7th Round, Pick #247, Zac Brooks, RB, Clemson

[DavidSeven]

Don't fret over what a team does in the 7th round.

Just look at it as an extension of the UDFA process. Imagine they took the safety at this pick and signed Brooks as a UDFA if it eases your mind. Same thing. Saying they took "3 RBs!!!" is disingenuous, as the 7th round is just used to place a hold on UDFA-type players.

 

[pehawk]

Don't fret over what a team does in the 7th round.

Just look at it as an extension of the UDFA process. Imagine they took the safety at this pick and signed Brooks as a UDFA if it eases your mind.

Thing is Brooks wasn't coming here as a UDFA. No way in hell. They had to draft him if they were intrigued.

 

[DavidSeven]

Don't fret over what a team does in the 7th round.

Just look at it as an extension of the UDFA process. Imagine they took the safety at this pick and signed Brooks as a UDFA if it eases your mind.

Thing is Brooks wasn't coming here as a UDFA. No way in hell. They had to draft him if they were intrigued.

Yeah, 7th round is the place where you put holds on UDFA-type players. Doesn't mean they are over-emphasizing a position. They took some other RBs early, so it would've been a hard sell to get Brooks. Balance will be struck once the process is completed.

 

[chris98251]

Jeez so I guess getting another RB as a UDFA is going to break the bank, I see three guys, all have a skill set that somewhat different, Smooth gliding receiver guy, Power runner, shifty fast RB, and Madden another power guy that is a player that can't stay healthy but had decent promise at one time, I really think he is a rep guy at this point, Rawls will have almost no reps till August and we will see if Michael even makes it to Summer camp at this rate.

 

[kearly]

I can't find much on Brooks, literally a handful of snaps.

That said, what I've seen of him looks really good. Explosive, good balance, smooth athlete. His current build is similar to CJ Spiller. His style of running resembles a thin-framed version of Alex Collins, sans the bad habits and poor balance.

His official pro-day 40 time was 4.49 and the clips I've seen of him look a lot closer to 4.49 type speed than the rumored 4.32.

I looked at some of his high school stuff from 2012, and he looked much bulkier then, which is strange because usually players are bulkier in college than in high school.

Anyway, if Brooks put on 15 pounds he would look very much like a prototypical NFL RB. Obviously Seattle wanted him pretty badly as they not only spent a draft pick on him but did so even after drafting two other RBs.

I barely know anything about the guy, but what little I've seen so far makes me think this was a good pick.

 

[dogorama]

Brooks had a killer pro day and has a ton of upside AND he is our one and only outside threat at running back. My bold prediction says that he sticks and makes a contribution this year.

 

[Hawks46]

Obviously we're running the wishbone this year. Why can't you people see this ?

 

[Seafan]

3rd day of the draft has often been a look at players with interesting athletic qualities.

Or, Bevell may finally be ready to go to the Chip Kelly offense.

 

[chris98251]

3rd day of the draft has often been a look at players with interesting athletic qualities.

Or, Bevell may finally be ready to go to the Chip Kelly offense.

He first needs to figure out how to get a play in in under 24 seconds.

 

[RichNhansom]

Definitely a head scratcher,

But what if they are transitioning away from FB to go to H-back? We already have Cottom and drafted Vannett. If we release Tukuafu and go RBBC wouldn't having 4 or even 5 RB's on the roster make sense? Last year we had 3 RB's and two FB's to start the year and no blocking TE IIRC.

Does an H-back make more sense than a FB for a spread offense? Seems like it would.

One thing is for sure. This year is going to be very interesting. I'm excited.

I wonder if other teams in the division are going oh shit, what the hell is Seattle up to now? If they're not, they should be.

 

[Grahamhawker]

With the different styles/skill sets among the draftees at RB, it would not shock me at all if all 3 make the final roster. PCJS wanted them for a reason. If things click, I can see them all contributing.

 

[titan3131]

Definitely a head scratcher,

But what if they are transitioning away from FB to go to H-back? We already have Cottom and drafted Vannett. If we release Tukuafu and go RBBC wouldn't having 4 or even 5 RB's on the roster make sense? Last year we had 3 RB's and two FB's to start the year and no blocking TE IIRC.

Does an H-back make more sense than a FB for a spread offense? Seems like it would.

One thing is for sure. This year is going to be very interesting. I'm excited.

I wonder if other teams in the division are going oh shit, what the hell is Seattle up to now? If they're not, they should be.

Tukuafu isn't on our roster. We Didn't sign him

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Obviously we're running the wishbone this year. Why can't you people see this ?

:lol:

I like having the option (pun intended) to have 2 Swiss-army-knife RBs on the field at the same time, with either one able to flex out to the slot or even out wide. Or the reverse, line up wide and motion back in, depending on defensive personnel and alignment.

We could see some cool wrinkles in the zone-read and quick-pass game this year.

Or we just go with some UDFA FB and keep it same-old same-old. But I like the potential to mix it up.

 

[Jimjones0384]

C.J. Prosise is the one back I don't know stays a back, maybe becomes a hybrid guy with his history, Percy Harvin without the attitude and injuries is what I am thinking.

My exact thought when I watched his tape, a bigger, stronger and healthier version of Percy with a better attitude. Has great vision and acceleration. I think be has potential to be the camps most exhilarating player. Has super star playmaking potential.

 

[themunn]

Normally you'd want to go BPA, but not when you've already drafted 2 players at a position where you only "needed" one.

One or two of our RB picks won't even make the roster.

