Kiper grades the Hawks a C+

[kearly]

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.

Carroll is a bit more specific in what he looks for but that's kind of splitting hairs.

Also, i think Pete does way more than exploit skills. The guy who exploits skills is Chip Kelly. Pete pretty much does it all. Our secondary and WRs are both probably the best coached units in the NFL.

Roger Ebert was great, but ironically I thought his lackey Richard Roeper was the better critic of the two. Or at least, I virtually never disagreed with him.

 

[Tokadub]

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.

Yeah that's the thing... most casual fans and pretty much ALL OF THE NATIONAL MEDIA "EXPERT" idiots are just regurgitating someone else's research.

How often do you see a scouting article with someone actually supporting their opinions with specific stats or video evidence? 99% of the time they are just repeating what they have heard from their "sources". Meaning 99% of the NFL draft guys have the EXACT IDENTICAL OPINIONS.

THEY ARE ALL FRAUDS... simple as that...

Can anyone link me to an "intelligent" draft article? I doubt one even exists... all these "experts" are just frauds... entertainment bums making a living with their over dramatic projections of unoriginal material.

Seriously whenever I watch NFL network or ESPN NFL shows 99% of these guys sound clueless (or they look/talk like someone who is mentally impaired or on drugs). There's a few rare exceptions, John Gruden is probably the best I've seen just because he recognized Russell Wilson's insane potential and wasn't afraid to let it be known world wide...

So to me Kiper is like a total troll media bum idiot. Does anyone have a single article or video which shows Kiper knows his stuff? As far as I can tell he's a total shmuck media W*#rE.

Kiper can join John Clayton (said Wilson was 12-14 ranked QB in NFL)... they are both really stupid and just regurtitate other peoples opinions. At least Clayton uses some stats, even if he uses stats incorrectly in some cases... that's probably more than the majority of NFL "Experts" do... they are a bunch of clowns.

Our draft seems to me like a solid B. No off the charts home runs (except maybe Norwood), but all guys that could make a splash in our system. My biggest concern is that we barely did anything with our offensive line, which to me is 99% our Achilles heal weakness. They bust our offensive line we can lose any given Sunday so fast... I tend to think there were just no good linemen available... I doubt our head office would miss some valuable offensive line men.

Truth is the best most of us can do is watch player youtube highlights and look at their college stats (something most these experts probably don't even do since they cover 32 teams)... from what I've seen we are looking good other than the O-Line.

 

[warden]

The Seahawks get it wrong more often the they get it right. First couple of year they had close to 300 roster moves. Most did not pan out, but they keep turning the roster until they get it right. The sure demands it puts on the coaches to constantly spin the roster the way they have is incredible. The Seahawks just plain out right do it differently then anybody has done it before. They look at players with special skill sets that they feel they can develop.

One can say the Seahawks did poorly in the 2011 draft because their first two picks did not become stars( Carpenter and Moffitt) also Durham and Lagree did not pan out. But the draft with hind sight has to be labeled an A+. Wright, Sherman, Smith and Maxwell have all become above average players in this league. You start grabbing four quality players in one draft, you are kicking some major a$$.

PC/JS do it differently, but the results have been incredible, they have not only turned this team into a contender but they turned it into a champion. Chit, most of our players are just entering their prime. There system has been proven to work very well

 

[MB12]

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.

SPOT ON!!!

 

[JMR]

This is as much art as it is science, and NFL teams commit a hell of a lot more resources to getting it right than he can, have a lot more at stake, and they don't fair much better if they do at all. All the hate is ridiculous.