Kiper grades the Hawks a C+

[HansGruber]

Mel Kiper has been consistently wrong in most of his picks.

I remember him saying Randy Moss was too slow for the NFL, simply because he had played at a small school. How could any serious scout ever say that after Moss' college career? Just stupid, arbitrary, sub-mediocre, lazy analysis. To see Moss excel so dramatically in the exact area Kiper criticized him just proves he doesn't even do basic research on the small school guys.

Further, his statement about coaching is just hilarious. So Randy Moss and Jared Allen are the product of great coaching? Wow, Kipers logic just proves he is even worse at being an armchair GM than it would be to just admit his errors. Obviously, team owners and fans strongly disagree with the coaching statement.

Further, I have to laugh at all these experts on this board. Listening to their scouting reports is like listening to someone describe a country they've never visited. You can hear the lack of first hand knowledge in the way the observations are framed. "You don't want to visit the Louvre, because lines are long and the cafe serves mediocre coffee." Well hey, thanks for the shallow opinion of Paris you compiled by reading reviews on TripAdvisor. Boy it's good to get the opinion of an expert who did their research.

Schneider's take on scouting has changed my view of these amateur scouts. If he openly admits that all scouting is poor at best, scouting done by paid professionals, that kinda makes it hard to see the armchair expert as much more than a well meaning fool.

 

[Marvin49]

Mel Kiper has been consistently wrong in most of his picks.

I remember him saying Randy Moss was too slow for the NFL, simply because he had played at a small school. How could any serious scout ever say that after Moss' college career? Just stupid, arbitrary, sub-mediocre, lazy analysis. To see Moss excel so dramatically in the exact area Kiper criticized him just proves he doesn't even do basic research on the small school guys.

Further, his statement about coaching is just hilarious. So Randy Moss and Jared Allen are the product of great coaching? Wow, Kipers logic just proves he is even worse at being an armchair GM than it would be to just admit his errors. Obviously, team owners and fans strongly disagree with the coaching statement.

Further, I have to laugh at all these experts on this board. Listening to their scouting reports is like listening to someone describe a country they've never visited. You can hear the lack of first hand knowledge in the way the observations are framed. "You don't want to visit the Louvre, because lines are long and the cafe serves mediocre coffee." Well hey, thanks for the shallow opinion of Paris you compiled by reading reviews on TripAdvisor. Boy it's good to get the opinion of an expert who did their research.

Schneider's take on scouting has changed my view of these amateur scouts. If he openly admits that all scouting is poor at best, scouting done by paid professionals, that kinda makes it hard to see the armchair expert as much more than a well meaning fool.

Uh, Wha?

I'm all for ripping on Kiper but I don't recall him EVER saying he was slow. All the predraft hype on him was that he was so tall AND so fast.

The small college stuff had to do with his production....not his speed.

He also had issues OFF the field that pushed him down the draft board.

 

[Hawks46]

Anyone have the grades for our division rivals?

SF - A - highest grade Kiper gave out, tied with only JAX

Stl - A- - behind only JAX and SF

Ari - B

I actually agreed - SF and STL both had good drafts. However, with the ammunition each team went in with, it would have been kind of ridiculous to believe that either would come away without much talent. To be honest, I just thought Kiper's reasoning was funny in our case. According to his logic, he really can never be wrong. I think Kearly is right, we do a great job of player development. However, I would argue that scouting and drafting are not entirely separated from that process. The degree to which our scouting and coaching correspond gives us a distinct advantage - we know what we want and what weaknesses we can address - this leads to a comprehensive approach that more often than not yields great players.

I also think that we have the luxury of "redshirting" rookies at this point. Like last year, I doubt any of this crop of rookies will do much this year. That makes our draft rationale even more murky - the needs our FO perceives for next year are probably very different than the needs we see right now.

Kearly's take is interessting and it's a direction I hadn't really looked at before, but my problem is with the above quote.

SF drafted 2 guys coming off of ACL injuries. Yes, they're talented, but they're also not expected to contribute this year. Even in the draft grades it's said that both guys are expected to redshirt. So, we're drafting for player development, but SF is drafting for the future and player development 2.0, yet they get an A. I don't doubt their 1st round pick, but according to his "grade" by "experts" it was a reach.

