QuahHawk
Well-known member
Do those of you that believed we would draft OL heavy in the first 3 rounds still think that is likely?
Hasselbeck":m68mcmfp said:I sure hope J'Marcus Webb isn't the FO's way of saying "great we addressed the OL!"
firebee":2fkouf9u said:Hasselbeck":2fkouf9u said:I sure hope J'Marcus Webb isn't the FO's way of saying "great we addressed the OL!"
I'm still calling Spriggs in the 1st, Connor McGovern in the 3rd and Stephane Nembot in the 5th or 6th. I also wouldn't be surprised if we signed another C/G type before the draft. We're looking to bring in a lot of competition on the O-Line. I think we're looking to get a deep group of younger guys looking to prove something and break through in the NFL. I expect us to have 5 or 6 guys competing for the start at OT, 5 or 6 guys competing for the start at OG and 3 or 4 guys competing for Center. Nobody's penciled in this year. Getting back to the basics... ComPete.
penihawk":15vcppwf said:I just hope we don't reach on O-line players in the first half of the draft and leave potential Probowlers at other positions of need on the board just because thats our perceived biggest need.
Attyla the Hawk":3p3u9biu said:penihawk":3p3u9biu said:I just hope we don't reach on O-line players in the first half of the draft and leave potential Probowlers at other positions of need on the board just because thats our perceived biggest need.
To be fair, anyone you don't draft is a potential pro bowler.
When you're talking pro bowlers from R2 to R4 -- they aren't anything like that when you draft them. They have to be developed.
Seattle has needs like every team. But if you're wanting to get those pro bowler gems, then you need to identify who they are before the draft and before they become pro bowl talent. It's easy to say we should have taken Kawaan Short in 2014. But up until last season, Jordan Hill was more productive and looked like the emerging star.
That's too vague for my taste. If you have specific guys in mind -- yeah we can go with that. But I can't endorse a 'bet the field' kind of argument. That is lazy and revisionist. Nobody has that benefit of hindsight on draft day. So I don't think it's appropriate to saddle a FO with that kind of litmus test.
I'd also add, that while it seems like Seattle was more proficient at getting gems from the rough in 2010 to 2012 -- there is a component of opportunity that is missing in 2013 to present. These prospects we get late in rounds now compete with a fuller/deeper roster.
I have no doubt that Clark could have been a 6-8 sack kind of player last year if he weren't relegated to a 30% snap count like he was with Seattle. If he'd played for a bad team -- or even the 2012 Seahawks -- he'd have had far greater snap count and a much better statistical result. The reality is that rookies on this team are going to find limited opportunity.
Take Rawls last year for an example. He emerged as a strong prospect almost immediately on his first real opportunity. Then rode pine for a stretch when Lynch returned. If he'd have played just a couple more games -- he's the toast of the 2015 class and the narrative is 'UDFA beats out Gurley for OROY'. He was limited in opportunity just like other rookies on this team are despite being more than qualified and capable of producing at a high level.
penihawk":19u6hxu6 said:Thanks but you missed my point. I see lots of people elevating OL candidates into the 26 spot that aren't even gonna be top 50 on most boards just because its a need. Don't try to outsmart the board is the point. We failed in other areas last year as well and could use some help so we need to be open minded to best player in each spot regardless of perceived order of biggest needs.
Attyla the Hawk":g0b3u1na said:penihawk":g0b3u1na said:Thanks but you missed my point. I see lots of people elevating OL candidates into the 26 spot that aren't even gonna be top 50 on most boards just because its a need. Don't try to outsmart the board is the point. We failed in other areas last year as well and could use some help so we need to be open minded to best player in each spot regardless of perceived order of biggest needs.
I can see that. Although I also think there are guys at OT in particular who merit consideration at that position.
I see Spriggs, Coleman, Ifedi as pretty similar prospects to Jake Fisher from last year. Now he dropped down into R2 -- but much of that was due to strength at other positions. I wouldn't expect any of those three to make it to 56.
The conversation does revolve around need. As it has for Seattle in the early rounds every year. Obviously there is a danger in getting tunnel vision there. But I don't see other players that trump the OT talent there at their respective positions either. It's more of a need meet talent situation by my eye.
I don't see any legitimate can't miss BPA alternatives that should merit us not going with need at 26. There are good but flawed prospects abound by that range. Or really good, but not a critical position types. Really from a BPA standpoint you could cover the 20-55 overall prospects with a blanket and just pick one at random and get similarly qualified (and flawed) early round selections.
The conversation probably gets more interesting if we start putting alternative names up to consider. I love Kelly, but that position is so much less impactful than OT. Couple with the relatively small step down in pedigree to be found in R3 -- Seems a perfect situation to leave with two birds in the hand. I could see us making a move up in R2 if he slid down to the 40s. Which he easily could. The reality being that the plan B for OC is insanely strong if that didn't happen. Just another example of the board really suiting to our needs and available quality where we pick.
I likewise wouldn't be stunned if we didn't go OT. I'd put non OT at 26 at somewhere in the 25% range. Probably would require someone with alpha (more like potential alpha) pass rush ability to force us off that path. Or someone with some kind of special/unique quality elsewhere.
Referring to last year, I'd say we kind of killed it in the early rounds. Here were the picks in and around our two selections:
63 SEA Frank Clark DE
64 NWE Jordan Richards SS
65 IND D'Joun Smith CB
66 TEN Jeremiah Poutasi G
67 JAX A.J. Cann G
68 OAK Clive Walford TE
69 SEA Tyler Lockett WR
70 HOU Jaelen Strong WR
71 CHI Hroniss Grasu C
72 STL Jamon Brown T
73 ATL Tevin Coleman RB
74 NYG Owamagbe Odighizuwa DE
75 NOR Garrett Grayson QB
76 KAN Chris Conley WR
I don't see any other two players I would have preferred over the guys we actually picked. I don't think we missed out on anything there.
Even the trade up for Lockett was pretty good. Our surrendered picks turned into:
95: Matt Jones
112 Arie Kouandjio
167: Damian Swann
181: Kyshoen Jarrett
I hope we have similar luck in 2016.
or Germain Ifedi... When I watch him, I just don't see what everyone likes about his play. He looks the part and shows okay balance, but his quickness and explosion isn't very good. The guy's hand activity and hand speed is atrocious. He gets beat to the punch more often than not. Those long arms don't mean squat if a telegraph gets to a defender before his hands do. Someone help me out here. He looks the part physically, but he's a really slooowww twitch athlete.cover-2":12mcy31k said:I think the Seahawks are just hedging their bets. If all their 1st round graded OT's are off the board at pick #26, then they will be in a position to where they don't have to reach on a player like Texas Tech OT Le'Raven Clark at #26.
firebee":33bbrya9 said:or Germain Ifedi... When I watch him, I just don't see what everyone likes about his play. He looks the part and shows okay balance, but his quickness and explosion isn't very good. The guy's hand activity and hand speed is atrocious. He gets beat to the punch more often than not. Those long arms don't mean squat if a telegraph gets to a defender before his hands do. Someone help me out here. He looks the part physically, but he's a really slooowww twitch athlete.cover-2":33bbrya9 said:I think the Seahawks are just hedging their bets. If all their 1st round graded OT's are off the board at pick #26, then they will be in a position to where they don't have to reach on a player like Texas Tech OT Le'Raven Clark at #26.
Attyla the Hawk":18ghvrew said:firebee":18ghvrew said:or Germain Ifedi... When I watch him, I just don't see what everyone likes about his play. He looks the part and shows okay balance, but his quickness and explosion isn't very good. The guy's hand activity and hand speed is atrocious. He gets beat to the punch more often than not. Those long arms don't mean squat if a telegraph gets to a defender before his hands do. Someone help me out here. He looks the part physically, but he's a really slooowww twitch athlete.cover-2":18ghvrew said:I think the Seahawks are just hedging their bets. If all their 1st round graded OT's are off the board at pick #26, then they will be in a position to where they don't have to reach on a player like Texas Tech OT Le'Raven Clark at #26.
Have to agree. Ifedi's tape gives me the heebie jeebies.
But then I queue up Clark's tape and Ifedi looks like Joe Thomas. I don't even want Clark in R6. Seriously he's a PS guy who is about as equally prepared as Sokoli. Without the insane athleticism.
If our plan is to take Clark as our OT by R2, then I'd just say let's ship off our 26/56 and another pick for Thomas. Basically we'll get more actual snaps for our spend. Even if he retired after 2016.
If hate were prospects, Clark would be Devin Funchess.