Will you be disappointed if we DON'T Draft DT in rd 2??

Discuss your thoughts about anything draft related. Mocks, College and Pro. Knock yourselves out!!! LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • It seems like the prevailing thought on here is that our DT rotation still needs to be bolstered with Branch gone (unless he resigns). My question to all of you is will you be shocked and disappointed if in round 2 we don't draft a DT?

    From all I read it appears that this is a deep DT draft class.

    How will you all feel is say we're on the clock and somehow WR-Deandre Hopkins in on the board and we draft him?

    Or what if we pull the trigger on a H-back/ TE with the 2nd pick over a DT/ WLB?

    What if Seattle doesn't draft a Will-linebacker or DT until the 4-5 rounds?
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2744
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm

  • I'll be cool with whoever we draft. If P&J think we don't need a DT in the 2nd then who am I to argue.
    User avatar
    el capitan
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 657
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am

  • Nothing surprises me anymore with our drafts....I trust JS and PC. It's kinda cool not really knowing what they have up their sleeve.
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 1079
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:52 am
    Location: Orlando, Florida

  • Floridahawk79 wrote:Nothing surprises me anymore with our drafts....I trust JS and PC. It's kinda cool not really knowing what they have up their sleeve.

    I'd have to agree, after last year where I was stunned by the Irvin pick and then blown away again when Russell Wilson was drafted.

    It should be exciting knowing that we could anywhere with those 2-3 round picks.
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2744
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm

  • Yes.

    Our inability to stop the running game the second half the season concerned me then and still concerns me now.

    Our defense is simply dominant when it stuffs the run.
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    Posts: 11455
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA

  • No. I'd be disappointed if they didn't keep doing the things that made them successful all along. Making draft choices based on what pundits, and even fans, say their draft needs are is not one of those things.
    Last edited by DavidSeven on Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 5746
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am

  • depends on what we draft instead.
    would be happy with LB or corner for the slot
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 3329
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm

  • Not if we draft a DT a bit later in the draft.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 5000
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm

  • My disappointment, like other said, would depend on what they draft instead and if they draft a DT at all.

    I'm personally hoping that we put some of our draft resources into the offensive line.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2625
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am

  • I'd be fine with not drafting a DT till the 3rd or 4th rounds, but anything later I'd worry, though I'd probably assume this team feels Jaye Howard is ready for the starting role.

    I'm a big fan of Hopkins and while I don't think WR is a need worth address till the 4th round or later, it'd be very hard passing on Hopkins who would be a great value pick and could easily replace Tate heading forward. On the flip side of that, even if Hopkins isn't there in the 2nd, there is probably going to be some other great WR choices there instead. Regardless of the value there at receiver, I'd almost want to pass no matter who is available.

    I'm perfectly fine not addressing WLB till the 4th/5th. I think Smith is much better than most here think. If this team wanted to draft some later round linebackers to compete for a spot, yet allow Smith to start, I'd see why.

    And I actually consider the #2 TE spot to be a contender at the 2nd round, and maybe not even the H-back type, so it wouldn't surprise me to see Pete and John add another weapon for Wilson.
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2945
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
    Location: Vancouver, Wa

  • I may be somewhat perplexed, but not dissapointed. I have faith they will address the teams needs.

    Think of everything we've ever said the team "needs". P&J have gone out and got it fixed. RB? check. Julius Jones is gone and Marshawn Lynch leads the league in rushing (or he would if ADP wasn't a robot). Secondary? check, check, check and check. The days of Kelly Jennings and Brian Russell falling down in the defensive secondary are hella gone and every one of the guys back there is Pro Bowl caliber. Left tackle? Check. Sean "the human turnstyle" Locklear is gonzo and Okung is penciled in as the Pro Bowl starter for the next decade. Middle linebacker? check. Undersized, over slowed and oft injured guys like Lofa and Hawthorne are gone and Bobby Wagner almost won rookie of the year (should have won it dangit). Wide reciever? checks. What was once a maligned unit is now one of the deepest and most productive in the league (and we just added Percy f'ing Harvin!). Pass rush? Checks. Avril and Bennett should apply lots of pressure along with Irvin and a healthy Clem.

    Quarterback.....? I'm not sure, but it's looking pretty promising so far.

    So with the track record we have of not only addressing problems, but addressing them with Allstar level talent, why would I be concerned that they won't take care of this issue? This is barely a blip on the radar for our guys. We have all kinds of ammo to move up, down and sideways in the draft and have proven to have some of the best scouts in the league.

    They'll get it done.
    User avatar
    * Gangnameister *
    Posts: 12102
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada

  • I'm dissapointed every year when PC/JS dont draft exactly who I want. Why would this year be any different?
    That being said, it's an area of need and I'm sure it will be addressed at some point in the draft.

