupid
But, I think Curry is only a bust in reference to where he was draft.
Sorry about the fearless frog stuff, totally was joking
Ummmmmmm, last time i checked
Curry and Tatupu were stil playing so saying that the former is a bust and the latter will never be effective again seems premature. sure, maybe both seem like that but as I recall it “seemed” like we reached for Tatupu because he was a weaker and less physically gifted linebacker. I’d say wait a few more years for Curry, he’s only had one year of good coaching and limited mentoring from Tats cause he’s been hurt. Give Tatupu a chance to really heal and get back. Maybe if he’s not required to make every play like he’s been asked to the past 4 years he can stay healthy.
by PA hawkfan on May 1, 2011 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What are you talking about?
You have been an SBN user since January. How and why would we give you props for predictions you made elsewhere?
And not uncommon predictions at that.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Now that I think of it.
After the ‘06 season, I predicted Jerramy Stevens was done and I didn’t get any props either. C’mon.
Well
I predicted the Moon Landing in ‘59. Where are my friggin’ props? C’mon here.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
If you made that prediction
And everyone,disagreed, then you do deserve props.
When 1 person says something, and 99 people say that person is wrong, and the 1 person ends up being right, the 1 person DOES deserve props.
And yes, I know u werent being seriius
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 6:06 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Uncommon?
Only one person on espn predicted Matt would never have another good season. It was me.
Only one person predicted alexander would never have another good season. It was me.
Only one person predicted lofa would never be a good lb again (and lofa was my FAVORITE player when I predicted that)
There was only 2 people that predicted Curry would be a bust. I was one of them.
I dont know how people on this board felt, but I have a hard time believing that after the 2008 season it was COMMON to think that hass would never be good again.
Every year I see nothing but optimistic predictions that Matt will be good again.
In fact, there are STILL people who say we should sign Matt because he will be good again with the,improved OL
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 5:58 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Here at Field Gulls you'll find a much more rational logical discussion than most other places.
I’ve been against Hasselbeck for 2 years now, despite loving him. But I’m also of the opinion that he will be better (not good) with this improved OL. That doesn’t mean I want him back, but it he comes back he’ll probably look “rejuvenated” to some folks.
Welcome to the community, but fair warning— bring your A game and be prepared to support your opinions with valid support. Your past predictions that came true are not valid support to give you more authority than John Schneider when it comes to the draft. A logical reasonable argument with facts? We’ll eat that up.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
By the way... Your inconsistencies in when you even made predictions
don’t help your case here.
After the 2007 season I said Hass would never have another good season.
I dont know how people on this board felt, but I have a hard time believing that after the 2008 season it was COMMON to think that hass would never be good again.
Just saying…
It's okay briwas101...this is a forum
If you are on here expecting people to hang on your predictions and give you a pat on the back when they are right then you’re probably in the wrong place Maybe you should create your own site “Seattle Nostradamus” or “Doomsday Seahawks Predictions”.
Why are you a Seahawks fan? You are obviously passionate but its seems like you’re more passionate about being right about the Seahawks failing than you are about simply being a fan of your team. People are optimistic because they want to believe in the Seahawks. We all have our opinions but those should not be more important than the underlying fact that you want the team to win.
If your negative predictions are so spot on why not aim them at the 49ers, Cardinals or Rams? I’m curious? Have you ever had any positive predictions come true? I’d like to hear them.
by Billy Showbiz on May 2, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Nooooo this isn't a forum.
Your comments are part of the overall content of this blog, hence the posting rules and guidelines.
by BrianL on May 2, 2011 7:03 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I would say the key to your predictions are to be negative.
Take a career year by an aging player and say that a player cannot reach that point again. Pretty daring predictions of you.
I predict that Tiger Woods will never again win 3 majors in a single calendar year.
I predict that Albert Pujols will never again hit .350 with 40 HR’s and 130 RBI’s.
I predict that Gonzaga will not win the next 11 straight WCC conference titles.
I predict that we will not win another NFC West title with a 7-9 record, ever.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions
You obviously did not read what I wrote
I didnt say that Shaun would never be MVP again, I said he would SUCK.
There is a BIG difference.
I didnt say Matt would never lead us to the super bowl again, I said he would SUCK.
I didnt say that lofa would never go to the pro bowl again, I said he would never be EFFECTIVE again.
You are acting like I made EASY predictions.
