New two-round mock draft

[Recon_Hawk]

I was looking up RBs with comparable size to Rawls and this was who came the closest in the current NFL:

Thomas Rawls: 5'9" 215
Frank Gore: 5'9" 217

I just thought that was interesting.

Check out tape on Jonathan Williams from Arkansas. I think he's very similar to Thomas Rawls.

 

[kearly]

I was looking up RBs with comparable size to Rawls and this was who came the closest in the current NFL:

Thomas Rawls: 5'9" 215
Frank Gore: 5'9" 217

I just thought that was interesting.

Check out tape on Jonathan Williams from Arkansas. I think he's very similar to Thomas Rawls.

Nice find. He feels out his blocks very well and has good balance.

Another player I'm keeping an eye on is Storm Woods out of Oregon State. He's cut from the same kind of mold and will likely be a UDFA. He's local so there's a good chance Seattle might give him a TC invite.

 

[Scottemojo]

I suspect English is right about Seattle being willing to commit major draft capital to a RB. Rawls is not proven as durable, C-Mike is not Pete's idea of a backup policy.

 

[kearly]

C-Mike is not Pete's idea of a backup policy.

We'll have a better idea of how Pete values C-Mike pretty soon. The ERFA deadline is on March 9th.

If they let Michael go. To me it makes more sense to go after Forte/Murray/Martin on a relative bargain contract than to draft a RB with a high pick this year. From the front office's perspective, a 2nd round pick and say a medium size contract are interchangeable assets. The talent in FA is way better than the talent at the top of the draft at RB, IMO.

But I don't really expect either of those things to happen. I think they will keep C-Mike on his dirt cheap ERFA tender then add multiple RBs late in the draft or in UDFA to compete for the roster. If Michael fails to make the team at a later date, Seattle loses nothing.

 

[Scottemojo]

C-Mike is not Pete's idea of a backup policy.

We'll have a better idea of how Pete values C-Mike pretty soon. The ERFA deadline is on March 9th.

If they let Michael go. To me it makes more sense to go after Forte/Murray/Martin on a relative bargain contract than to draft a RB with a high pick this year. From the front office's perspective, a 2nd round pick and say a medium size contract are interchangeable assets. The talent in FA is way better than the talent at the top of the draft at RB, IMO.

But I don't really expect either of those things to happen. I think they will keep C-Mike on his dirt cheap ERFA tender then add multiple RBs late in the draft or in UDFA to compete for the roster. If Michael fails to make the team at a later date, Seattle loses nothing.

Oh, I think he may stick here, but he will have a hard fight to be anything but the 3rd guy.

 

[Hawks46]

C-Mike is not Pete's idea of a backup policy.

We'll have a better idea of how Pete values C-Mike pretty soon. The ERFA deadline is on March 9th.

If they let Michael go. To me it makes more sense to go after Forte/Murray/Martin on a relative bargain contract than to draft a RB with a high pick this year. From the front office's perspective, a 2nd round pick and say a medium size contract are interchangeable assets. The talent in FA is way better than the talent at the top of the draft at RB, IMO.

But I don't really expect either of those things to happen. I think they will keep C-Mike on his dirt cheap ERFA tender then add multiple RBs late in the draft or in UDFA to compete for the roster. If Michael fails to make the team at a later date, Seattle loses nothing.

I totally agree on the FA RB comment.

The other thing that might be a positive outcome from that is that you can get a quality vet (I'm hoping for Forte!) is you get a guy that can mentor both Rawls and Michael. Michael's problem wasn't his talent or ability, it was mental and attitude. Seeing a guy like Lynch (who with his quirkiness might not have been the best mentor) and also a guy like say, Forte, and how they approach the game, their life, and the profession in general, might actually help him to be a bit more stable and install a better work ethic.

When he got cut a few times and came back, word was he busted his ass. Then we started to see results. I'd agree with the Williams comparison.

 

[kearly]

The other thing that might be a positive outcome from that is that you can get a quality vet (I'm hoping for Forte!) is you get a guy that can mentor both Rawls and Michael. Michael's problem wasn't his talent or ability, it was mental and attitude. Seeing a guy like Lynch (who with his quirkiness might not have been the best mentor) and also a guy like say, Forte, and how they approach the game, their life, and the profession in general, might actually help him to be a bit more stable and install a better work ethic.

When he got cut a few times and came back, word was he busted his ass. Then we started to see results. I'd agree with the Williams comparison.

I always thought Michael got raked over the coals for the most petty of things. But then again, when you are a coach and you cant get a guy to switch the ball to the other hand in 3 years, I can understand that coach throwing his hands in the air and saying "screw it."

I think the biggest difference for Michael this time around is fear. Every snap he fears a mistake could end his career. That is both a good and bad thing, but for a back like Michael, it is more good than bad. Michael is willing to lose a step on a big run if it means securing the ball around his belly with two hands like he's carrying a newborn infant. Michael is willing to give up the 40 yard cutback once a game for the more consistent 3-5 yard dives.

The new version of Michael is effectively a lunch pail back, which won him enough points with Tom Cable to earn the starting job over Bryce Brown and others.

I don't share Scotte's cynicism on certain players. Not because the cynicism isn't warranted, but because Pete is about as anti-cynic as it gets. Scotte half expects Chancellor to get traded or cut at any moment, and for most organizations that take is 100% reasonable. Yet I've heard way too much of Pete talking, often in passing, about how he and Kam are family and that the past is the past, to think that Pete is that type of a grudge holder. On a similar note, I think Pete is willing to have players change his mind and I think Michael did that at the end of last season.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I always thought Michael got raked over the coals for the most petty of things. But then again, when you are a coach and you cant get a guy to switch the ball to the other hand in 3 years, I can understand that coach throwing his hands in the air and saying "screw it."