    If Ertz is available, I hope we take him and address DT later.
    Now a guppy driver. Loving the Hawks with my bro Nanomoz for over 30 years
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 1831
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:11 am
    Location: Utah

  • el capitan wrote:I'll be cool with whoever we draft. If P&J think we don't need a DT in the 2nd then who am I to argue.

    yep :thirishdrinkers:
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 3469
    Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 1:55 pm
    Location: The Shoug

  • I'd be more disappointed if they forced a DT pick being over-reactive and missed on a guy they liked better.
    User avatar
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 3507
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am

  • I just hope we don't reach for a 4th round player or draft a specialist that doesn't make sense (Jesse Williams).

    I'd be totally fine with drafting almost any position at #56 if it's a great player. For example, if by some fluke RB Giovanni Bernard is there, I'd be fine with getting him- his game reminds me a little of Doug Martin. I'd love WR Ryan Swope at #56 too. Basically, if it's a great player, I'm fine with finding an all-around DT a little later on. There are some options in that regard throughout the draft, such as Abry Jones from Georgia in the late rounds.

    My guess is that if there isn't a value pick at defensive tackle, we'll probably see them draft tight end, offensive tackle, or corner at #56. There is expected to be very good value at those positions in the late 2nd, and Seattle is known to be looking at all three of those spots. I'd love to see Zach Ertz make it that far. I'd been hoping for Menelik Watson, but newer reports say that he's a solid 1st rounder and teams were not scared by his combine flop.
    User avatar
    * Mr Random Thought *
    Posts: 16083
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am

  • No, I won't be disappointed.

    It will remain a question mark. But ultimately, this was an AWESOME defense last year. Other than sack numbers, it was proficient across the board. It's young and I expect it to continue to improve. I feel we've upgraded (Bennett over Jones) at our situational pass rushing DT role, and that's a key piece for me. Bennett was really a key signing in my estimation.

    I would much rather get a good prospect who can compete well, rather than just take a guy because it's one of the weaker positions on the team. The defense was great and functional without a 3 tech pass rusher. I want to see how we transition from a team that needs to fill deficiencies to a team that looks to reload positions of quality.

    Truth be told, I think I'd rather see how they view the depth behind both Mebane and Bryant. Our defense suffered when they started getting nagging/sapping injuries. They played hurt, but their effectiveness tailed off. Both of those players are such central figures in our scheme that I'd hope we guard against injury with them.

    EDIT: And I'm totally on board with Ryan Swope. That's a guy who just screams special to me in so many Seahawky ways. I personally think he could be the best WR in this draft or last and achieve that very quickly.
    User avatar
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2078
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm

  • Not in the least bit. In fact I'll be disappointed if we DO pick a DT unless one of the top guys fall in our laps. Way too much value at other positions.
    User avatar
    NET Starter
    Posts: 336
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:32 am

  • Look for Howard to take a step forward next year, other than Howard, Mebane and Bennett there thin at DT. If Branch isn't retained and even if he is imo they need a good young 1tech 3tech type NT. McDonald is a 4year vet that really hasn't done anything and Red has had some injury's.
    User avatar
    General Manager
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm

  • We don't have to solve the DT issue with the 2nd round pick. If the right guy is there...go for it.

    This draft truly should be BPA. If that means DT, cool. If it's a TE...great.

    I truly could care less who we draft, because I've learned to enjoy the fact they know what they are doing and will bring us guys who can help.
    User avatar
    * Master Chief *
    Posts: 9212
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
    Location: San Diego, CA

  • Hopefully we bring back branch and we don't need to draft a DT at 56.
    NET Rookie
    Posts: 238
    Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:14 am

  • i'd say draft the best player available they don't need to do anything at 56 now they can just draft who ever falls to us. I could also see them moving up to get a player if it was within reasonable striking distance ( picks or compensation wise) and it was someone they really liked but it will be cool to see what they end up doing n who they end up drafting after all the speculation on how JS/PC think.
    Lynch Mob
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 555
    Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:30 am

  • Nope. BPA all the way, man. If that happens to be a DT, fine, but whatever they pick is probably better than anything I could suggest. ;)
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    User avatar
    USMC 1970-77
    Posts: 17491
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA

  • Not disappointed, just surprised.
    NET Rookie
    Posts: 180
    Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:03 pm
    Location: Oak Harbor, WA

  • Ive learned to trust the FO. last year i didnt really recognize a single name we drafted and it turned out a pretty good class. ive recently adopted the jags as an afc team so i will save my draft knee jerk judgements for them
    User avatar
    NET Starter
    Posts: 335
    Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 10:55 am
    Location: LA

  • sutz wrote:Nope. BPA all the way, man. If that happens to be a DT, fine, but whatever they pick is probably better than anything I could suggest. ;)

    This is an accurate response. Best value on the board, please. Don't reach for a DT just because of a *perceived* need if there are better impact players available at other positions. In fact, I hope we don't draft DT at all, just so I can witness the ensuing meltdown.
    User avatar
    Hawk Finn
    NET Veteran
    Posts: 1364
    Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:44 am

It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:39 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member


  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests