Completely Unimportant Draft Thoughts

[HawkGA]

Let me preface this "analysis" with a few points:
1. I almost never watch games anymore. Out of market, family life, wife who doesn't like football, etc. all adds up to me at best following the games online and reading out them after.
2. I watched almost none of the draft. Between teaching Thursday, End Game Friday, and running errands today, I saw almost none of it (but I did get to see the Hawks pick on Thursday).
3. Given these two things, I figure I'm just as qualified as, if not more than, the talking heads on TV.

So, here we go:

* I was surprised at the spread of picks. I expected the team to focus on DL with a few other positions sprinkled in, like WR and DB. But to see 2 linebackers, 2 WRs, 2 safeties, and a running back in the group? Certainly curious. Seemed almost like they were drafting for depth than to fill needs.

* I actually like the idea of drafting multiple people at the same position as I think it breeds competition (see the Redskins with Heath Shuler and Gus Ferrotte or Dallas with Troy Aikman and Steve Walsh).

* I have two "rules" on drafts and that is that you should always take an offensive lineman and you should always take a linebacker. Starting with 4 picks (and then five), I didn't think the Hawks would have the space to do that with their other needs. But they managed to do it.

* I think the Seahawks draft strategy is going to run into a potential wall. The draft a bunch of lower round players, then see who you can develop makes some sense. But it only makes sense if you have time to benefit from that development. With free agency and a highly paid QB, there may just not be the time to receive a payoff from developing the players. You may get one, maybe two good years out of them before they bolt for higher pay elsewhere. It might be beneficial to focus on drafting fewer players, but earlier, in the hopes of getting people likely to get on the field right away and contribute. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really second guessing the approach as John and Pete have done a wonderful job so far. But I do think *geniuses* are only truly geniuses if they are able to adapt to a changing landscape.
* The RB pick is probably the most head scratcher for me. Once you're in 6th round territory, I don't think it matters a whole lot but it seemed a strange position to use draft capital. A backup QB probably would have made more sense than an at-best 3rd string RB (of course Paxton Lynch is there but the fact I keep forgetting Paxton Lynch is there probably tells you enough).

* This wasn't the year to do it, given the lack of draft picks to start with, but I would love to see the Seahawks trade current year picks for future picks. I remember reading a story about a guy who traded a paper clip for a house. Of course it wasn't directly a paper clip for a house, but he started by trading the paper clip for something a little bit better, like a pen. And he just worked up from there, slightly winning the trade each time. I think the Seahawks should try something similar where they trade a 7th round pick this year (yes they didn't have one, and I don't necessarily think they have to start with a 7th, this is just an illustration) for 6th round pick next year. Then next year they trade that 6th round pick for a 5th round pick the following year, and on like that. Obviously you need a trading partner to do such things, but one of the benefits of having stability in coaching, management, and ownership (there's stability for now, at least) is that you can play the long game more than some other franchises can. They should take advantage of that.

 

[KiwiHawk]

I think you are mistaken on the draft strategy. Sure every team takes prospects who are going to need time, but PC looks for guys with a special "something" that fits within an overall picture.

Players drop down the draft list for whatever reason, but take a guy like Metcalf who dropped from a projection of #11 to #64. The dis? Three-cone drill, mainly. Route selection is limited by his lack of quick cutting ability. However, no one is debating his ability or willingness to block, which is a big deal for Carroll, and nobody is debating his size or speed, and we like to throw bombs. So while he may not be perfect, his problems are not ones we really care about, and his positives are ones we do care about. It's not a coaching-up thing; he'll contribute immediately.

Similarly we needed a ball-hawk safety - again with plays they feed the toxic differential - and the kid from Oregon looks the part. We also got an enforcer-type. Again, they have downsides that made them not fully-rounded blue-chip players, but what they do well fits how we want to use them, and minimises their downside.

So it's not a matter of draft now and train them up. It's about fitting players together to allow them to use their strengths while other guys cover their weaknesses. Richard Sherman was slow but that was covered by Thomas being fast, so Sherman could play the pick and let Thomas worry about the tackle. Both guys did what they did well.

The bell curve of talent extends over the entire college class. Those who are drafted are all in the good end of the curve, and of those I believe Carroll is saying there isn't much of a drop-off between 2nd-round and 5th-round, so you might as well grab more of the later ones.

 

[HawkGA]

Hope so, and you might well be right . . . particularly about looking for and planning for specific skill sets. But I remember thinking this with the Oline under Cable. Draft Olinemen you have to train up, and by the time you train them up, they're free agents.

