Top Guard or mid-level WR/OT in first round?

All the top offensive, defensive tackles and WR's will be gone but their will still be players available that will be potential upgrades over what Seattle has that is for sure. taking the BEST guard is a solid pick and would help Russell Wilson more than a mid-level RT would. Xavier Sua'Filo and Joel Bitino are the tough,smart,quick lineman Tom Cable looks for and either would be instant ugrades for Seattle in the trenches. So does Seattle go the fifth best WR/OT or the top OG in the draft? I would take Xavier Sua'Filo with the first pick and go WR in the second.

Also I think Defense is being addressed in free agency so offense is the mindset in the first part of the draft.

John Carlson was a "top" TE the year he was drafted. I don't buy into the idea that getting the best guard is better than getting the 6th best receiver, where they rank in their class has jack squat to do with how they fit your team and what their upside may be.

Yea, I don't quite get this logic. If anything, the good OL are drafted before WRs, so realistically, even if it was the "first OG," chances are that talent is much less than a WR that would be available. Remember, Warmack and Cooper went very high last year, so it's not like OGs are automatically downgraded due to position.

I was originally high on XSF until I re-watched more of him. No doubt he has great upside but man did he have some horrible games against good compeitition. Not exactly a guy I'd pencil in as a no-brainer starter on Day 1.

Quite honestly, if the OL is non-LT, I'm more in favor of targeting the best athletes mid-later in the draft (ie Sweezy, Bowie, Bailey) and developing them. There is this mantra that OL is a "safe pick," but man have there been a lot of absolute duds in the 1st and 2nd round lately. If I'm going non-LT in R1, I need to be landing a clearly above-average player. Otherwise, it seems like you get on this endless cycle of trying to upgrade the position.

We are a good enough team, that pick 32 should be invested on the best talent at a position of relative need/usability.

I'd remind people that Seattle grades on what's on the roster. The idea of 6th best at X v. 2nd best at Y doesn't really apply for us at all.

In particular, look at what we have on the roster now (for the baseline grade)

WR:

X: Kearse
Slot: Harvin
Z: Baldwin

X: Lockette
5th: Some guy off the street

OL:

LT: Okung
LG: Carpenter
C: Unger
RG: Sweezy
RT: Bowie

6th: Bailey
7th: Lem
8th: ??
9th: ??

Bailey will likely compete with Carp at LG. He's already been groomed as the LT backup.

Right now, depth is a serious issue at both positions. In terms of starter grade -- the X receiver spot really looks like it could be upgraded. Signing Rice would be decent relief at that position, as it'd allow us to man it with a combination of Rice/Kearse/Lockette. Kearse can also play Z effectively. Baldwin can play Slot effectively.

The offensive line needs bodies. The departure of Giacomini puts stress on that position group. Additionally, there is heavy reliance on two good 2nd year players who I expect to really begin to blossom after a second offseason to nail down the scheme. This is typically the point where development prospects really make a leap in effectiveness in this scheme. I'm not terribly worried about B&B. Carpenter is a guy who probably grades pretty low. And I think the turnstile approach to the LG position throughout the 2013 season is a prime indication that the coaches don't regard it as resolved either.

I expect at least 2 OL picks. We simply are short bodies in the group as it stands now. And I kind of think we'd like to have one early for two reasons. One, to hedge against the chance that Bailey or Bowie don't develop or get injured. Two, to compete with Carpenter and either push him to adequacy or to push him down to the 7th/8th OL position. That kind of quality prospect will have to come early.

The second OL prospect probably will be a late round development prospect as the 9th man in the corps.

If Rice is signed, I think it's almost a lock that we go OL with the first pick (even if it means we trade back). Rice signing means we can go with any type of WR (big or smaller). That opens our options up considerably. And while nobody expects Rice to finish the season -- we have the quality alternatives at the position to absorb a short season from him.

The grades to compare/consider in my estimation today is Kearse v. Carpenter. And in that regard, I'd guess that the delta between Carp and a early pick will be greater than Kearse and an early pick. Rice being signed changes that formula greatly.

Attyla the Hawk":1uk66071 said:

I'd remind people that Seattle grades on what's on the roster. The idea of 6th best at X v. 2nd best at Y doesn't really apply for us at all.