And I don't care that SF is rated higher than us, it's just there is no consistency. I think SF had a very smart draft. Both of our teams don't have a lot of holes and it's going to be very hard to make the roster, so add picks with an eye to the future and player development. They just get an A for it while we get a C+. which still doesn't really bother me. Kiper gave us a D on the draft where we got Wagner and Wilson. Just an interesting observation.

 

[hawkfan68]

Can't blame Kiper. If someone had posted this Seahawk draft as a pre-draft mock, most, if not all .Netters, would be grading it an F too. Maybe an "F" would have been too high of a grade but because PC/JS drafted. Calling it an A draft is a bit of stretch too. How shit seems to shine when one's got a the midas touch...in a few years we'll know how good or bad this draft is.

 

[DavidSeven]

Can't blame Kiper. If someone had posted this Seahawk draft as a pre-draft mock, most, if not all .Netters, would be grading it an F too. Maybe an "F" would have been too high of a grade but because PC/JS drafted. Calling it an A draft is a bit of stretch too. How shit seems to shine when one's got a the midas touch...in a few years we'll know how good or bad this draft is.

They would only grade it an "F" because they are relying on Kiper's mock and other media generated material to formulate their opinions. If all they knew about the prospects was their measurables, college production and actual experience in watching them play, would they then grade the draft that poorly? My guess is "no."

This is what you would know without the aid of media generated mocks:

1st pick: 4.3-4.4 WR, 2nd fastest receiver @ Combine, among NCAA leaders in WR production.
2nd pick: SEC Offensive Tackle, nearly identical measureables as blue chip OT Jake Matthews.
3rd pick: High motor DE/DT. Athletic enough to be a two-way player in college; utilized as a redzone TE at UCLA.
4th pick: 6'2" possession receiver. SEC and National Championship pedigree.
5th pick: Fastest LB in draft; elite SPARQ athlete.

So on and so farth. Now, some people actually studied these guys and still didn't like those picks. That's fair. However, many others let their "name value" biases (which primarily originate from Kiper and the like) creep in. If Mel Kiper and Mike Mayock told you Paul Richardson was the best receiver in this draft, then chances are that a bunch of people here would start to believe it.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I don't think that analogizing Chris Petersen at BSU to Pete Carroll here is fair to the Seahawks' drafting process, though I am guessing that the person whom wrote this was not intending to make a perfect analogy.

Still, Peterson was ending up with two star - read, "not elite in almost any way" recruits and then putting them in the right positions to succeed. What Coach Carroll does is more like what Billy Beane does/did for the Oakland Athletics, which is to find guys on the discard pile that have one specific skill that they excel in at an elite level and then figure out how to exploit the crap out of that skill.

Cliff Avril isn't an every-down player that can rush the crap out of the passer? OK, put him in mostly on passing downs in nickel packages and let him wreak havoc. Red Bryant is a run-stopping beast? Stick him outside and cut down on half the direction that the opposing team can run. He got Chris Clemons as a throw-in on a Darryl Tapp-for-a-pick trade and then immediately had him line up wide and speed rush the other QB, and look what happens - Clemons becomes a secret star and a highly-reliable pass-rushing threat.

It's the same thing with drafting a lot of the time for Coach Carroll, IMO. Usually, this "elite skill" is related to SPARQ scores. Paul Richardson will take the top off of defenses with his elite speed, for example. Kiero Small does one thing really well, and that's run block.

His exceptions tend to be for guys that are complete packages except for one glaring thing, like Russell Wilson being an elite QB prospect except that he is under six feet.

Anyway, it's different than what Coach Petersen did at BSU. Carroll is getting guys that are elite athletes in some key ways that he then properly utilizes because other teams are just not able to properly value what Carroll values (like, say, tall corners that play exceptionally in press coverage). Coach Petersen was taking guys that are unremarkable athletes for D-1 football and then having them hang with the Georgias and Ohio States and Oregons of the world with a few exceptions (LeGarrette Blount, Doug Martin).

Both remarkable, but very different, achievements, and an important distinction in my opinion. Coach Carroll and John Schneider need a Moneyball-like book written about them when this is over someday.

 

[byau]

Guys with strong work ethics who are students of the game and have some un-coachable quality about them that makes them special.
.

Ha ha I read that as meaning they cannot be coached. What you meant was a quality that cannot be taught

Very good post.