You grossly misrepresented what I said, and you showed a complete misunderstanding of what I said
by briwas101 on May 1, 2011 6:02 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Relax.
This isn’t ESPN.
And frankly, (right or wrong) I don’t care what you predicted four years ago.
I am quite interested in support for your arguments that this was a poor draft. Thus far, that isn’t something you’ve supported well (or countered the counter-arguments we’ve provided.) That’s far more relevant and interesting than your prognostications from several years ago.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Man, I don't know what to tell you
Other than I don’t understand what you’re trying to get across here. You made predictions elsewhere that other people disagreed with? Cool. Go and ask them for props. Why are you bothering us about this.
In the meantime, if you have actual arguments to back up your opinions and not just “I called lots of stuff correctly before!”, we’ll be happy to hear you out
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions
And correctly predicting things doesn't mean much
You could successfully predict the results of a coin flip 1000 times in an afternoon, having a 50% success rate and you still wouldn’t be Nostradamus.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 1, 2011 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Those are all pretty extreme.
Alexander was never good but he didn’t suck in ’06, he was ok. Especially in the game against GB and the playoff game in Chi. Matt has been bad but has had games where he did not SUCK. Lofa has been effective (which means merely competent or capable).
The way you said it before you made it sound like you predicted slow declines but when you say they all would SUCK it just sounds negative and kind of wrong.
by Hopefulmsfan on May 1, 2011 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
For that matter, if you don't like being told you are wrong
Then, don’t come onto forums. Because it’s going to happen.. Like a lot.
by CurryInAHurry59 on May 2, 2011 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Good for you, but what does that have to do with us?
How many predictions have you made that were wrong? And how are we supposed to know if you really made all of those predictions or not? You really want us to try and dig through old espn comment sections from 05 through 08? And would you ever admitt to making predicions that were wrong?
This is as bad as the people who qualify themselves as experts by starting off a post by telling everyone how long they’ve been a season ticket holder. I don’t mind if you have a negative view of the draft, but give some insight based on what we know, rather than major accusations about the FO that you can in no way back up.
by Mind of no mind on May 1, 2011 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Problem Is It's All Past Talk
It’s easy to say stuff in hindsight, when no one knows who you are to look great on the back end. I mean it’s great to pat yourself on the back, but it still doesn’t raise your credibility. I mean you were great predicting on ESPN, Welcome to the big leagues.
Hold up!
Don’t go patting yourself on the back just yet.You only said what a majority of us were already saying.
But after the 2005 season I said Alexander would never have another good season.
We all saw the handwriting on the wall – He got paid and hurt, done deal.
After the 2007 season I said Hass would never have another good season.
This one was a highly debated topic on the boards and has been since then.
After the 2008 season I said Lofa would never be an effective MLB ever again because of injuries and declining skill.
Again, this one was a nobrainer
When Aaron Curry was drafted I said he would be a bust.
A lot of people said that, but I still think it’s too early to tell.
The only problem I find in the draft is the lack of bodies on the D-Line
I know Q/PM made an issue to regard and improve both sides of the trenches, but the draft obviously did not show that. People have argued that they will fill this need with FA, but the depth of DL is thin (I only see Edwards and Kiwanuka stand out) compared with OL and QB.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I agree.
Hopefully the one we got is able to make the team and provide depth, if nothing else, in taking Terrill’s spot.
However, if we re-sign the guys we had and find one or two reclamation projects to come in and compete, well, it can perhaps be a little improved in the short term. In the long term, I’m sure it’s another focus point that they will address in a future off season, now that as much attention will not need to be placed on the O Line.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that's the nice thing about this draft.
It sets us up to focus on D-line and QB next year, possibly RB depending on contracts and if they re-sign anyone. I really like what they’ve done as far as long term planning goes.
I personally think they did it in the right order with how they chose to split it up as well.
They upgraded the offense significantly, giving whoever is behind center a chance and hopefully enabling longer drives, thus helping the defense be better. They also upgraded the secondary, taking some pressure off the D-line by tightening coverage.
If you go the reverse order and get a D-line and QB this year, the defense might be slightly better, but I still believe a weak secondary would get punished, and our new QB would get pounded into the turf repeatedly.
I think we balanced things out very well between competing this year, and setting ourselves up to be solid all around in another year or two.