In particular, look at what we have on the roster now (for the baseline grade)

WR:

X: Kearse
Slot: Harvin
Z: Baldwin

X: Lockette
5th: Some guy off the street

OL:

LT: Okung
LG: Carpenter
C: Unger
RG: Sweezy
RT: Bowie

6th: Bailey
7th: Lem
8th: ??
9th: ??

Bailey will likely compete with Carp at LG. He's already been groomed as the LT backup.

Right now, depth is a serious issue at both positions. In terms of starter grade -- the X receiver spot really looks like it could be upgraded. Signing Rice would be decent relief at that position, as it'd allow us to man it with a combination of Rice/Kearse/Lockette. Kearse can also play Z effectively. Baldwin can play Slot effectively.

The offensive line needs bodies. The departure of Giacomini puts stress on that position group. Additionally, there is heavy reliance on two good 2nd year players who I expect to really begin to blossom after a second offseason to nail down the scheme. This is typically the point where development prospects really make a leap in effectiveness in this scheme. I'm not terribly worried about B&B. Carpenter is a guy who probably grades pretty low. And I think the turnstile approach to the LG position throughout the 2013 season is a prime indication that the coaches don't regard it as resolved either.

I expect at least 2 OL picks. We simply are short bodies in the group as it stands now. And I kind of think we'd like to have one early for two reasons. One, to hedge against the chance that Bailey or Bowie don't develop or get injured. Two, to compete with Carpenter and either push him to adequacy or to push him down to the 7th/8th OL position. That kind of quality prospect will have to come early.

The second OL prospect probably will be a late round development prospect as the 9th man in the corps.

If Rice is signed, I think it's almost a lock that we go OL with the first pick (even if it means we trade back). Rice signing means we can go with any type of WR (big or smaller). That opens our options up considerably. And while nobody expects Rice to finish the season -- we have the quality alternatives at the position to absorb a short season from him.

The grades to compare/consider in my estimation today is Kearse v. Carpenter. And in that regard, I'd guess that the delta between Carp and a early pick will be greater than Kearse and an early pick. Rice being signed changes that formula greatly.

Click to expand...

I feel like Kearse is prime to breakout in Seattle. He's really been playing well lately. Not saying we don't need more receivers (Rice would be awesome to bring back!) but I like Kearse's potential.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of the O-line. Unfortunately I'm not as sold on our ability to pick the right ones (Carpenter wasn't a good pick in round 1). I do like Yankey from Stanford though! He's big and very athletic for how big he is. I would be ecstatic if we ended up with him on draft day.

Attyla the Hawk":11huorl4 said:

I'd remind people that Seattle grades on what's on the roster. The idea of 6th best at X v. 2nd best at Y doesn't really apply for us at all.

In particular, look at what we have on the roster now (for the baseline grade)

WR:

X: Kearse
Slot: Harvin
Z: Baldwin

X: Lockette
5th: Some guy off the street

OL:

LT: Okung
LG: Carpenter
C: Unger
RG: Sweezy
RT: Bowie

6th: Bailey
7th: Lem
8th: ??
9th: ??

Bailey will likely compete with Carp at LG. He's already been groomed as the LT backup.

Right now, depth is a serious issue at both positions. In terms of starter grade -- the X receiver spot really looks like it could be upgraded. Signing Rice would be decent relief at that position, as it'd allow us to man it with a combination of Rice/Kearse/Lockette. Kearse can also play Z effectively. Baldwin can play Slot effectively.

The offensive line needs bodies. The departure of Giacomini puts stress on that position group. Additionally, there is heavy reliance on two good 2nd year players who I expect to really begin to blossom after a second offseason to nail down the scheme. This is typically the point where development prospects really make a leap in effectiveness in this scheme. I'm not terribly worried about B&B. Carpenter is a guy who probably grades pretty low. And I think the turnstile approach to the LG position throughout the 2013 season is a prime indication that the coaches don't regard it as resolved either.

I expect at least 2 OL picks. We simply are short bodies in the group as it stands now. And I kind of think we'd like to have one early for two reasons. One, to hedge against the chance that Bailey or Bowie don't develop or get injured. Two, to compete with Carpenter and either push him to adequacy or to push him down to the 7th/8th OL position. That kind of quality prospect will have to come early.

The second OL prospect probably will be a late round development prospect as the 9th man in the corps.