Along those lines: the players are coachable. That is very important because if you have an athlete that cannot be coached, you cannot fit them in your system and it doesn't matter as much how athletic he is (read: Allen Iverson)

 

[justafan]

Kiper grades the teams like he grades his draft.If our picks dont jive with his he grades accordingly.He stands by his picks right or wrong.
Thats exactly how it should be done.Some people here didnt like PR predraft and would have taken Coleman with a 1st or 2nd pick but will rave what a great pick it was after the fact.
All you can do is make up your own mind and know that nobody knows what the hell is going to happen after the players get to camp.The draft all entertainment and a hobby for us.Nobody should be railed on for missing or glorified for hiiting,we are all just guessing anyway
I agree totally with the staement about the staffs strengths are developing players.Its not drafting players with high ceilings but getting these players to hit there ceiling

 

[v1rotv2]

I am of the opinion that the worse Kiper and others grade our draft the they get slapped when we win it all.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I am of the opinion that the worse Kiper and others grade our draft the they get slapped when we win it all.

It's exactly like Ebert and Siskel. Whatever they say assume and do the exact opposite.

 

[hawkfan68]

Can't blame Kiper. If someone had posted this Seahawk draft as a pre-draft mock, most, if not all .Netters, would be grading it an F too. Maybe an "F" would have been too high of a grade but because PC/JS drafted. Calling it an A draft is a bit of stretch too. How shit seems to shine when one's got a the midas touch...in a few years we'll know how good or bad this draft is.

They would only grade it an "F" because they are relying on Kiper's mock and other media generated material to formulate their opinions. If all they knew about the prospects was their measurables, college production and actual experience in watching them play, would they then grade the draft that poorly? My guess is "no."

This is what you would know without the aid of media generated mocks:

1st pick: 4.3-4.4 WR, 2nd fastest receiver @ Combine, among NCAA leaders in WR production.
2nd pick: SEC Offensive Tackle, nearly identical measureables as blue chip OT Jake Matthews.
3rd pick: High motor DE/DT. Athletic enough to be a two-way player in college; utilized as a redzone TE at UCLA.
4th pick: 6'2" possession receiver. SEC and National Championship pedigree.
5th pick: Fastest LB in draft; elite SPARQ athlete.

So on and so farth. Now, some people actually studied these guys and still didn't like those picks. That's fair. However, many others let their "name value" biases (which primarily originate from Kiper and the like) creep in. If Mel Kiper and Mike Mayock told you Paul Richardson was the best receiver in this draft, then chances are that a bunch of people here would start to believe it.

The thing is that most analysts don't spend as much time as JS/PC do evaluating players. No one on here does that either. No .Netters who post pre-draft mocks had Britt in the 2nd round much less in their full draft mocks. So he had the same athleticism as Jake Matthews, what was keeping Britt from being a 1st rounder like Jake Matthews then? Must have been something since 31 teams passed on him twice.JS/PC have a history of hitting on their choices more often than not. So they get the benefit of the doubt and deservedly so. If Ruskell made these picks, this place would have exploded and they wouldn't be congratulating him on a good draft. So the folks who are doing the picking makes a difference. There is confidence in their picks because of their track record. It's just the way it is. On paper, this draft doesn't look spectacular but who knows it may turn out to be...That's all I'm saying.

 

[DavidSeven]

On paper, this draft doesn't look spectacular but who knows it may turn out to be...That's all I'm saying.

But that's my point. According to whose paper? Most forum posters build their mocks off mocks they've seen on ESPN and various internet websites. They don't know what any real NFL board looks like. If it looks "bad on paper" to most, it's only because it didn't align with Kiper's big board.

Do you have issues with this draft based on measurables, college production, tape or positions taken? Some people have studied these prospects enough to have legitimate issues, but most haven't.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

OT: Roger Ebert was a good critic. Gene Siskel was solid. The key to movie criticism is reading the critics you enjoy reading and getting a feel for their tastes. I could read an Ebert review and enjoy it while also knowing what he likes that I dislike or vice versa. I would be able to know whether or not I might like a movie based on his review whether I agreed with his taste or not.

Kiper, on the other hand, is dealing in something that ends up being far less subjective. Either these players will be good or they won't be. Movies tend not to be as easily pegged as good or bad as football players are because we can look at the stats and the film for the latter.