To be fair, I don't think that'd be an issue at all were it not for the fact that he fumbles a lot.

Thomas Rawls doesn't do a great job of switching the ball either. But it's never an issue raised because that hasn't contributed to fumbles which are not a petty thing.

I think while that is otherwise petty, the fact he fumbles frequently, doesn't know where to go on run plays and had difficulty with blocking assignments in pass pro were bigger issues.

I agree, the ball switch thing is petty -- so long as the presumed liability (increase chance of fumbling) doesn't manifest itself.

Michael did well in the final games he played significant action for us. Maybe he's straightened out some of his issues. I'd say his performance at least merits bringing him back for an extended look in the offseason. I would say this though. If he were to come back, then immediately have these previous 'non petty things' rear their heads -- he could be a guy who gets the LenDale White treatment.

 

[Bill Assumpcao]

...To be fair, I don't think that'd be an issue at all were it not for the fact that he fumbles a lot...

This statement confuses me. He has 1 fumble in 106 rushing attempts. How is this fumble-prone?

http://www.nfl.com/player/christinemichael/2539322/profile

Go Hawks,
BillA

 

[CPHawk]

...To be fair, I don't think that'd be an issue at all were it not for the fact that he fumbles a lot...

This statement confuses me. He has 1 fumble in 106 rushing attempts. How is this fumble-prone?

http://www.nfl.com/player/christinemichael/2539322/profile

Go Hawks,
BillA

In practice he's had a hard time holding onto the ball. Coaches put more stock in that, then in a few games.

 

[Hawkscanner]

Good stuff Rob -- and I think you're right on the money in thinking that Seattle is going to commit early draft capital in to the run game. An Alex Collins there in the 2nd Round wouldn't shock me whatsoever.

Couple of thoughts/questions I've had over the past few days (you or anyone else can feel free to chime in on these) …

1) Virtually no one will disagree that the #1 priority coming in to this offseason is upgrading the offensive line. That goes without saying. However, if Seattle DOESN'T re-sign Okung to a team friendly deal ... the prospects of actually getting a ready to start LT in the draft appear pretty remote. Taylor Decker will probably be long gone ... and a guy like a Le'Raven Clark (while his upside is potentially quite high) is clearly a project. Thoughts on Seattle and the LT situation regarding the draft?

2) Given #1, as I’ve sat back and pondered this past season, the thing that just screams out to me is that Seattle just simply MUS T significantly upgrade the middle of its offensive line. Teams like the Rams and the Panthers have shown that if you can blow up the middle of Seattle’s line … you can fairly effectively shut down the offense. So, it would seem to me that (unlike previous years) that they might look to spend more draft capital at the center and guard positions. They’ve simply got to find a way to effectively counter the athletic Aaron Donalds and the Star Lotuleleis of the world. Guys like Cody Whitehair, Josh Garnett, and Christian Westerman would seem to make some sense.

3) I had a bit of an unorthodox “out of the box” thought the other day that I’d love to get some reaction on. Going clear back to the Kellen Winslow, Jr. experiment, Pete Carroll has talked excitedly off and on about the idea of having 2 dominant TE’s and all the problems that a 2 TE set would cause opposing defenses. That got me to thinking … would Hunter Henry or even Tyler Higbee possibly make some sense for Seattle? Hunter Henry in particular seems to be a pretty decent blocker, so that might help with some of the blocking issues as well as provide Seattle with another potential matchup issue to pair with Jimmy Graham. Thoughts?

4) Su’a Cravens – man, is there another defender in this draft class that more screams Seattle Seahawk than that guy or what? Great instincts, leadership, intensity, all out hustle, tackling ability, absolutely loves football – the kid looks like he’s got it all. That’s one that looks like a “must pick” for the Seahawks – he’s got Chancellor’s future replacement written all over him.

Love to hear thoughts on any of that.

 

[kearly]

In practice he's had a hard time holding onto the ball. Coaches put more stock in that, then in a few games.

Personally I've never heard any such reports, so consider me skeptical of this claim. Especially since most practices are non-contact.

I think the fumble issue with Michael is overblown by fans. Michael had 1 fumble in 127 official NFL carries (regular season + postseason). And in the preseason, he had 3 fumbles in the three years (95 total carries), two of which Pete said himself were 'freak' plays where Michael did everything correctly to secure the ball. He also had 12 receptions over that span without a fumble. Add it all up, and you have 2 legit fumbles in a sample of 234 total touches.

(He did have a fumble issue in college, but he hasn't had those issues in the NFL. Fumble issues were never mentioned by coaches when Michael was traded. Michael's real problem was motivation, and being a slow learner. It's exactly the kind of person that would frustrate the hell out of a coach or teacher. In his second stint he looked motivated. And while he still has stuff to work on, he's showed that he's starting to learn how to run within the scheme.)

I think the reason fans latched on to fumbling, despite it being at odds with the facts, is the same reason why Russell haters latched on to him being "too short". People are biased against picks they didn't like when they went down, and will look for whatever reason they can to justify that hate. Before Michael had ever taken a snap in the NFL you had people obsessing over his fumble issues in the past. And so when he actually did fumble, he may as well have fumbled on 5 straight plays because of how much it impacted confirmation bias.