 

[chris98251]

Hope so, and you might well be right . . . particularly about looking for and planning for specific skill sets. But I remember thinking this with the Oline under Cable. Draft Olinemen you have to train up, and by the time you train them up, they're free agents.

There is another post that points out exactly what Pete does, he looks for a trait and strength in players that fit the system he has and experts be damned, you don't need pass coverage skills as much as great tackling and recognition ability if your playing in the box, so having that and speed / quickness as well as a nasty disposition is a win for Pete, others will down grade because that guy can't cover guys in the flat well. Etc.

 

[KiwiHawk]

Hope so, and you might well be right . . . particularly about looking for and planning for specific skill sets. But I remember thinking this with the Oline under Cable. Draft Olinemen you have to train up, and by the time you train them up, they're free agents.

Keep in mind the LOB secondary was Earl Thomas, a 3rd-round pick, a 5th-round pick, and a former CFL player. And they didn't take years to train up. All they had were complimentary skill sets that Pete used to create a synergy.

And don't you find it odd that none of the members of one of the historically great defenses of all time have gone on to have success with another team? They've been journeyman-quality, but not special like they were as part of the LOB.

Is that all Bobby? All Earl? Or is it the system?

 

[HawkGA]

I'm not doubting the ability to develop players, but the LOB also got second contracts (almost all of them, anyway). My comment was more about whether the strategy has to change up if the Hawks can't afford second contracts as much ( ala Clark).

 

[Elemas]

The ambiguity for most fans lie in the "expert analysis" you typically find in places like ESPN. I don't have a lot of time to watch college football but do try to familiarize myself with the top ranked players at most positions.

So for the commoner, taking LJ Collier (ranked 12th...by the "experts") over Montez Sweat drives the initial "wtf" reaction.
There's more factors obviously (health??, run and/or pass D, etc..).

With that said, as fans, you have to trust the process. Especially with a GM like John...Coach like Pete. We can bring up the "I told you so"s for busts like Malik M....but, they've excelled in most draft day decisions throughout their tenure together.

Trusting the FO isn't always easy but, I have to give it up to these guys. After the "wtf" stage, I usually gain enough confidence that they're going to turn a few of the guys into superstars. I still believe that with Penny.

Same can't be said for other clubs...like the Giants (yikes!).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

* I have two "rules" on drafts and that is that you should always take an offensive lineman and you should always take a linebacker. Starting with 4 picks (and then five), I didn't think the Hawks would have the space to do that with their other needs. But they managed to do it.

This is what bad teams do, they put blinders on to need or status quo over what makes up a good football player.

Good drafters like Schneider, Belichick, etc have their list of must have traits, both measurables and immeasurables, and they start to narrow the entire draft class down from 600 to "their guys."

Schneider talked about it yesterday, says they narrowed their list down to around 120 players, and then he manipulates his picks to give him the best chance at not only filling needs on the roster, but also includes those players on their list.

What do Pete and John covet?

- speed
- length
- aggressiveness
- toughness
- grit
- chip on shoulder
- teachable
- dependable
- players that have overcome adversity

I absolutely love this draft class, as I did last years class. We're finally back to drafting "Seahawk" type players, and not reaching out of desperation or need.

 

[ivotuk]

Interesting topic, one that could go on forever and cover a lot of ground.

I think the reason only so many people get 2nd contracts is because of cap space. The Seahawks draft, develop, and pay those that have earned their way. Where they have made mistakes is trading away draft capital, and overpaying "star" players.

I would throw out any data on Offensive Linemen drafted before Solairi got here. Cable wasn't very good at setting parameters for OLinemen.

However, James Carpenter was a decent Guard. He had injuries, which led to weight issues. A man that size has to continually work out to keep weight off. But we couldn't afford to give him a 2nd contract. The Jets offered him a lot of money. Question is, over his career, has he been that good of a player? He's a starting guard for Atlanta.

Bruce Irvin was a very good player, except against the run. But he was great for rushing the passer and pretty good in coverage too. He went on to get a payday from Oakland and to play for Kenny Norton. Now he's in Atlanta. How would one judge his career so far? He's still a starter in the NFL.

Russell Okung and Earl Thomas. Still starters. Germaine Ifedi, with a little motivation, still starting. Rashaad Penny is behind a "knock out, drag down" running back in Chris Carson. He was picked because of all the injuries in 2017, and because there was no guarantee that injuries wouldn't set us back in 2018 like they have done for the past 5 or 6 years.

Personally, I think Penny is going to be a lot of fun to watch, and will earn his draft status by his play. He just needs a chance. Pete always brings the rookies along slowly, allowing the veterans to show them how it's done, and to leave them chomping at the bit to play. Competition. This is what he did with Kam Chancellor, Richard Sherman, and Byron Maxwell.

Draft and Develop. The number one, successful draft strategy in the NFL.

 

[HawkGA]

* I have two "rules" on drafts and that is that you should always take an offensive lineman and you should always take a linebacker. Starting with 4 picks (and then five), I didn't think the Hawks would have the space to do that with their other needs. But they managed to do it.

This is what bad teams do, they put blinders on to need or status quo over what makes up a good football player.

Good drafters like Schneider, Belichick, etc have their list of must have traits, both measurables and immeasurables, and they start to narrow the entire draft class down from 600 to "their guys."

Schneider talked about it yesterday, says they narrowed their list down to around 120 players, and then he manipulates his picks to give him the best chance at not only filling needs on the roster, but also includes those players on their list.

What do Pete and John covet?

- speed
- length
- aggressiveness
- toughness
- grit
- chip on shoulder
- teachable
- dependable
- players that have overcome adversity

I absolutely love this draft class, as I did last years class. We're finally back to drafting "Seahawk" type players, and not reaching out of desperation or need.

I'm not sure bad teams do it. I'm not sure any teams do it. But let me explain the rationale. Offensive line is a) important, b) has the most number of players on the field of any position group on a team, so you always have to have a pretty big number of people in the wings. On the linebackers, my logic goes mostly to regularly needing to replenish special teams.

Now, as with all "rules" things need to fit within reason. As I mentioned with my original post, with only 4 picks, you simply might not be able to swing this. Sometimes the board doesn't fall the way you need it to. Sometimes a draft class is just completely bereft of talent at a particular position. I'm also not suggesting they be high draft picks. I would say it's more important to spend more capital on OL than on LB but I think both positions are important to be regularly pumping in with youthful talent.

 

[HawkGA]

Interesting topic, one that could go on forever and cover a lot of ground.

Let me say, too, that I'm not saying the cap situation leads to what I'm suggesting. It may not. It may lead to the exact opposite. That is, it might be that it becomes imperative to draft even more players so trading back even more becomes more important. The main question is, does (or how does) the strategy/approach change to adjust for having the highest paid QB?

Last year's draft was pretty awesome. I think this class will be interesting. Not sure there will be as many players making an immediate impact as happened. There was a lot of drafting overlap, it seemed like but with so many picks, heck even if a third of them contribute significantly it will end up being a good draft.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

* I have two "rules" on drafts and that is that you should always take an offensive lineman and you should always take a linebacker. Starting with 4 picks (and then five), I didn't think the Hawks would have the space to do that with their other needs. But they managed to do it.

This is what bad teams do, they put blinders on to need or status quo over what makes up a good football player.

Good drafters like Schneider, Belichick, etc have their list of must have traits, both measurables and immeasurables, and they start to narrow the entire draft class down from 600 to "their guys."

Schneider talked about it yesterday, says they narrowed their list down to around 120 players, and then he manipulates his picks to give him the best chance at not only filling needs on the roster, but also includes those players on their list.

What do Pete and John covet?

- speed
- length
- aggressiveness
- toughness
- grit
- chip on shoulder
- teachable
- dependable
- players that have overcome adversity

I absolutely love this draft class, as I did last years class. We're finally back to drafting "Seahawk" type players, and not reaching out of desperation or need.

I'm not sure bad teams do it. I'm not sure any teams do it. But let me explain the rationale. Offensive line is a) important, b) has the most number of players on the field of any position group on a team, so you always have to have a pretty big number of people in the wings. On the linebackers, my logic goes mostly to regularly needing to replenish special teams.

Now, as with all "rules" things need to fit within reason. As I mentioned with my original post, with only 4 picks, you simply might not be able to swing this. Sometimes the board doesn't fall the way you need it to. Sometimes a draft class is just completely bereft of talent at a particular position. I'm also not suggesting they be high draft picks. I would say it's more important to spend more capital on OL than on LB but I think both positions are important to be regularly pumping in with youthful talent.

I understand what you're saying, but my point is, and I'll give our own team as an example. Just drafting an O-lineman out of annual need or using your line of thinking led to guys like Ifedi, Fant and Pocic. Cable and Pete did such a poor job of developing O-linemen that there was a desperation need, which led to poor picks for players that didn't really fit into our Seahawk mold.

So you don't want to just have a rule of drafting certain positions every year, they're ALL important. You try your best to get the perfect mix of need and attributes so you're not reaching out of desperation.