Seahawks Mock Draft V. 1.0

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2008 12:03 PM PST in Seahawks Player Analysis

I have no inside source, let's make that clear. This is my best guess based on what I know about Seattle and what I know about Tim Ruskell's drafting. It also reflects my own preferences and attitudes about the draft. We'll update this over the coming weeks.

1. BAT: However the rest of the draft plays out, I'm sure Seattle will take Best Available Talent with their first pick. This could mean Jonathan Stewart, Malcolm Kelly or Sam Baker. It could mean Calais Campbell. It could be almost any player at any position. Last season, without a first round pick of any kind, the Hawks picked a cornerback with their first pick in the draft. With their starting two set, cornerback was a position of need only in matters of depth. In three years of drafting, taking best available talent with Seattle's first pick has been a hallmark of Tim Ruskell's draft strategy. Not one of Chris Spencer, Kelly Jennings or Josh Wilson started their first seasons. This pick could be a head scratcher for "draft experts" and fans alike.
2a. John Carlson (TE): After an alarming 40, and without a single surefire first rounder in the entire class, I think Carlson could easily fall to Seattle without needing to trade up. Carlson defines a Ruskell pick: highly productive, great scouting report, high character and devalued because of physical limitations. Carlson is pro ready and should be Seattle's starter from day one. Won't tally eye-popping yardage, but'll rack up first downs, block and be an asset in the Red Zone.
2b. Trevor Laws (DT): Supremely Productive: Check. Dominated the Senior Bowl: Check. Undersized: Oh yeah. This is where Ruskell makes his money. Laws is a great single-gap defensive tackle who will contribute right away and should be able to eventually replace Rocky Bernard. Seattle moves its 3rd and 2009 3rd round pick to acquire this pick.
4. Jonathan Hefney (S): I think an okay combine, his (lack of) size plus a standout showing by two of the second class safeties (DaJuan Morgan, Quintin Demps, Reggie Smith, Marcus Griffin, Craig Steltz or Tom Zbikowski) knocks Hefney out of the first day. Hefney was a great college player, with great football quickness, good coverage ability and a likes-to-fight mentality. No Bob Sanders, but can bring a hit. Has the football quicks Ruskell loves in a DB. Won't start initially, but will take the field when Brian Russell suffers a mysterious crowbar induced knee injury.
5. Marcus Smith (WR): Tough kid out of New Mexico. Highly productive Senior season. Works well over the middle. Smith is a converted running back, has great football speed but is still learning the position. High character. Will need time to develop, but could surprise.
7. Chauncey Washington (RB): A bruising inside rusher from the nation's premiere offensive talent factory: USC. A 5 star high school talent devalued because of academic "issues". Minimal wear and little downside--I've said it before, Washington is a true value in a loaded running back class. The Seahawks have scouted Washington and he's a great fit for their needs. I would expect some grousing from fans and analysts, but Washington and Maurice Morris would form an above average backfield.

Tweet Comment 26 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Love it

Especially if that BAT is Stewart, Mendenhall or Phillips.

Love Laws and Hefney: Winners.

I prefer WRs like Keenan Burton and Earl Bennett a little more than the New Mexico kid at that juncture.

by puerto on Feb 25, 2008 12:36 PM PST reply actions

Any chance...

Baker falls to our spot in the 2nd?

http://lybberty.com/

by skijake1 on Feb 25, 2008 12:40 PM PST reply actions

He could, but...

I don't see Seattle grabbing him. Oddly, Ruskell seems to have the exact opposite strategy with offensive linemen than he does with about everything else. He takes real toolsy, unpolished guys (with the exception of Steve Vallos) and lets them learn on the practice squad. It hasn't been very successful yet, but it's super early. I think he's pretty satisfied with the line and wants to concentrate on the D and filling needs.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2008 1:51 PM PST up reply actions

Love Laws

he reminds me of Mebane with his stature and tenacity.
Any thoughts on Steve Johnson (WR)? I wouldn't mind considering him with our 3rd

by Mercenary on Feb 25, 2008 1:39 PM PST reply actions

I haven't seen much of him, but...