I think the defense philosophy should be switched
An aggressive defensive line will more likely protect a weak secondary (see 2007) because a pass rush is more effective than a tight coverage sometimes. If you were the QB for instance, my guess is that a you would be more focused on finding an open receiver rather than protecting yourself from a sack, so a good pass rush will disrupt the QB more than a really tight coverage.
The downside, however, is that a pass rush is not as easily guaranteed as man/zone coverage, and I understand your point that a polish secondary is better than a polish line. I may have bias towards the D-Line myself because I played there in high school, but a good D-Line (with the likes of a Bryant-Kennedy-Green) is vital and powerful.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
I don't disagree with that.
However, I think they’re hoping they can somehow generate that pass rush off of what we already have and the spare parts we can pick up. The secondary is harder to improve with what we have and spare parts…
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Not exactly
Compared to defensive line, the depth of FA in the secondary this year is much better and more talented. Signing an Ike Taylor or a Jonathon Joseph will give you a great #1 CB for your defense. Signing a Asomugha or a Champ Bailey and you force the offense to not throw in either of their directions.
The lack of defensive lineman in FA (Especially pass rushers), coupled with a deep DL class in the draft, makes me think the FO needs to consider value over needs – especially when your team not only needs a lot of bodies but talent as well.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
The other dynamic though is the cost factor.
Who is to say we could really afford to sign Asomugha or Champ (or that the FO wants to do so?) Both are at positions in which age tends to diminish ability, and neither is young, and we are a team that is trying to get younger.
At 27, Joseph is the only one not 29 or older.
Understand too, that I don’t disagree with you that I would like more talent across the front, and I think the front office would too. I just don’t think there was value in the draft relative to where we were selecting, the exception being early— but the staff deemed OL more important to fix first as compared to DL.
I think they made the right choices there, and I’m optimistic the overall tenor of the team will be improved without much DL addition due to all the other moves, and a healthy year out of all of our primary contributors up front.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Also, if you're looking long term, the draft strategy could be a function of how long each position group takes to fully develop.
The ideal situation is that all of your players hit their peak relatively young and at the same time.
For example, while OLinemen typically have the skills they’ll need to play in the NFL at the time of the draft, it takes some time to develop chemistry and unit cohesion. This can take a few years.
Having as many rookies on the OL this year would not be encouraging for a rookie QB to come into. I’m fine with Charlie or Palmer (or even Hass if need be) experiencing the OL growing pains before plugging the QB of the Future in. If he only has to really think about his job and not the protection will help him grow.
Likewise, secondary players also have to learn to work together and generally take a few years to fully understand their roles, the tendencies of opposing receivers, play recognition, etc.
DL (and RB as well) typically reach their best play faster (Suh, for example is already a monster and only has 1 year of experience).
Expect 2011 to be ugly, with lots of growing pains for the OL and secondary. Next year, we’ll draft DL and QB. The 2012 may also be kinda ugly with a young QB developing. But if we’re “Lucky” to get a good one, we might have every aspect of this team reaching maturity for 2013 and beyond.
by SmartAssCoug on May 2, 2011 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good points on maturation rates.
I’m optimistic they’ll slide right in with moderate success immediately, but cohesion and fixing the line first was a huge part of why I love this draft.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions
But D-Lineman also needs time to develop as well
LJack, Babin, Long and countless others took at least a few seasons to “adjust” in their roles. With a scheme as complex as Pete’s, players like the Bryant position (oversized 5-tech) may need even more training and maturity than, lets say, Roy Lewis last year who was only a specialist in the bandit package.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
True.
But improving the DL before the OL doesn’t help the passing game or running game. In order of fixes, we chose the most overarching one, and now you address the other holes.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions
What does their nationality have to do with anything?
Kidding, only kidding.
Agreed
To me it makes no sense to go out and get a franchise QB and DL in the first two rounds and still have a crappy OL. So we make the DL slightly better, the 2nd still gets owned and our new franchise QB gets pounded in the dirt and turns out like David Carr did why playing for the Texan, completely shell shocked the rest of his career. No thanks!
I think we were going to draft one of Bowers, Austin, or Paea in the second round but all three were selected just several picks ahead of us. I think that's one of the main reasons we traded back.
Had we selected a guy like Austin in the 2nd round, the draft pundits probably would have raised their grade but we shouldn’t care too much what they think anyways.
Scheme mismatch?