If Rice is signed, I think it's almost a lock that we go OL with the first pick (even if it means we trade back). Rice signing means we can go with any type of WR (big or smaller). That opens our options up considerably. And while nobody expects Rice to finish the season -- we have the quality alternatives at the position to absorb a short season from him.

The grades to compare/consider in my estimation today is Kearse v. Carpenter. And in that regard, I'd guess that the delta between Carp and a early pick will be greater than Kearse and an early pick. Rice being signed changes that formula greatly.

Click to expand...

All this is correct. Kudos Attyla.
However, its debatable whether or not Joel Bitonio will be converted to LG in the Pros, and possibly have a better overall career than XSF. I think so, and I just hope it happens to be in a Seahawks uniform. Thus, personally, I'd rather we draft him instead. Especially for his LT experience as a backup in a pinch.

As of now, (realistically) the only player I'd rather have at #32 than Joel Bitonio is Aaron Donald, and the odds of him dropping to us are next to nil.

jhern87":12il21ro said:

I feel like Kearse is prime to breakout in Seattle. He's really been playing well lately. Not saying we don't need more receivers (Rice would be awesome to bring back!) but I like Kearse's potential.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of the O-line. Unfortunately I'm not as sold on our ability to pick the right ones (Carpenter wasn't a good pick in round 1). I do like Yankey from Stanford though! He's big and very athletic for how big he is. I would be ecstatic if we ended up with him on draft day.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but Yankey tested out as a below average athlete and isn't exactly big for OL (315 lbs). I see him as a R3-4 guy personally. Other than that I agree with you.

Mtjhoyas":156bvuat said:

jhern87":156bvuat said:

I feel like Kearse is prime to breakout in Seattle. He's really been playing well lately. Not saying we don't need more receivers (Rice would be awesome to bring back!) but I like Kearse's potential.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of the O-line. Unfortunately I'm not as sold on our ability to pick the right ones (Carpenter wasn't a good pick in round 1). I do like Yankey from Stanford though! He's big and very athletic for how big he is. I would be ecstatic if we ended up with him on draft day.

Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but Yankey tested out as a below average athlete and isn't exactly big for OL (315 lbs). I see him as a R3-4 guy personally. Other than that I agree with you.

Click to expand...

Well he's rated the 2nd best guard in the draft and the first sentence of his strengths (in the following profile) describes him as a "natural athlete on the move".

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/play ... vid-yankey

I'm fairly certain he'll be gone in the first two rounds. He's shown to be effective at pulling and throwing his body around and can play multiple positions on the line.

Whether it's Yankey or another guy, I'd love to see Seattle get a couple of linemen in the draft. Even though we won the Superbowl I feel like there's a lot of room for improvement on our line and I'd love to add a couple young studs to the stable.

Sua'Filo kind of fits Seattle in theory, but he doesn't improve us where we actually need it. We need a guard who can move guys in the running game and pass protect while moving decently well. Sua'Filo is a lot like JR Sweezy, fast with high effort, but lacks power in both the run and pass aspects. Sweezy in the past had managed to be a decent power blocker anyway, Sua'Filo doesn't, and Sweezy has developed some in pass protection. Next season, I would expect Sweezy to be the better of the two. I'm not hating on Xavier Sua'Filo but I wonder if he is a media creation- a guy FOs want to get talked up. Because to me he's a round 4 prospect.

I don't know if I'd feel great about getting Xavier Sua'Filo even at the end of round 4, I am not sure he's an NFL starter caliber player. He is fast though.

Still need to watch more Zack Martin but I don't think he's more than an average player. He's a decent pass protector though like David Yankey he has the build of a guard. Not much power at all, and doesn't move as well as his forty would indicate. He is reputed to be capable of playing all five line spots though (good luck at tackle with those 32" arms). I don't hate him, but Mike Mayock calling him an "all-pro guard at worst" is just a bit over the top. He had a good senior bowl and a good combine but the tape doesn't lie and IMO he's a 3rd or 4th round guy to me.

I am still a David Yankey fan even after he John Moffitted the combine. He has more power than his bench number shows, and he compensates for a lack of speed with outstanding footwork. Not a guy you want to pull all the way across a formation on designed RB screens, and not a guy who's going to missile himself 20 yards downfield like JR Sweezy, but on traps, short-distance pull blocks and some 2nd level blocks his foot speed won't be an issue. Great pass protector too and would be a viable flex tackle. His overall game reminds me a lot of Rob Sims, a good player who'd probably still be here if Tom Cable had shown up a year sooner (nevermind that the low pick we got for Sims turned into Kam Chancellor).

