What would your general yearly draft stratagy be?

[morgulon1]

I would concentrate on offensive line and defensive front 7. That would be my beginning strategy. Of course if a cb or wr were available you take them but I'd build from the inside out. It doesn't matter if you have an All world WR if your QB is on his back

 

[Seattle Person]

Ideally you want to get to the point where you are taking the best player available. From then I really believe in the one in the chamber philosophy. You take a player a year ahead of what you need.

Just the reality of the NFL. You can't give everyone 2nd contracts and rarely should you give players 3rd contracts. It's always good to have one in the chamber.

 

[KinesProf]

Well, that's certainly one way to miss out on Woolen, Sherman, Chancellor, Maxwell, Carson; never mind the non-Seahawk examples throughout the league.

Mahomes was a prospect that went from project->backup->starter

Anyway, I think my philosophy would be pretty close to what the Seahawks did in 2022. Stick and pick the best player available to you regardless of position. They didn't get cute last year and miss out by moving down or reach for need.

 

[AgentDib]

Do you think another GM who needs to win this year or he is on the hot seat would do this year's 5-7 for 2025 2nd rounder?

In my made up GM world, I am hired for 20 years, the first couple of years might be thin but I am winning Super Bowls left and right.

You're using two strategies at once here which muddies the waters.

Trading up is dependent on the value of early picks vs. late picks. This is a question of confidence in your college evaluations. Are you certain that your second round pick is going to be 12x more likely to succeed than your fifth round pick? That's the difference in value per the Rich Hill draft chart.

Personally, I think the better analogy for the draft is that of a lottery. There is so much uncertainty that you are better off trading down in a vacuum and obtaining more tickets. There is a good reason not to go with 12 fifth rounders instead of 1 second rounder, and that is fixed roster limits.

The other strategy you are using is trading into future years. That is dependent on the value of picks this year vs. picks in the future, or "time value of money" in fancier terms. The NFL has a really steep discount rate and so if you are patient you can absolutely get huge returns by investing in the future. However, that's because the leash is also very short.

Look at the 2009 Seahawks who acquired lots of draft capital for 2010 in netting both the 6th overall pick and the 14th overall pick. Good for Ruskell, right? Well not really, because he was fired and John Schneider was the one who benefited from having two early first round picks.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

If it's me:

1. R1 restricted to QB/LT/Pass rush end or a true unicorn at other position. If none, cycle the pick in trade.

2. Draft QBs nearly every year somewhere. Not only does this give the chance to reload at the premium position. But it also provides cap relief not having to pay a veteran journeyman a ridiculous salary.

3. Use UFA period to create depth. Drafting for depth to me is just less than ideal. Because it means you're getting a project that needs one or two years to be as good as a journeyman. So you're drafting for 2, maybe 3 years of fill in/backup quality. Bad return on draft investment.

4. Use R5/R6/R7 picks to add depth at the trade deadline. Every year there are good players on the block that teams looking to reload are willing to part with. Most are guys that have some significant cap implications.

5. Draft like you're 2-15. Get guys that you think will be worth resigning. Ignore need almost entirely and fill urgent need as above.

6. Instead of getting an extra extra pick this year. Go for a round earlier next year. Basically plow those extra picks in future years. Most GMs are more willing to part with future draft stock than stock in the upcoming cycle. If possible, get a throw in 6th round pick in future years you can leverage for a trade deadline veteran add in the current season.

7. Use excess depth at the trade deadline. For example. Let's say we're sitting there at 34, and a really good OT is on the board, because the run on DL/DE has already happened. That OT has a ton of value even despite having Lucas/Cross on the roster. You have insurance. You can move him to OG (sometimes OC as we've seen). Or if he shows out and looks like a hit, you can easily move a Cross or Lucas in trade at the deadline for a nice haul.