he doesn't look like a Mike Holmgren type. Holmgren cares less about deep speed than almost any coach. He's looking for a tight route runner who's quick out of his cuts. I'd be pretty surprised if anyone took Johnson with their 3rd round pick. A one year wonder deep threat who doesn't show up at the 40 or Vert isn't going to have a ton of suitors. Again, I haven't gotten a great look at him, so I could be completely wrong, but he looks like a late round flier.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2008 2:03 PM PST up reply actions

enough undersized

Look, measurables are far from everything, no one can say otherwise. But you CAN get too small, or too slow, or too weak. I don't want another undersized DT, the difference in this team with/out Tubbs shows that size does matter. I don't want another undersized player in the secondary where we have one that can barely overcome it (Jennings)and another that never will (Wilson).
Having said all that your mock draft is probably gonna prove surprisingly accurate, they all sound like Ruskell guys.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2008 2:08 PM PST reply actions

"Tubbs shows that size does matter."

awesome.

http://lybberty.com/

by skijake1 on Feb 25, 2008 2:39 PM PST up reply actions

Well...

Seattle ranked 5th in rush defense DVOA last season with Brandon Mebane and 3rd in 2005 with Marcus Tubbs. What I think both prove is that Chuck Darby kind of sucked.

Jennings was excellent for a 2nd year corner. Far ahead of where Trufant was in his 2nd year. It's way too early to assess Wilson. I don't think Ruskell searches for little guys, I just think he's less concerned about their size than their ability or production. Considering the huge strides Seattle has made defensively since Ruskell took over in 2005, it's very hard to argue he might have a point. Remember, Lofa Tatupu and Leroy Hill are both undersized too.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2008 2:49 PM PST up reply actions

What really makes this interesting

is that Football Outsiders (presumably Doug Farrar) has been promoting Chuck Darby as the answer to any team who needs help at DL. Which, in light of John's observation, doesn't really bother me.

It's nice to see a Seattle sports bias somewhere. Where it does grate is when I see that DJ Hackett, Marcus Trufant are being promoted as good available WR & CB options respectively. At least Tru has been franchised.

http://lybberty.com/

by skijake1 on Feb 25, 2008 5:57 PM PST up reply actions

Jennings

To be clear, I love Jennings, I think he has some of the best cover skills of the corners I watched last year. Unfortunately he'll never be a dominant corner because of his size. We're always going to watch him be right on top of his man and get beat by jump balls and sheer height.
Also to be clear, I love Ruskell. I'm not a small defense kind of guy, but you can't be too unhappy about what he's done for this team. What I'm saying is that at some point you need to have size on your team. Tubbs isn't the answer for this team obviously, but I think one fatty DT would really seal up this defense and make for a truely dominant unit.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2008 8:21 PM PST up reply actions

uh, so this Laws kid

Lets get him actually... I'm watching the DT portion of the combine now, and listening to them talk about him. I still want my beefy DT, but I won't be too sad about drafting this kid either.

by Nate Dogg on Feb 25, 2008 8:32 PM PST up reply actions

Yeah, boy

that Darrell Green kid, why did the Redskins ever waste a first-round pick on him--didn't they know he wasn't big enough to be a dominant cornerback?

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 26, 2008 7:56 AM PST up reply actions

Didn't realize we hated big guys

So first off, Kelly Jennings is not Darrell Green. Secondly, I don't know why we can't look at bigger players. I'm not saying we should take someone just because he's runs X time in the forty or weighs X lbs or more. All I'm saying is that on a defense filled with little guys it'd be nice to see a couple guys out there that bring something different to the table. Obviously you don't have to be big to be good, there are plenty of guys on this team and in the HoF that prove that. But being big brings something that ONLY being big can bring. You're either 6'5 or you're not, you're either 320lbs or you're not. It seems like theres an attitude out there right now that you can't have measureables and be a "football player".

by Nate Dogg on Feb 26, 2008 4:41 PM PST up reply actions

Green was 5'8", 170

so size-wise, no, he wasn't Kelly Jennings--he was Josh Wilson. Clearly, you can't say that size prevents either of them from being dominant corners.

by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 26, 2008 4:53 PM PST up reply actions

I think that

Ruskell is just trying to find value. Thus far he has found value in undersized players. Makes sense to me.

http://lybberty.com/

by skijake1 on Feb 26, 2008 8:42 PM PST up reply actions

Well if this came true

the only position I'd be worried about would be WR corps. We'd be set on D filling our two holes there (S and DT), our OL is set for now (but lacking depth outside), we solve TE and RB, but WR is still a question mark.

Do we convert Wallace to WR? Keep Hacks? Sign another WR? Rely on Obomanu?

Also, I'd love to see us grab Brennan if we could in the 2nd day at some point.

by Matthew @ Field Gulls on Feb 25, 2008 2:43 PM PST reply actions

Colt Brennan?