Morgan Moses I like, quick feet for a big man, long arms, lots of untapped ability that is not a pipe dream to hope for. He is very similar to Alvin Bailey. Definitely seems like a Tom Cable guy. I don't know if we would take him at #32 but I think he will rate high for Seattle. Could be a pick to watch for, especially if he lasts to #64. I wouldn't mind having another Alvin Bailey, redundant as it would be Bailey is a going to be a good NFL player.

I think Yankey will end up as a late 2nd, early 3rd kind of guy. I think Moses probably goes inbetween #32 and #64. Sua'Filo and Z. Martin might go before our pick.

The more I study this draft the more over-rated it looks for offensive lineman. Everyone saying it is better than last year's group needs to put down the crack pipe. Last year's OL group was vastly superior, IMO. If we get Moses and/or Yankey, great, but otherwise I don't see a lot of power blocking types this year.

With regards to WR, I would be okay with waiting until after the 2nd round to address the position. There are some mid-round guys like Coleman, Moncrief, Street, and Abbrederis that are interesting players. Jeff Janis is too soft and might not fit us, but I don't think he's as raw as people assume. Great athlete, could be worth looking into if the coaches think they can toughen him up.

If we do take a WR or two early, I am rooting for Lee, Beckham, and Robinson.

If we don't move up to take Evans I would prefer to take a guard or move up slightly just ahead of Chicago and take Donald, then move into the third at some point and take Abby but I am biased towards Wisc players.

If Joel Bitonio is there at #32, I'm not second guessing it unless one of the top notch receivers fell (they won't).

Bitonio is Logan Mankins: http://seahawksdraftblog.com/joel-biton ... an-mankins

I'm staggered by how little attention Bitonio gets. Fine by me. More chance he's there at #32.

And if we want him to cover left tackle when Okung's next injured, he can do it.

I keep forgetting about Bitonio. Not very strong (against low level competition too), not as field fast as his forty and kind of leaner, but he just gets it done and he's had a good offseason. I can understand why he's being pegged as a round 2-3 guy.

I think he's a bit like Max Unger (also a round 2 guy). Good athlete, a little nasty but also a tad finesse. Both were versatile guys. Neither one really wowed you in college, but they tested well, worked hard and are smart guys. Max Unger had a brutal rookie year adapting to the jump in competition. It will be similar for Bitonio I think. Could be a really nice player in 2015 or 2016, a guy worth being patient for. I don't really want him at #32, mainly because I think we could trade down a country mile and still get him, and there are a lot of great options in the 30-55 range based on the mocks I've been reading, if we trade down and miss.

I'm quite a bit more impressed with his tape than you I think Kip. The three games I've watched in the off-season are Bitonio vs Florida State, UCLA and Fresno State. So we're talking about the National Champions, a game against Anthony Barr and Fresno (who suck on defense).

So basically, two games against really tough college opponents, and playing left tackle too.

And he excelled. I didn't see finesse... I saw edgy. A determination to put you on your ass. And a different level of play to everyone else on his line in the same way Rodney Hudson used to flash at FSU (he used to be blocking a guy 5-yards downfield while the rest of the line struggled five yards behind the LOS. You see that with Bitonio).

Then you look at the combine numbers. He compares brilliantly from an athletic stand point to Matthews, Lewan and Robinson. It's remarkable how comparable they all are. Three are top ten picks. One isn't getting talked about despite having great tape.

Bizarre.

I think he could go top-25 very easily.

theENGLISHseahawk":1ce5ev42 said:

I'm quite a bit more impressed with his tape than you I think Kip. The three games I've watched in the off-season are Bitonio vs Florida State, UCLA and Fresno State. So we're talking about the National Champions, a game against Anthony Barr and Fresno (who suck on defense).

So basically, two games against really tough college opponents, and playing left tackle too.

And he excelled. I didn't see finesse... I saw edgy. A determination to put you on your ass. And a different level of play to everyone else on his line in the same way Rodney Hudson used to flash at FSU (he used to be blocking a guy 5-yards downfield while the rest of the line struggled five yards behind the LOS. You see that with Bitonio).

