Shift in draft priorities with addition of two OL?

QuahHawk · Mar 15, 2016

Do those of you that believed we would draft OL heavy in the first 3 rounds still think that is likely?

EverydayImRusselin · Mar 15, 2016

I think so. Maybe not OL OL OL for the 1st 3 picks. I am strongly in favor of drafting a tackle with our 1st pick. This is a good draft for starting tackles, but only probably 6 or 7 deep. We have Gilliam for 2 more years and thats about it. I say grab a tackle in the 1st and maybe at least 1 more interior depth in the 3rd or 4th.

McGruff · Mar 15, 2016

Yes. The two guys we signed are insurance only. We can do better.

2_0_6 · Mar 15, 2016

I still would go OL, DT, OL with out first three

titan3131 · Mar 15, 2016

I think we're best off going

1 OT
2 trade down for additional 3rd and 4th
3 dt
3 C /G
3 Lb
4 G/C
4 some kind of defensive player

Hasselbeck · Mar 15, 2016

I sure hope J'Marcus Webb isn't the FO's way of saying "great we addressed the OL!"

firebee · Mar 15, 2016

Hasselbeck":m68mcmfp 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.

Seafan · Mar 16, 2016

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!"

Click to expand...

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.

Agreed. OL is the area of emphasis this year and the draft will continue to add to the pile.

Overseasfan · Mar 16, 2016

I think we're still going OT with our firs round pick. Tunsil and Stanley definitely won't be there and Conklin looks to have won the battle for third OT drafted so he'll out of reach too. The remaining guys I'd rank like this: Spriggs > Ifedi > Decker > Coleman. I suspect we pick one of them and most likely it'll be Ifedi which would be a great pick up. The guy could be a starter at LT, RT or LG all positions of need. So even if the tackle situation is sorted out he could still move inside and perform just as well.

I'm expecting OLB in the second then DT and RB in the third. Probably add a guard or center to our pile on day 3.

penihawk · Mar 16, 2016

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. Conklin is the only OT I would take at 26 over a whole list of defensive players that could drop to us there. The second tier of OT seem like 2nd rounders to me other than Decker maybe and he is a RT imo.

I think this draft class could be a big disappointment if teams try to force square peg into round hole based on need and not just follow your board based on talent evaluation. Why would we pass up the next Aaron Donald,Vonn Miller,Richard Sherman or AP to draft another Carpenter or Britt? I would hope we wouldn't.

Maelstrom787 · Mar 16, 2016

I'm thinking this is going to be sort of like 2011 where they really ADDRESS the o-line. That is, unless they find a piece on the DL they feel they can't pass up on.

Attyla the Hawk · Mar 16, 2016

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.

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.

sutz · Mar 16, 2016

I don't really see any change of philosophy or of normal operating procedures. History says they follow a simple plan:

1. Identify a problem you want to address

2. Add some FA talent to compete in that area

3. Draft BPA as much as feasible, with emphasis on area identified in Step 1.

P&J like to address needs before the draft, so they are less driven by them during the draft. It can be frustrating for us fans, but history says Pete and John would rather draft 2-3 3d day picks and let them fight it out than draft 1 first rounder with the higher boom-or-bust potential.

The FA moves we've seen so far are more "add them to the pile to fight it out" than anything else IMHO. Frankly, I'm good with that. Past moves at swinging for the fences in FA have mostly blown up in their faces.

penihawk · Mar 16, 2016

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 · Mar 16, 2016

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.

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.

penihawk · Mar 16, 2016

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Agreed and I think they stuck to their board last year. That's what I hope happens again this year. I have more reservations on the tackle group than most here so I cross my fingers a mistake isn't made in desperation. It happens every year and seems to be getting really common when it comes to the OT position in the age of college fast pass spread.

cover-2 · Mar 16, 2016

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 · Mar 16, 2016

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.

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.

Attyla the Hawk · Mar 16, 2016

firebee":33bbrya9 said:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

firebee · Mar 16, 2016

Attyla the Hawk":18ghvrew said:
firebee":18ghvrew said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Oh... I totally agree on Clark too. Honestly, if we're looking for a raw prospect with natural physical talent and the measurables to play OT in the NFL... I'd prefer we just wait until the 5th or 6th and grab Stephane Nembot. He's my favorite raw naturally gifted OT prospect in the draft.

Shift in draft priorities with addition of two OL?

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Similar threads