Give your overall draft grade

[Teqneek]

Schrager: (A) If Harvin is considered their first-round pick, you have to love what the Seahawks did in the first round. I gave their draft an “F” last year. That same draft netted Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner and Russell Wilson. I’m done questioning John Schneider. Until he proves us otherwise, he gets an A.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Only pick I really don't like is Jordan Hill. I don't think he'll be horrible, but I see him as the type of player who nobody will care when, in four years, he signs a 2-year $5 million contract with another team. I saw that as a very blah pick, which I don't like in the third round. If I'm wrong, it sure won't be the first time.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with that hunch. And yea, it's just a hunch, but I can't seem to get terribly excited over this one. Hope he proves me wrong, but it does seem like a very blah pick to me too. Maybe he's just at a somewhat unsexy position, or maybe I just haven't seen enough, but I'd wonder if he's even the best defensive lineman we picked.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

I'm curious to hear from one of the folks who voted F.

It's simple mathematics. Landing in the 0-60% F range is more likely than landing in any of the significantly smaller percentile ranges offered by letters A through D. Saying we got an F in our take from the draft is like betting a dollar on an item in The Price is Right. It won't satisfy the homeristic group-think we have running rampant in this thread but being right isn't about satisfying our illusions.

Talk about simple mathematics...and I emphasize the word simple.

Of course, mentioning 0-60% implies a numerically based scoring system of some sort which you have not outlined. Therefore, you can't acutally comment on whether 60% is more or less probable than any other percentile group.

For example, let's say we had a more objective criteria that if one of the drafted players players greater than 50% of the snaps at his position then the draft is at least a D-; or that >60% of the players made the roster etc. Is it unreasonable to think that 5 or 6 of these players will make the team? If all of them make the team - is that an A or a C?

In then end, your assumption that grades are linked to a mathematical score and that the probabilities of the percentiles in such a score are necessarily equal at every interval is erroneous without more clarification on your part.

It is possible to have a ordinal scoring system that is based, not on an underlying mathematical scores, but on other features or criteria which are descriptive and which may not show up with equal probability. This approach is obviously the one that has been used predominantly by the people in this thread and for obvious reasons the criteria vary from person to person - the reason for the discussion in the first place.

For example, I would consider an "F" draft one where none of the players will be significant contributors for this team for their tenure and either will be cut or not re-signed after their rookie contract. I consider that an exceedingly unlikely scenario for this group and therfore "F" would not be very probable, in my opinion.

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Only pick I really don't like is Jordan Hill. I don't think he'll be horrible, but I see him as the type of player who nobody will care when, in four years, he signs a 2-year $5 million contract with another team. I saw that as a very blah pick, which I don't like in the third round. If I'm wrong, it sure won't be the first time.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with that hunch. And yea, it's just a hunch, but I can't seem to get terribly excited over this one. Hope he proves me wrong, but it does seem like a very blah pick to me too. Maybe he's just at a somewhat unsexy position, or maybe I just haven't seen enough, but I'd wonder if he's even the best defensive lineman we picked.

He reminds me a lot of Clinton McDonald acutally - so not the greatest comparison.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Only pick I really don't like is Jordan Hill. I don't think he'll be horrible, but I see him as the type of player who nobody will care when, in four years, he signs a 2-year $5 million contract with another team. I saw that as a very blah pick, which I don't like in the third round. If I'm wrong, it sure won't be the first time.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one with that hunch. And yea, it's just a hunch, but I can't seem to get terribly excited over this one. Hope he proves me wrong, but it does seem like a very blah pick to me too. Maybe he's just at a somewhat unsexy position, or maybe I just haven't seen enough, but I'd wonder if he's even the best defensive lineman we picked.

He reminds me a lot of Clinton McDonald acutally - so not the greatest comparison.

Yea, I can see that too. Looks like a decent guy, but just doesn't have the brute force we're looking for at the position.

 

[Largent80]

Let us see what Quinn, Cable and all the vets can do with him before judgement day.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Yahoo! Sports gave the entire NFC West good grades, B's for SEA & STL, A for ARI, and A+ for SF.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--2...--the-49ers-have-a-super-draft-222459529.html

 

[AgentDib]

This is actually a "rate the FO" thread given that we have yet to see how many of these guys will make our team this year, to say nothing of future years. Since we don't know anything about this draft yet, the A's and B's are reasonable as a reflection of what our FO has done in the previous three drafts. Of course, the overwhelming response would be F if we had brought Ruskell back to do this draft and he had made the same moves.

Training camp will give us some limited information, and the final 53 roster will give us a lot of information about how these picks work out in the short term.