8. Hit the deeper positions in a draft hard. Double down wherever possible.

For me, the goal should be to acquire top shelf talent at best, or at least league average at premium positions. Try and acquire 3 rookies that by the end of their deals should merit a franchise tender to retain. Better yet, that they either force an existing starter to be a painless cap casualty in rookies' 2nd/3rd year or allow for a trade. I don't really care about year 1 starters, so much as I'd want to have guys that can replace current starters (good or weak starters). Sometimes, the better player happens to fit where you are weak. But the chances of that are actually fairly rare.

 

[oldhawkfan]

Lets say you are the GM, any overall year in and year out strategy ideas?

Mine would be to only draft starters, no projects. Know what your needs are, get your starters and trade the rest for future starter picks.

Example...Rounds 1-4, be it QB, RG or ST...if he would start...draft him. As the draft goes on those 4-7 rounds should be bundled up for a 2nd round (or whatever) pick next year.

Do projects come through? Yes, but its rare...1st and 2nd rounders are where its at.

How do you know they are starter material or not until they get into the system and start working with your guys? There have been hundreds of picks throughout the years that teams chose to be starters and they flamed out.
Aaron Curry
Owen Gill
Dan McGwire
Rick Mirer
Need more examples?

 

[Hawkinaz]

If it's me:

1. R1 restricted to QB/LT/Pass rush end or a true unicorn at other position. If none, cycle the pick in trade.

2. Draft QBs nearly every year somewhere. Not only does this give the chance to reload at the premium position. But it also provides cap relief not having to pay a veteran journeyman a ridiculous salary.

3. Use UFA period to create depth. Drafting for depth to me is just less than ideal. Because it means you're getting a project that needs one or two years to be as good as a journeyman. So you're drafting for 2, maybe 3 years of fill in/backup quality. Bad return on draft investment.

4. Use R5/R6/R7 picks to add depth at the trade deadline. Every year there are good players on the block that teams looking to reload are willing to part with. Most are guys that have some significant cap implications.

5. Draft like you're 2-15. Get guys that you think will be worth resigning. Ignore need almost entirely and fill urgent need as above.

6. Instead of getting an extra extra pick this year. Go for a round earlier next year. Basically plow those extra picks in future years. Most GMs are more willing to part with future draft stock than stock in the upcoming cycle. If possible, get a throw in 6th round pick in future years you can leverage for a trade deadline veteran add in the current season.

7. Use excess depth at the trade deadline. For example. Let's say we're sitting there at 34, and a really good OT is on the board, because the run on DL/DE has already happened. That OT has a ton of value even despite having Lucas/Cross on the roster. You have insurance. You can move him to OG (sometimes OC as we've seen). Or if he shows out and looks like a hit, you can easily move a Cross or Lucas in trade at the deadline for a nice haul.

8. Hit the deeper positions in a draft hard. Double down wherever possible.

For me, the goal should be to acquire top shelf talent at best, or at least league average at premium positions. Try and acquire 3 rookies that by the end of their deals should merit a franchise tender to retain. Better yet, that they either force an existing starter to be a painless cap casualty in rookies' 2nd/3rd year or allow for a trade. I don't really care about year 1 starters, so much as I'd want to have guys that can replace current starters (good or weak starters). Sometimes, the better player happens to fit where you are weak. But the chances of that are actually fairly rare.

Drafting a QB every year…how Mike Holmgren of you I feel the same way about RBs but for a different reason since the position gets so much abuse and players get easily injured

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

How do you know they are starter material or not until they get into the system and start working with your guys? There have been hundreds of picks throughout the years that teams chose to be starters and they flamed out.
Aaron Curry
Owen Gill
Dan McGwire
Rick Mirer
Need more examples?

Sure. Although it's not the magic black box one might assume it is.

Aaron Curry was a much lauded 'NFL ready' pick. By some of the least astute analysts on the planet. Curry was a LB prospect who basically couldn't pass rush. Much (exactly even) in the same way there are still analysts pushing the likes of Jalen Carter today. Curry had some picks in college, which led some to think he was a good tackle/coverage guy. But looking at those picks and they were kind of 'fall in your lap' kind of plays. If one was to look more deeply at him -- it would have been apparent that he wasn't this coverage genius at all. He was a tackling machine though. The kind a team should draft in late R2+. Little ability to force impact plays on his own, although showed ability to make stops on and before the LOS. And his career was pretty much on point with what he showed in college.