Why?

by bluemax on Feb 27, 2008 11:11 AM PST up reply actions

BAT

Best available tackle!

by Gray on Feb 25, 2008 2:44 PM PST reply actions

I have a hunch we might see JD Booty in the 4th

My hunch is that Ruskell brought Frye here to be the backup and eventual successor to Hasselbeck. But, he'll want to see Frye beat Wallace for it. So I think he'll open up the #2 spot for competition. He could draft a day 2 guy to replace the loser. Booty is tailor-made for a WCO. (Pat Kerwin said today on NFL Radio that Booty says he wants to go to Seattle and sit behind Hass.)

Ruskell could also just say, "Frye's my guy," and move Wallace on draft day for picks. I really like Wallace. He's a serviceable backup with a reasonable contract. He should have nice value on the market. I betcha Washington would be interested. (Todd Collins was a perfect fit for Al Saunders' offense. He's an awful fit in Zorn's.)

---
I also agree with puerto. I LOVE Earl Bennett, who could drop given all the crazy 40 times people are putting up at Indy. I don't know what he ran but Bennett is a Bobby Engram clone.

"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin

by dcrockett17 on Feb 25, 2008 2:48 PM PST reply actions

Booty's awesome.

I'd love to see him in Blue. No matter what anyone says, I don't think Frye is the guy. Obviously, you're not going to say publicly that the guy's a career backup, but the guy's a career backup. As much as I've talked about this being a draft where you shouldn't miss drafting a left tackle, it's pretty stocked with quarterbacks too.

It's crazy about USC, great team, all that talent, and so many of its players are falling down the boards.

by John Morgan on Feb 25, 2008 2:54 PM PST up reply actions

As a USC fan

I'm not really that sold on Booty. He has better physical tools than Leinart, but lacks the decision making and composure.

I'm not as down on him as the average USC fan, but he definitely needs a lot of work. Then again I guess he wouldn't be playing for 2+ years so he'd get lots of time to develop were he to come here.

by bluemax on Feb 27, 2008 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

Agree

If we could land JD Booty in the 4th I'd be very pleased. I also can't imagine Frye being the guy of the future, at least I hope not. USC has that nice history of producing solid pro's, so I'd say It's a risk worth taking.

Trevor Laws is awesome as well, exactly the type of guy I'd like to see on this team.

A monster like Calias Campbell would be interesting to see on our defense, but if Stewart, Kenny Phillips or Mendenhall are there I'd rather take one of them. A big receiver like Kelly would be nice as well. I'd really be pleased with any of those players to be honest.

Let's go.

by J Hens on Feb 25, 2008 3:38 PM PST reply actions

n/s

I wouldn't mind Branden Albert if he gets past Pittsburgh either.

Oh, and watch for Courtney Taylor next season, I'm just sayin.

by puerto on Feb 25, 2008 8:56 PM PST reply actions

great draft

Great analysis. Open Q: Where is Booty projected to be taken, or is that too hard to call? And with Beck still having many good years left, would that make sense right now?

by paul2 on Feb 26, 2008 9:09 AM PST reply actions

The first question sort of answers the second.

Booty is going to slide to the second day. He should be the 6th-10th quarterback taken. Good talent, played in a pro style offense, could develop behind Hasselbeck and save Seattle from the dreaded rookie quarterback. It would be nice to have some real depth behind Hasselbeck, too. That Hawks, as-is, couldn't make a real run in the playoffs if Hasselbeck was badly injured.

by John Morgan on Feb 26, 2008 9:18 AM PST up reply actions

Booty and RB

I like the idea of addressing QB (especially JDB) and RB on the second day. Seems like the conventional wisdom is we take any of the big three RBs with our first rounder if they're around. I don't know about that.

I'm a UO alum, and love Jonathan Stewart, but I think the guy's injury-prone. He is injured right now. He's tough, don't get me wrong, but I think he's not going to make it in the NFL.

Adding a QB on the second day also would allow us to either move Wallace or convert him to WR. I'd prefer the latter, so that he can theoretically continue to provide backup depth at QB as rookie QB matures. According to NewsTrib, the Hawks are not too intent upon keeping Hacks. Do we really want Courtney Taylor or Ben Obo as our starting WR? No.

What would this offense be like with a dynamic, supremely athletic WR? I don't know, cuz we haven't had one. If Wallace can be it, it'd be worth a shot.

by jeager on Feb 26, 2008 9:53 AM PST up reply actions