 

[twisted_steel2]

The more I think about this draft, the more I see it as their biggest gamble to date. No huge glaring holes on the roster, so it gave them the opportunity to swing for the fences. This draft could be gold, or it could be a flop.

Christine Michael and Tharold Simon. Huge huge high ceilings for both players. But really low floor as well. Either Marshawn's and Browners replacements, or major headaches for team.

Safer picks. Jordan Hill, Jesse Williams and Harper, I could see them being flops, washouts, or valuable contributors.

Crazy draft. One of their craziest. But at this point they've earned my trust.

 

[Harperville]

Was a B draft for me until we stole Williams and Simon in the 5th back to back...after that I was sold! A draft!

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Loved the Michael pick. Huge Williams fan. Thinking he could Shermanize this draft.

Harper .... I think a lot of us missed on this one, even though I thought he was a legit 4th round guy. We left both Patton and Swope on the board to take Harper. There was considerable quality that we didn't take -- so Harper can't just really be some practice squad guy.

Hill falls in the same category with me. Although there wasn't a lot of talent I think we missed on at that spot for that role. It really felt like a 'forced' pick to me. Hill looks like a guy drafted for a role that we will be talking about in 2014 as our #1 need. Did we HAVE to take an NFL average replacement guy at #3? Because there were a LOT of other guys that weren't average on the board elsewhere.

I'm hoping I'm wrong. But this pick felt Ruskellian.

This was an odd draft to be sure. The Michael pick: Yep I see that. Passing on Swope and John Simon -- in particular who we took instead of them (Hill, Harper, Willson, Th. Simon) obviously meant I liked those picks WAY more than Seattle did. Quite obviously, they didn't like those 2 prospects at all except maybe in the 7th. These were 2 guys I thought would be high on Seattle's board and I couldn't have been more wrong.

Ultimately, I think a lot of people went digging for obscure seahawk type prospects. And it looks like the Seahawks just dug deeper than ever before. I can't really give a grade at all, since so many of these guys I never heard of or they are going to position switch. Regardless if I consider the Harvin trade, to get 3 players (Michael, Harper, Williams) who are likely to contribute this year -- on a team this loaded and picking at #25 in the order -- that has to be considered a good B- draft on it's own merit. But like every Seahawk draft, you are obliged to give it an INC. Because our drafts are so heavily dependent on development they are simply not possible to really give an accurate grade.

Liked: Michael, Williams, Harper

Shrug: Hill, Simon, Ware, Powell

Bewildered: Willson, Seymour, Smith

Does he play baseball or football?: Bowie

I'm almost left to wonder, if Seattle wasn't planning for when they have to cut these draftees and stash them on a practice squad. Because plenty of these guys aren't going to have a problem going unnoticed on the final cut day.

 

[sam1313]

I've learned my lesson, I'm not even trying to attempt a draft grade this year, they can just have a default A+ until proven otherwise. Every year they make picks that make me go "huh?", then they turn out to be Richard Sherman, Kam Chancellor, KJ Wright, etc.

The fun part is knowing that there's at least one Sherman/Kam/KJ in this class that's going to blow us away...so who is it?

I'm with you Ninja. Until the players prove otherwise, this is an A+ draft.

 

[Anonymous]

I give an "A" to this draft. From what I can see, they all look like good dudes and we needed every one of them. I trust the FO and coaches at this point. Haven't heard any "what, they took THAT guy?" comments in the media, per se. I keep the NFL channel on in the background and all they can talk about today is frikken Tebow.

Just stoked for training camp to start so I can see what these guys bring.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Right now, it's a B draft because it feels like they're drafting for the future rather than the present. (In this case, not taking Harvin into account.) That's a good thing, but it's definitely underwhelming in the short term.

That said, I'm a pretty big fan of our 2nd, 3rd, and 5th round picks, and I'm a big believer in the current system our coaches have in place, so I can easily see this as an A draft by 2015.

 

[hoxrox]

Draft seemed average at best. Outside the first 2 rounds, nothing exciting, that screams, “beast!” or “dominate!” or “day one starter”

Unlike some division rival’s drafts, no steals in our draft. Maybe a gem or two in the later rounds, but everyone else seems “meh”

As someone mentioned, I think they got what they could according to their board, but were out-positioned to get the players they REALLY wanted.

 

[BamKam]

Draft seemed average at best. Outside the first 2 rounds, nothing exciting, that screams, “beast!” or “dominate!” or “day one starter”

Unlike some division rival’s drafts, no steals in our draft. Maybe a gem or two in the later rounds, but everyone else seems “meh”

As someone mentioned, I think they got what they could according to their board, but were out-positioned to get the players they REALLY wanted.