Most fans, even most analysts, don't really look at any of these guys closely. Some do though. And of those, Curry was seen as a pretty significant reach and a fringe 1st round talent based on his ability to make plays at the LOS.

Owen Gill. Well I have nothing to say on him. I think I was like 10 when we drafted him. Back when all there was was only Lindy's Draft guide.

Dan McGwire was a dumb pick. Dumb because nobody on the team stumped for him except our owner. Just because he was picked in the first, doesn't mean he was a first round grade prospect. McGwire wasn't even a high ceiling kind of player in college. I'd also lump in the Kelly Stouffer trade in this regard. Stouffer was a genuinely uninspiring performer who really had no business in day 1 or 2 of the draft. His college results against WAC level competition was genuinely terrible.

Rick Mirer. Yeah, he was a complete miss. He had all the tools. Pedigree. Success at every level. I remember vividly cursing at the TV when Seattle beat New England during that lost season knowing we'd just cost us the ability to draft Bledsoe. That year was the first year I started really looking into the NFL draft. Although it's worth noting that even picking a bad top level QB has value even if he fails. His trade gave us the trade stock to move up in a bad 1997 draft for both Shawn Springs and Walter Jones.

The point is, the draft isn't a guarantee. But it's also not a complete mystery either. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions on who is worthy -- not all opinions are informed or even backed up with any kind of insight at all. So for those that follow the draft superficially -- or those that think all opinions are equal, it can seem like a crap shoot. When it really isn't -- completely. There is naturally an element of luck/fortune involved. Certainly injury. But also that a player doesn't grow as is necessary when one reaches the NFL. That's kind of the secret sauce that can't be measured on draft day*.

I choose carefully the opinions/analysis I consume, and when I do, I make sure to watch the player closely to form my own opinions. When I read a fully unsupported opinion on a player, I basically disregard it immediately unless it's from a source I value highly. Helps to filter out the noise and also keep an open mind when I do look at players. I don't even watch highlight videos as they really don't give any context to what you are seeing. They tell me virtually nothing. Honestly I'd say most prospects I end up studying are usually a byproduct of studying a different player entirely from a different team.
* - This component is largely why traits and testing matters IMO. Players need to be capable of making plays, even when their experience wouldn't normally allow. Great athletes can get on the field and can mask the lack of experience with athletic talent. Which affords them the ability to gain NFL experience. Tariq Woolen is the latest prime example of that. He is genuinely inexperienced as a CB -- either by CFB or NFL standards. But his talent allows the team to play him despite making mistakes. Sometimes game losing ones.

When teams take a guy (like this year for example, Tyree Wilson), who has elite level traits -- you're kind of banking that his traits will allow him to tread water until the player garners experience AND grows into his position. There isn't much tape I see that tells me this guy is a game altering talent at DE. He shows flashes and some ability to counter. Can bend, so has tools. But also his production is very uninspiring for a guy with these traits. Kind of like Woolen who I loved heading into the draft. The difference of draft position can't be ignored however. He has the kind of risk that one would be comfortable with in the mid teens. Kind of reminds me of K'lavon Chaisson from 2020.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

Sure. Although it's not the magic black box one might assume it is.

Aaron Curry was a much lauded 'NFL ready' pick. By some of the least astute analysts on the planet. Curry was a LB prospect who basically couldn't pass rush. Much (exactly even) in the same way there are still analysts pushing the likes of Jalen Carter today. Curry had some picks in college, which led some to think he was a good tackle/coverage guy. But looking at those picks and they were kind of 'fall in your lap' kind of plays. If one was to look more deeply at him -- it would have been apparent that he wasn't this coverage genius at all. He was a tackling machine though. The kind a team should draft in late R2+. Little ability to force impact plays on his own, although showed ability to make stops on and before the LOS. And his career was pretty much on point with what he showed in college.