The guy’s an undersized 1-tech.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 1, 2011 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Completely agree.
I was thinking the same thing.
I resigned myself to the fact that this team has more holes than can be fixed in one draft.
I’m not sure if it was the right call, but I kind of liked the fact that they attacked a few areas hard, rather than trying to spread their picks accross all areas.
by Mind of no mind on May 1, 2011 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I haven't followed much on this year's draft so forgive my ignorance
but what are the chances Seattle puts KJ Wright at Defensive end?
Leo end?
That’s where he’ll be tried, yes. Sam and Leo End.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Congrats, Vasillii, you just got 10 years younger cuz,
the moon landing was in ’69, not ’59. Either that, or your prediction was off ten years.
by broadbill birdwatcher on May 1, 2011 6:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Pah
Everyone could predict it would happy from ’61 onwards coz the pres promised it. I called it before he did!
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions
By the way
Why aren’t you on the “Co-Writers/Editors” list below at the bottom of the screen?
I quit back when John Morgan quit
Didn’t feel I had much reason to stick around at that point.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions
You two did have a sort of chemistry.
Like a point/counterpoint type of thing.
by Hopefulmsfan on May 1, 2011 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Hah!
That’s one way to put it. Sometimes I think he was ready to drink my blood. But when he asked me to help Craig cover the news so he could focus on his writing there was no doubt. I respect him as a writer and admire him as a scout, so it was great to be able to help him out in any way.
by Thomas Beekers on May 2, 2011 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions
Vasilii, you seem much more relaxed post draft
You were way uptight before hand. Did you like what we did?
Fudgepackers
This is one of the better uhh threads. so frak halarious
He's Dutch.
He went to a “coffee shop.”
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions
And Russian and Roma?
Vodka and spiriting away a village’s children with song and stories?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on May 1, 2011 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Uptight? About what?
I wasn’t really commenting much in the months preceding to the lockout legal shennanigans and draft.
I’m not a fan of this Seahawks draft but I didn’t watch as much tape as I’ve done in some years. I don’t mind them spending their first two picks on OL (I remember praising the Niners when they did the same) and like seeing investing in making the secondary more physical and athletic. Other than that, it’s just a “shrug” draft. I’m just relieved we skipped out on the whole balls-to-the-wall insane QB overdraft. I would be a lot less relaxed about it had we taken Dalton with either of our first two.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Not even close
Charlie can effectively manage a game. He is more than capable of taking us back to the promise land of 7-9. With a little luck we could be an 8 or 9 win team under Charlie. He is years past a rookie.
The rookie Charlie would have been one of the third round guys
But that’s not what we have. We have a seasoned NFL backup version of Charlie. Not sure if he will be a true starter, but none of the rookies would be as good as Charlie game one this year. Next year, that might be different, but not this year. He has experience that they don’t.
Seasoned?
He’s had two starts in the NFL.
by BrianL on May 1, 2011 7:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hell, I don't know about that.
He WAS a third rounder. He moved better than Mallet, has a strong arm, a father who was a pro QB and no off the field issues.
He would have gone just before Dalton.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
Okay, that may be an overstep as well.
But I do think he would have moved into the 2nd in this QB reach-y draft.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions
The Charlie question will become more important as the lockout drags on
And especially so if we don’t get a QB after the lockout ends. That’s a real possibility that not enough people seem to take seriously. If Bengals try to ransom us over Palmer then fuck em, let them deal with it. Would still like to see us pick up a FA QB but that will no doubt happen…
But regardless Charlie will have the most experience with the offensive system (which I don’t think will change all that much), and is the closest thing we have to a plug-and-play starter. I don’t expect the world of him, I’d expect him to be middling, which is fine if the FO then realizes he’s not a long-term solution. But I do wonder why I don’t see “Charlie the starter” discussed more. I would suspect it’ll be a hot point of debate prior to the season.
by Thomas Beekers on May 1, 2011 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm in for "Charlie the starter."
If it works and he improves, we’ve got ourselves a starter with 3-5 good years ahead of him, and while we’ll have to lock him longer term and it’ll cost, I bet he’d be appreciative of the chance and likely to stick around as opposed to being a pure moneygrabber.
If he struggles, we struggle and we move up the draft charts the following year, and can grab a greater talent than if we win with a Palmer or Hasselbeck. Or, we take our lumps and sign a vet (Kolb perhaps?) the following year, and spend the higher pick on a DT/DE.