Disagree.

Jesse Williams was seen as a 2nd round pick (and even a 1st before random knee injuries came into place). Getting him in the 5th round was awesome.

Simon is another player who probably would have gone higher if I wasn't for character issues (which we should all know by now PC does fantastic with these types of players). Physical off the line corner who should be able to step in for Browner when his time is up.

But Jesse Williams is the pick that has me fired up the most, especially considering he is still somewhat relatively new to football.

 

[hoxrox]

Draft seemed average at best. Outside the first 2 rounds, nothing exciting, that screams, “beast!” or “dominate!” or “day one starter”

Unlike some division rival’s drafts, no steals in our draft. Maybe a gem or two in the later rounds, but everyone else seems “meh”

As someone mentioned, I think they got what they could according to their board, but were out-positioned to get the players they REALLY wanted.

Disagree.

Jesse Williams was seen as a 2nd round pick (and even a 1st before random knee injuries came into place). Getting him in the 5th round was awesome.

Simon is another player who probably would have gone higher if I wasn't for character issues (which we should all know by now PC does fantastic with these types of players). Physical off the line corner who should be able to step in for Browner when his time is up.

But Jesse Williams is the pick that has me fired up the most, especially considering he is still somewhat relatively new to football.

They are the possible gems in the later rounds I'm referring to. Everyone else though... "meh"

 

[Thunderhawk]

This is actually a "rate the FO" thread given that we have yet to see how many of these guys will make our team this year, to say nothing of future years. Since we don't know anything about this draft yet, the A's and B's are reasonable as a reflection of what our FO has done in the previous three drafts. Of course, the overwhelming response would be F if we had brought Ruskell back to do this draft and he had made the same moves.

Training camp will give us some limited information, and the final 53 roster will give us a lot of information about how these picks work out in the short term.

So true. Fickle fans. We also have really become the Seattle Raiders over the last couple of drafts and no one seems to mind. I was never a fan of the Ruskell choir boy approach but it seems we have gone to the other extreme, prizing athleticism while qualifying character concerns. It hasn't really bitten us yet, apart from Marshawn's likely suspension, but I have to wonder about the volatility of the locker room. Pete is great at managing strong personalities and there are some strong leaders on the team like Russell so hopefully it will be a non-story - or it could become what Cincinnati had a couple years ago.

 

[General Manager]

If Hill turns out to be a mistake it won't be the first guy they have missed on, but there's no evidence of that right now is there.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Talk about simple mathematics...and I emphasize the word simple.

Of course, mentioning 0-60% implies a numerically based scoring system of some sort which you have not outlined. Therefore, you can't acutally comment on whether 60% is more or less probable than any other percentile group.

For example, let's say we had a more objective criteria that if one of the drafted players players greater than 50% of the snaps at his position then the draft is at least a D-; or that >60% of the players made the roster etc. Is it unreasonable to think that 5 or 6 of these players will make the team? If all of them make the team - is that an A or a C?

In then end, your assumption that grades are linked to a mathematical score and that the probabilities of the percentiles in such a score are necessarily equal at every interval is erroneous without more clarification on your part.

It is possible to have a ordinal scoring system that is based, not on an underlying mathematical scores, but on other features or criteria which are descriptive and which may not show up with equal probability. This approach is obviously the one that has been used predominantly by the people in this thread and for obvious reasons the criteria vary from person to person - the reason for the discussion in the first place.

For example, I would consider an "F" draft one where none of the players will be significant contributors for this team for their tenure and either will be cut or not re-signed after their rookie contract. I consider that an exceedingly unlikely scenario for this group and therfore "F" would not be very probable, in my opinion.

But the grades are linked to a mathematical score. They are a simplified representation of a percentile score. It is possible to have a scoring system not based on mathematical scores but the letter grading system is not one of those systems (like reviewing movies with a 4-5 star system or 1-2 thumps up/down would be a non-mathematical system). I also don't believe people in this thread aren't using a numerical system to at least influence their selections. The system most of us appear to be using is the letter grading system but it's the letter grading system in relation to GPA (where a B, for example, is 250-300% more valuable than a D instead of only being 30-35% more valuable in a percentile system). The problem with doing this and with using the system you describe for yourself is Ruskell got A's, B's, and C's under it too despite how deeply he had really failed. We wouldn't want to be in the habit of subjecting one of the best FOs in the business to the same thought process we used to erroneously prop up a less than mediocre one, would we? Skepticism is a good thing. Patience is a good thing. In this thread, we are doing neither.