Most fans, even most analysts, don't really look at any of these guys closely. Some do though. And of those, Curry was seen as a pretty significant reach and a fringe 1st round talent based on his ability to make plays at the LOS.

Owen Gill. Well I have nothing to say on him. I think I was like 10 when we drafted him. Back when all there was was only Lindy's Draft guide.

Dan McGwire was a dumb pick. Dumb because nobody on the team stumped for him except our owner. Just because he was picked in the first, doesn't mean he was a first round grade prospect. McGwire wasn't even a high ceiling kind of player in college. I'd also lump in the Kelly Stouffer trade in this regard. Stouffer was a genuinely uninspiring performer who really had no business in day 1 or 2 of the draft. His college results against WAC level competition was genuinely terrible.

Rick Mirer. Yeah, he was a complete miss. He had all the tools. Pedigree. Success at every level. I remember vividly cursing at the TV when Seattle beat New England during that lost season knowing we'd just cost us the ability to draft Bledsoe. That year was the first year I started really looking into the NFL draft. Although it's worth noting that even picking a bad top level QB has value even if he fails. His trade gave us the trade stock to move up in a bad 1997 draft for both Shawn Springs and Walter Jones.

The point is, the draft isn't a guarantee. But it's also not a complete mystery either. And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions on who is worthy -- not all opinions are informed or even backed up with any kind of insight at all. So for those that follow the draft superficially -- or those that think all opinions are equal, it can seem like a crap shoot. When it really isn't -- completely. There is naturally an element of luck/fortune involved. Certainly injury. But also that a player doesn't grow as is necessary when one reaches the NFL. That's kind of the secret sauce that can't be measured on draft day*.

I choose carefully the opinions/analysis I consume, and when I do, I make sure to watch the player closely to form my own opinions. When I read a fully unsupported opinion on a player, I basically disregard it immediately unless it's from a source I value highly. Helps to filter out the noise and also keep an open mind when I do look at players. I don't even watch highlight videos as they really don't give any context to what you are seeing. They tell me virtually nothing. Honestly I'd say most prospects I end up studying are usually a byproduct of studying a different player entirely from a different team.
* - This component is largely why traits and testing matters IMO. Players need to be capable of making plays, even when their experience wouldn't normally allow. Great athletes can get on the field and can mask the lack of experience with athletic talent. Which affords them the ability to gain NFL experience. Tariq Woolen is the latest prime example of that. He is genuinely inexperienced as a CB -- either by CFB or NFL standards. But his talent allows the team to play him despite making mistakes. Sometimes game losing ones.

When teams take a guy (like this year for example, Tyree Wilson), who has elite level traits -- you're kind of banking that his traits will allow him to tread water until the player garners experience AND grows into his position. There isn't much tape I see that tells me this guy is a game altering talent at DE. He shows flashes and some ability to counter. Can bend, so has tools. But also his production is very uninspiring for a guy with these traits. Kind of like Woolen who I loved heading into the draft. The difference of draft position can't be ignored however. He has the kind of risk that one would be comfortable with in the mid teens. Kind of reminds me of K'lavon Chaisson from 2020.

Tony Mandarich is still my favorite example of a guy who put up fabulous numbers at the NFL combine but was a total bust as a football player. We have a guy on the Bears now named Jack Sanborn. He took over at LB for Roquan Smith. He was an undrafted free agent. He’s a good player, not because of any exceptional physical abilities. He has very high football I.Q. instincts. Some guys you have to see on the field to accurately assess them. Sanborn and Braxton Jones were the pleasant surprises for Bears fans this year.