Then you look at the combine numbers. He compares brilliantly from an athletic stand point to Matthews, Lewan and Robinson. It's remarkable how comparable they all are. Three are top ten picks. One isn't getting talked about despite having great tape.

Bizarre.

I think he could go top-25 very easily.

Click to expand...

I just watched all of those too. Draftbreakdown is awesome.

jhern87":8zwljflh said:

I couldn't agree more on the importance of the O-line. Unfortunately I'm not as sold on our ability to pick the right ones (Carpenter wasn't a good pick in round 1). I do like Yankey from Stanford though! He's big and very athletic for how big he is. I would be ecstatic if we ended up with him on draft day.

Click to expand...

Was there a particular OL prospect in 2011 that you think we should have taken? Honestly, at any position was there a guy you'd have taken between #25 and 35 overall? Outside of Wilkerson who wasn't a fit for a team already with Red Bryant on it -- I'm not seeing any talent between Carpenter and the next 10 draft picks.

I think it's been well established that Seattle had to take OL in 2011. We weren't in a position to not take them. We didn't even have a starting 5 on the roster. And we weren't exactly flush with cap space then either.

Otherwise, I'd say our ability to pick the right OL talent has been superb. Okung/Williams was a no brainer at 6. Sweezy in the 7th. Giacomini off a practice squad. McQuistan a waiver wire pick up. Bowie a 7th round pick. Bailey a UDFA.

Other than Fat Rabbit (PS) and the since retired Moffitt -- every guy we've ever drafted is still on an active NFL roster as far as I know.

I've been eyeing Bitonio since the senior bowl before the combine and his performance there really sealed/confirmed more than I necessarily saw on tape. In terms of athletic testing, which Seattle covets, his scores are up there with top 10 overall guys going back half a decade. It doesn't mean he's as good as they are but the raw materials are certainly all there. He was a mid to late second round grade OL talent before the combine so it's not as if he's pulling a Dontari Poe.

It's certainly an interesting draft class. But overall I expect Bitonio's relative scores to be very much off the charts compared to prospects at other positions that are expected to be available at 32.

In 2011 I badly wanted Rodney Hudson. I was a bit shameless about it.

theENGLISHseahawk":270b84xj said:

And he excelled. I didn't see finesse... I saw edgy. A determination to put you on your ass. And a different level of play to everyone else on his line in the same way Rodney Hudson used to flash at FSU (he used to be blocking a guy 5-yards downfield while the rest of the line struggled five yards behind the LOS. You see that with Bitonio).

Click to expand...

Are you sure you like him more? I compared him to an all-pro, you compared him to a guy who started 4 games in his first two seasons.

I think he's good, I just think he's an effort guy who probably needs to play guard because of his lean. I'm not seeing a bulldozer on tape, but like I said before, he's just one of those guys who finds a way to get it done. Unger was pretty similar and he found other ways to grow into a upper echelon run blocker when healthy.

I kind of see Unger and Bitonio as pure zone scheme guys, I am really amazed that Cable got two good seasons out of Unger the way he did. I'm sure Cable will like Bitonio, he's got that same kind of garbage man mentality that guys like Breno had in spades.

I think the reason Bitonio is being viewed as a R2-R3 guy is because most teams see him leaning over in protection and project him as an NFL guard. Except he didn't play guard in college and guards require a different skillset than tackles do. I think Bitonio will be just fine at guard though, he has the athleticism to pull and attack the second level just fine. But without seeing the hard proof that he can succeed at guard, that will hurt his draft grade a little because of the risk of the unknown. And as said before, he doesn't blow you away with displays of pure physical dominance, just a guy who finds a way to get it done every time. You wonder about those guys just a little more when projecting for the NFL, and it's probably not lost on these guys that he played most of his games vs. the Mountain West.

I like him, but I think like Hudson and Charles Brown he will probably go a lot lower than his tape grade would suggest.

The front office has always asked the question "can they compete" with the guys already on the roster.

So the answer to your question is yes, Guard, Tackle and Receiver are all possible.

Scottemojo":lgtdthxg said:

In 2011 I badly wanted Rodney Hudson. I was a bit shameless about it.

Click to expand...

You and me both. Of course that was before I lurked around these parts.