To me, starting Charlie is win-win, even if we lose, for the long term best direction of the franchise.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm in for "Charlie the starter" also
Mostly because I think at worse he will give us the level of QB play that we have had over the last few years. We draft someone next year, give them a year or so to develop and move on. I just don’t want to spend more capital on a bridge QB who will be marginally better than Charlie, especially when we don’t really know what Charlies ceiling is. Lets spend the capital on the rest of the team, so that 2-3 years from now, when we have our shiny new franchise QB all seasoned up, the team is solid and a winner.
Exactly!
Though I’m still hopeful Charlie becomes not only a bridge, but a legitimate starter within the right system.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 2, 2011 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
I like Charlie a lot, and I've always agreed with you that he should be given a shot this year
But he hasn’t proven any of this yet.
charlie
Charlie may have a nice game *probably second game of the season, and people will begin kissing his butt.
honestly as the late john has said. We have no idea what Charlie is capable of doing.
if our very young oline can gell and get 3.8yds a rush and give charlie enough time to drop back 7-8-9 steps I dont know something tells me he will come out with respectable numbers and chance to get into the playoffs. I know many of you want a number one ranked qb. i for one want to get deep into the playoffs. i have a thing for cinderalla teams
but i guess predictions go nowhere without a season to play in. Does anyone have a prediction when the gm and owners will get their head out of their arse and give what the fans want.
"Late" John?
John didn’t die, man.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but
If he’s not writing for us might as well call him dead. im not trying to be a dick, it’s just in a twisted and mean way i miss his inputs.
But John Morgan will always be with us, man.
And he popped in during the draft. You’ll still see him from time to time, I’m sure.
"When Pete first got here he said he wanted to establish the run and stop the run
Pete’s the architect and Cable’s the contractor." --Greetings from the Lord Humongous!
by Tyler Jorgensen on May 1, 2011 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Honestly, I don't care what the rest of the country thinks of the Seattle Seahawks.
I believe that they had a very good draft, and I’m happy.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Jake Locker
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Justin Houston, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright, and Taiwan Jones.
If this draft turns our oline to "Above Average"
Then I’ll be happy. Everyone else in the draft would be bonus, but from what I’m hearing, Kris Durham and LeGree seem to have some potential
Durham has people excited. I don't know much about him to offer an opinion.
Cock Sure, on the other hand, I’m excited about.
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Jake Locker
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Justin Houston, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on May 1, 2011 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Just wondering
But where’d that nickname come from?
His name
Richard Sherman
Richard Sureman
Dick Sureman
Dick Sure
Cock Sure
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
Thanks, because I had no idea lol
First Round Wishlist (in order): 1. Mark Ingram; 2. Mike Pouncey; 3. Jimmy Smith; 4. Jake Locker
Other rounds: Rodney Hudson, Justin Houston, Owen Marecic, Ras-I Dowling, Joseph Barksdale, Tyler Sash, Shareece Wright, and Taiwan Jones.
by Carl Shinyama on May 1, 2011 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Seahawk's draft
If you have a superior offensive line you can win with Donald Duck at quarterback, as Dilfer proved a few years ago. This looks to me like the best Seahawk’s draft ever. I’ve got to believe that they already have an informal committment with Hasselbeck which will be revealed as soon as the owners get off their ass and settle. They’ve certainly proved an intent to protect their quarterback next year. Carroll"s purpose is to build a superior team not to give the media some supposed superstar QB who probably only has a 50/50 chance of making it anyway.
I doubt they would bring back Matt when they can get Carson at a much cheaper price
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
You forget Jamal Lewis and his 1400 yard season....
Add the fact that they still had Priest, and they were just fine on offense if not a Ground and Pound juggernaut. Their pass offense only needed to convert third downs which dilfer did just fine. I’d say their special teams were by far the worst part of their team, which was an elite QB away from being perhaps the best singular team ever.
by Seahawks4life on May 1, 2011 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Exactly
Ravens won by controlling the clock: forcing short and useless drives on defense and running the quarter away on offense – coupled with a extremely good special teams that helped both aspects was what made them great.
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul - Invictus
See the point is that we don't have the luxury of an elite defense
Which is main reason the offense was able to do what it did.
There intent was to improve the running game.
And if the had a committment to Hass hee would of been signed before the lockout.
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