 

[Ozzy]

I would draft as often as possible in the first 3 rounds at Edge, both lines, QB and WR unless the best player on the board by a mile is a less premium position. Example Walker last year. Second round is a little early for a running back imo but he was the obvious choice there because he was the best player on the board.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Tony Mandarich is still my favorite example of a guy who put up fabulous numbers at the NFL combine but was a total bust as a football player. We have a guy on the Bears now named Jack Sanborn. He took over at LB for Roquan Smith. He was an undrafted free agent. He’s a good player, not because of any exceptional physical abilities. He has very high football I.Q. instincts. Some guys you have to see on the field to accurately assess them. Sanborn and Braxton Jones were the pleasant surprises for Bears fans this year.

When I think of combine studs that didn’t do much as a player was Mike Mumula who was drafted by the Eagles in 1995 won DROY but only played 5 seasons

'The greatest combine performance ever': How Mike Mamula changed the NFL combine

Twenty-five years ago, Mike Mamula dominated the NFL combine en route to being drafted by the Eagles. But his career didn't live up to the hype, and his legacy brings up the question of just how much you should buy into workout warriors.

www.espn.com

with the combine I pay more attention to the position drills than the actual physical testing like the 40 yard dash.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

When I think of combine studs that didn’t do much as a player was Mike Mumula who was drafted by the Eagles in 1995 won DROY but only played 5 seasons

'The greatest combine performance ever': How Mike Mamula changed the NFL combine

Twenty-five years ago, Mike Mamula dominated the NFL combine en route to being drafted by the Eagles. But his career didn't live up to the hype, and his legacy brings up the question of just how much you should buy into workout warriors.

www.espn.com

with the combine I pay more attention to the position drills than the actual physical testing like the 40 yard dash.

Yeah, he’s another good example. What the combine stats don’t reveal is how good of a football brain the guy has. It is obviously the most critical thing at the QB position, but also relevant even for linemen.

 

[seatownlowdown]

"what would your general yearly draft strategy be?"

lock pete out of the draft room on draft day

 

[CPHawk]

I would concentrate on offensive line and defensive front 7. That would be my beginning strategy. Of course if a cb or wr were available you take them but I'd build from the inside out. It doesn't matter if you have an All world WR if your QB is on his back

That’s what we have done for the last 10 years. Missing far more than they hit on.

 

[Chawker]

It starts with your scouts, Make dam sure you're getting the rigjht info you need to make the proper seletions.

Know your team needs and draft accordindly to thoses top four needs without reservation.

Try to keep a balance between offense and defense.

Be flexible and open minded to trade possibilitys.

Remember not all pro bowlers are drafted in the first three rounds.

Stay true to your board when making your selections.

Stay true to the type of players you are wanting to draft.

A solid B graded players will build a nice team orver a hit or miss guy.

Make sure the player you are taking his personality fits with your locker room. Unless his name is Butkus.

 

[Hawkinaz]

Yeah, he’s another good example. What the combine stats don’t reveal is how good of a football brain the guy has. It is obviously the most critical thing at the QB position, but also relevant even for linemen.

The closest thing you can do to how Football smart a player is the combine interviews. Malik McDowell comes to mind he had what was said to be one of the worst interviews ever at the combine so he fell in the draft until Seattle picked him at the 35 spot in the 2017 draft if he would have had a decent interview he would have been a top 10 pick. Physically Tyree Wilson reminds me of him

 

[onanygivensunday]

If I were a GM, my general yearly draft strategy would be to draft only All Pro players.

 

[Bear-Hawk]

The closest thing you can do to how Football smart a player is the combine interviews. Malik McDowell comes to mind he had what was said to be one of the worst interviews ever at the combine so he fell in the draft until Seattle picked him at the 35 spot in the 2017 draft if he would have had a decent interview he would have been a top 10 pick. Physically Tyree Wilson reminds me of him

The guys who play at small schools that have poor football programs do not get much attention from the scouts, so they can get drafted in the fifth round, become starting left tackle for the Bears in. 2022 and just got selected LT on the All Rookie team. Braxton Jones.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Follow the strength of each class

Draft for attitude

Never stop trying to identify the market inefficiency

 

[irfuben32]

Production above all else

Measurables are great but if they didn't put it on tape in college, I doubt they have the fire and football IQ to put it together in the NFL.