You reach a point where every additional pick at the position means another one won't make the team.

Let's say the Hawks had another 7th round pick and they drafted a FOURTH RB, only 2 of them at most would make the roster with Rawls (even though he's recovering) and Michael (who stepped up his play) already in the mix.

Being a late round pick means its not something to get worked up about, but logically the Hawks virtually guaranteed that at least one of their RB picks will be 100% wasted, whereas there are positions where we would still benefit from the added body.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that all 3 can't make the roster - carrying 4 running backs is not unusual (we finished the season with Lynch, Michael, Brown and Jackson on the roster, after all).
Given our running back depth going into the draft was a recovering Rawls and Christine Michael, we were always going to be picking up at least 4 running backs (which is exactly what happened - 3 drafted and 1 UDFA, would you be complaining if we'd picked up the exact same players, but Brooks was one of the UDFA's?).

With Tre Madden joining as an UDFA it's not even a dead cert that 2 of the 3 make the team - and that's fine. Rawls is a better running back than anyone we've drafted since Shaun Alexander and he came in as an UDFA, from the 4th round onwards, it's just about getting the guys in that you're certain won't last in the draft, but from a "value" perspective, they're all on the roster bubble with the UDFAs, 7th round picks especially.

 

[joeshaney]

There was no need to draft another RB.

From a talent standpoint this doesn't help us. The RBs who don't make the team will basically be as good as our #3.

For competition/depth purposes there's a number of positions that could use it more than RB at this point.

How can anyone say that? RB was one of the biggest needs. They have ALWAYS approached needs by throwing as many solutions at the problem as possible. Why anyone would be confused that they take the same approach to the RB position, I am not sure.

We clearly disagree on how much of a need it was. We will see how smart/dumb it was to use 3 picks on RB.

You say we should throw as many solutions at the problem as possible (you gave no limit).

If we drafted 4 RBs would you think it's smart?

If we drafted 5 RBs would you think it's smart?

What about 6?

At what point would YOU say we started wasting picks?

I'll bite on this. Let's make the unfair assumption that Rawls starts the season on the pup, Christine Michael is not in the plans and there are no appealing veteran rb options.

Drafting up to 4 running backs, as crazy as it sounds, would be feasible. Or a better idea would be draft two or three, then pick up a couple more undrafteds to compete for that 4th/5th rb/fb role.

If Rawls is good to go subtract one.
If Michael is projected to earn a spot, subtract one.
If any of the rbs drafted are projected to transition to a different position, add one.

After the draft, we now have 5 rbs out if an assumed 4-5 we will likely carry. I dig.

 

[Jimjones0384]

With the different styles/skill sets among the draftees at RB, it would not shock me at all if all 3 make the final roster. PCJS wanted them for a reason. If things click, I can see them all contributing.

Yep, and pc was very clear when saying he has a very specific plan for prosise. Leads me to infer that is the case for all of the rb selected. Everyone is freaking out over the 7th round pick spent on a running back when they probably got the dbs and lb that they would have drafted there as udfa anyway. It is all a numbers game. Look forward to this season, they are building us something special. A ton of young guys to mix together and grow with our young core of veterans. Get enough of these young guys to work out and we will be able to keep guys like Baldwin a lot easier.

No sense in getting all salty because they didn't pick the players you wanted them to take. That's really what it comes down to. If we knew more about this roster, we would be gm or coach. We had a great draft and have a team that can grow together and will be an immediate super bowl favorite, and we got o line players that actually played o line in college. I bet cables reputation as one of the best o line coach shows up big this year. I would bet money that our line will be at worst averge this year, and that's all wilson needs. Also, if we have any needs left, you know good players will be cut due to cap restraints, so we aren't even done collecting talent. Hell, talent wise, we got two of the more talented qbs as udfas. They had other knocks on them, not talent. Too short for vernon adams, well we know how that goes.

This off season to me feels special, like this team is primed to go. Hell, our second round steal, posted pictures wearing seattle gear before the draft, then brought skittles on the stage with him. How cool is that. I, for one, cannot wait to start reading the stories about who is standing out during camp. This is going to be a fun season.

 

[chris98251]

[youtube]PmAfiVvKkaA[/youtube]


[youtube]5wJallasB1M[/youtube]

 

[Scottemojo]

This pick had nothing to do with a hole in the 53 man roster. Maybe a hole in the 90 man roster.

Plus athlete. Probable practice squadder.

 

[v1rotv2]

And the Seahawks just broke the internet by sending their fanbase right over the edge...........bwa ha ha ha

Why would anyone get worked up over the last pick of our draft? It is pure BPA at that point.

Normally you'd want to go BPA, but not when you've already drafted 2 players at a position where you only "needed" one.

One or two of our RB picks won't even make the roster.

You reach a point where every additional pick at the position means another one won't make the team.

Let's say the Hawks had another 7th round pick and they drafted a FOURTH RB, only 2 of them at most would make the roster with Rawls (even though he's recovering) and Michael (who stepped up his play) already in the mix.

Being a late round pick means its not something to get worked up about, but logically the Hawks virtually guaranteed that at least one of their RB picks will be 100% wasted, whereas there are positions where we would still benefit from the added body.

My thoughts exactly. And if the 7th round pick actually does work out, that means the 3rd or 5th round pick was wasted.

No it does not. It could very well mean that a vet that was on the team will be replaced. This is not a draft choice for draft choice, it's about competition for every player. That 7th round rookie could very well replace that 7 year worn out vet.