The problem is that I don't trust Kiper's ability to evaluate players, so I can't trust him to tell me which teams got good value. He can try to say that Seattle's coaching is really the cause of the disconnect between his grades and Seattle's recent draft success, but the truth is that he just sucks at player evaluation.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

OT: Roger Ebert was a good critic. Gene Siskel was solid. The key to movie criticism is reading the critics you enjoy reading and getting a feel for their tastes. I could read an Ebert review and enjoy it while also knowing what he likes that I dislike or vice versa. I would be able to know whether or not I might like a movie based on his review whether I agreed with his taste or not.

Kiper, on the other hand, is dealing in something that ends up being far less subjective. Either these players will be good or they won't be. Movies tend not to be as easily pegged as good or bad as football players are because we can look at the stats and the film for the latter.

The problem is that I don't trust Kiper's ability to evaluate players, so I can't trust him to tell me which teams got good value. He can try to say that Seattle's coaching is really the cause of the disconnect between his grades and Seattle's recent draft success, but the truth is that he just sucks at player evaluation.

Fair enough.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

....

 

[A London Hawk]

I thought you fixed that double post problem Mizzou?

On topic, I'm not a fan of immediate post draft grades. I certainly don't know enough about any of these players to have an opinion on them before they've even played a snap for the Hawks (those of them that do.)

I do know that we got a WR and O Lineman with our first 2 picks. At this point, that counts as a 'success' for me.

 

[BobinLaConner]

I would have to say, I give Kiper a D+...LOL He is so one-dimensional and just doesn't like looking ridiculous (and of course, what I like to call "wrong").

As far as the Seahawks draft...it sure seems to me like they know what they are doing. Based on past drafts for Pete and John and how those turned out, I wouldn't be so quick to hand out a C+. I would take a closer look at what is really happening...

What I see is two men that use all the information available to understand the weaknesses and build a plan to address exactly what they need. They know from analyzing which players have special talents or abilities who can best help this team ( from cultivating the best system of scouts in the NFL) and then visualize who will make the most sense to fill those spots.
They know what mental qualities winning players possess. They can see the potential of how a player will fit with this team and have a system to grow those players into exactly what they need (anticipating the advantage of their strengths and talents). And then to really put it into another level, they go and trade back a few times (as the master negotiators) and win even more picks, and still landing the guys they wanted. Normal teams do not do it this well.

Some teams draft based on what players have done up until now and their ranking in categories...while the Seahawks draft based on attitude, physical abilities, instincts and what the players will become. It's the difference between static and dynamic.

Draft grades, Mel...are you kidding? we don't need no stinking draft grades! Pete and John are not in "school" anymore hoping for passing grades from you...they are quite comfortable being the Jedi masters of the NFL draft. The students have become the teachers. Mel, I think perhaps you should stick to giving people gold stars for adequately being sheep and picking the players ranked highest by the so-called draft experts (that you also picked).

 

[Subzero717]

Why do we obsess with what he says. He gives projections and then grades teams based on them. Guess what? He makes a ton doing it. I saw his breakdown and it was much ado. He said there were some picks he thought we reached but because of out depth and the way we develop we could gamble on a kid with upside rather a finished product and had no issue with our draft. What seems to be the problem?

 

[HansGruber]

Well, this is great news.

Last time he gave us a C-minus for drafting Irvin, Wagner and RussellMania. So if we go by the "Costanza Rule" (i.e. Kiper is wrong the majority of the time, so the opposite is true the majority of the time) - then a C-plus grade means we did only slightly worse than when we drafted Wilson.

Considering that Richardson is going to tear up the league, and Britt will be a starter on the OL, and we likely got a starting FB and least one more WR (as well as another great piece in the secondary) - sounds pretty dang good.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I kind of agree with Walter's assessment. I loved the draft as a whole, but I'd agree that the Britt pick gives me the most pause. This is the one where I hope they didn't get too cute like Harper last year. However, I'm not going to write it off. Tremendous athlete with great intangibles.

I like that they went OT early though and am expecting good things. Love the thinking behind the other picks. Even if they don't land, I get the logic behind each of them.

Haha! More than just intangibles with Britt. I normally agree with most of your player assessments, but when it comes to OL, you leave me scratching my head.