Seahawks always face tough road in draft as playoff team

[ivotuk]

Clayton: Seahawks always face tough road in draft as perennial playoff team

By John Clayton -- April 13, 2020 at 3:58 pm

It’s hard to believe this is Seahawks general manager John Schneider’s 11th NFL Draft.

While it’s very difficult to figure out who he is going to draft, it’s easy to follow the way he drafts. He has an amazing ability to find starting defensive backs in the middle rounds. He’s a master of making draft day trades, particularly trading down in the first round or even out of the first round to accumulate more picks.

https://sports.mynorthwest.com/838039/c ... -in-draft/

 

[Appyhawk]

Your title is fact Ivo.
It is supportive of both our lack of success rate with our early picks and the idea we do better in the later rounds. But if all your picking is done in the later rounds that is obviously where whatever success you have is going to come from. I question the validity of that conclusion as all the players you would most like to have are taken before you ever get a chance to pick. That results in you have a roster lower in talent level than it might otherwise have been.
I'm a quality over quantity guy. I'd much rather have a small collection of nice things than a big pile of cheap wannabes.

 

[Ad Hawk]

How large of an impact does one first-round draft pick make each year? Some would say a lot, other would say it's 50/50. There's no doubt that teams perennially picking high in the first round can make a difference over several years. But it requires drafting well in other rounds, too, along with good coaching and scheme.

The Hawks (and Patriots, of course) are consistently picking low in the first round. But if you think of it as these teams simply forfeit a first-round pick and then get higher picks everywhere else, then it all comes down to one player in each draft. If it's true that there are really only 10-15 players each year that are in a league of their own (debatable) at the top of the draft, it's also true that we aren't going to get those players. But our late first-round pick is higher than the 2-14 finishers' 2nd rounder, and so on all the way down the draft.

Does that one high first-round player make the difference in whether a team succeeds or fails? Look at the teams consistently drafting high over the years: Miami, Cleveland, etc. Is that one player helping them?

 

[jammerhawk]

How large of an impact does one first-round draft pick make each year? Some would say a lot, other would say it's 50/50. There's no doubt that teams perennially picking high in the first round can make a difference over several years. But it requires drafting well in other rounds, too, along with good coaching and scheme.

The Hawks (and Patriots, of course) are consistently picking low in the first round. But if you think of it as these teams simply forfeit a first-round pick and then get higher picks everywhere else, then it all comes down to one player in each draft. If it's true that there are really only 10-15 players each year that are in a league of their own (debatable) at the top of the draft, it's also true that we aren't going to get those players. But our late first-round pick is higher than the 2-14 finishers' 2nd rounder, and so on all the way down the draft.

Does that one high first-round player make the difference in whether a team succeeds or fails? Look at the teams consistently drafting high over the years: Miami, Cleveland, etc. Is that one player helping them?

The one first round player usually doesn't make any difference, as the same teams often pick early again and again without much on field success. Proof of this can be seen from the number of consistently top team's that frequently trade down in draft and often out of the first round. It could be argued that Seattle's record over the past 10 seasons with first rd. picks is somewhat dubious except when they picked very early, but they have picked comparatively well afterwards in the draft.

I look at trading back in the draft similar to you as a reallocation of draft capital. In most drafts as you correctly observe after the top 10-15 player are gone there are a good number of players with close to similar draft value, and thus acquiring more chances at picking up a similar valued player seems to be a smart move.

Some drafts are better than others at various positions and this draft is not particularly strong at the key areas of need of the team on the DLine. I anticipate as well that JS is going to have to move down in the draft and then move around to find players that meet their positional parameters. I don't like seeing the team going into a draft with huge areas of obvious need, but this present situation is one which is somewhat unprecedented.

The team still has other needs as well and should attempt to take advantage of the strengths of the draft, but the limits of having late picks each round won't make it easy. This draft is going to be one of the hardest he's had to deal with and will be critical to the team's success going forward.

 

[Ad Hawk]

This is indeed a challenging draft where our needs are concerned. Now, if there were some outstanding DE prospects, I think that "one first-round player" idea becomes more meaningful. It's why they--and QBs/LTs--are always taken so high; they can simply change the course of a game (see Aaron Donald, Big Walt, or RW, etc.).

But as you said, jammer, this draft doesn't line up well for us. I'l be interested to see how we use the rest of the draft capital. The way you seem to view the draft, the specific round makes little difference (contract specifics aside) and has much more to do with pick number from 1-250 (or so) and the value of each one. I much prefer this method over "slotting players to a specific round."

 

[Appyhawk]

This is indeed a challenging draft where our needs are concerned. Now, if there were some outstanding DE prospects, I think that "one first-round player" idea becomes more meaningful. It's why they--and QBs/LTs--are always taken so high; they can simply change the course of a game (see Aaron Donald, Big Walt, or RW, etc.).

But as you said, jammer, this draft doesn't line up well for us. I'l be interested to see how we use the rest of the draft capital. The way you seem to view the draft, the specific round makes little difference (contract specifics aside) and has much more to do with pick number from 1-250 (or so) and the value of each one. I much prefer this method over "slotting players to a specific round."

As things stand right now we HAVE to address DE/Edge, RB, and RT for O line. We can use the rest of our picks to experiment for depth.

 

[kf3339]

This is indeed a challenging draft where our needs are concerned. Now, if there were some outstanding DE prospects, I think that "one first-round player" idea becomes more meaningful. It's why they--and QBs/LTs--are always taken so high; they can simply change the course of a game (see Aaron Donald, Big Walt, or RW, etc.).

But as you said, jammer, this draft doesn't line up well for us. I'l be interested to see how we use the rest of the draft capital. The way you seem to view the draft, the specific round makes little difference (contract specifics aside) and has much more to do with pick number from 1-250 (or so) and the value of each one. I much prefer this method over "slotting players to a specific round."

As things stand right now we HAVE to address DE/Edge, RB, and RT for O line. We can use the rest of our picks to experiment for depth.

In this draft I would "NOT" address DE/Edge higher than the late 2nd or maybe late 3rd round if even that high. I just don't think the quality is there at all. I would address OT, OC, DT and RB high and then WR and maybe DE if the draft correctly falls to us. I also would like to see a mid or later round OG developmental prospect if our OL coach really likes him. I absolutely wouldn't draft CB, S, TE and probably LB in this draft. Just my take.

 

[AgentDib]

I'm a quality over quantity guy. I'd much rather have a small collection of nice things than a big pile of cheap wannabes.

Everybody prefers quality over quantity, particularly in the NFL where the gladiator vs. bricklayer analogy holds pretty well. The more interesting question is how you acquire that quality, and the evidence is pretty good that due to the uncertainty in the draft you are better off with more chances at it.

Here is what the 2017 draft looks like in terms of PFR's Career value after 3 seasons:

The brown line represents how NFL teams have valued the picks based on actual trade history. The blue dashed line is the average value provided by each selection, which is markedly higher than the perceived value.

The explanation for the huge discrepancy is the fixed roster limits. Adding late round picks is a dominant strategy - if they have a shot at competing for a roster spot. On the other hand, if your team will be keeping 3 TEs and your current 3 TEs are absolute locks then adding another is of minimal value.

So how many spots do the Seahawks have to compete over? I figure at least 16 (1+ QB, 1+ RB, 2+ WR, 3+ OL, 1+ TE, 2+ DT, 1+ DE, 2+ LB, 3+ DB) which means I am fully on board with trading down this year/adding UDFAs as the means of obtaining the best possible quality.