Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Football Gameplan's 2014 NFL Draft Grades - Seahawks

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • You're a brave man, Em, to give that low of a ranking based on PC/JS's overall success in past drafts even though questioned by many analysts at the time.

    Thanks, as always, for posting here! I look forward to your work this upcoming year.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1814
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


  • Your draft review leaves me unconvinced that you understand the philosophy behind the Seahawks' selections. The Seahawks look for certain key characteristics in players and select the guys who have those. There may have been players available with a broader range of skills, but the Seahawks selected the guy who has the most of the particular aspect they are looking for.

    Many people don't understand Justin Britt, for example, but remember that we lost Breno Giacomini in free agency. We need that guy who plays mean - the enforcer on the o-line. It may draw the occasional flag, but that can be worked on. You can't work on passion - the guy either has it or he doesn't. Britt's also smart, which is a necessity in a multi-dimensional offense. Again, something you can't teach.

    Maybe it's arrogance on the part of our coaching staff, and I'll grant that it doesn't always work, but they believe they can teach what needs to be taught to players who have what can't be taught, whether that's speed, size, work ethic, intelligence, or attitude.

    Pete Carroll said before the draft that we didn't need anyone from the draft. We had enough team to start the season and pick off where we left last year without adding a single player. That means we had a perfect opportunity to take chances on higher-risk, higher-reward players because we didn't need to fill any gaps.

    You comment that we didn't really address protecting Wilson all that well, but we do things to mitigate that lack of protection so it's not as pressing a need as it would be for a team with a less mobile QB.

    The Seahawks didn't draft what they need, which is generally the yardstick by which a draft is measured. Instead, they draft who they want, and they pretty much got who they wanted.
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


  • User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2812
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • They give us a C+.

    They like Richardson, Kevin Pierre-Louis, and undrafted Jackson Jeffcoat and Dion Bailey. I like those guys as well, although I'm not sure where Bailey fits in our defensive scheme.

    For whatever reason, they have really underrated Justin Britt. He's a solid athlete who plays with nastiness. I think he will provide solid depth at RT and RG, which is what we needed.

    They also like Cassius Marsh, but I think the jury is still out on him. Carroll wants Marsh to bulk up to 300 lbs, which he was earlier in his career at UCLA, to become an interior rusher. Dan Quinn has also talked about Marsh as an interior rusher. That's an interesting experiment; I'm curious to see how that will play out. There are so many young, talented defensive linemen on this roster with a lot to prove.

    Jimmy Staten is a strong athlete, but he looks like just a guy on this roster. A similar player like Michael Brooks, who went undrafted last year, seems to have more upside and football intelligence than Staten.

    Garrett Scott is a raw athlete who is dealing with a cardiovascular issue that will keep him out of action this season. His career is TBD until he gets his medical condition resolved. Garry Gilliam has taken what Scott's role would have been as the developmental option at LT.

    It's too early to tell what to expect from Eric Pinkins and Kiero Small. Pinkins is a good athlete who they are trying to convert into a big corner. Small is a terrible athlete whose sheer hustle may overcome his physical limitations. Those are two more interesting experiments from this draft class.

    Overall, I would give it a B+. I like WRs Richardson and Norwood, who is not mentioned. Britt gives them important OL depth. KPL is a great athlete who they hope to mold into a great player. Meanwhile, Marsh, Pinkins, and Small are projects that could pay off over time.
    User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2812
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • Thanks gang! I always appreciate the feedback.

    I'll take the wait and see approach about Britt because 'nastiness' and 'being an athlete' doesn't equate to being a good football player. I mean, you guys had that in Giacomini. Also why pick a guy in Scott that has that issue when you can get immediate returns on someone that's better I.E. James Hurst (UNC) who hurt his leg in the Bowl Game.

    I hate to use the term but Norwood isn't a 'threat' so to speak, it's more along the lines of a Jericho Cotchery or Jason Avant. Having threats tend to dictate how you to play defense…decent guys just don't bring that element to the table.

    BUT as always with these things…I could be wrong and would be the 1st to admit :)
    I am in charge of me!
    EmDiggy
    * The Czar *
     
    Posts: 316
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:42 pm


  • EmDiggy wrote:Thanks gang! I always appreciate the feedback.

    I'll take the wait and see approach about Britt because 'nastiness' and 'being an athlete' doesn't equate to being a good football player. I mean, you guys had that in Giacomini. Also why pick a guy in Scott that has that issue when you can get immediate returns on someone that's better I.E. James Hurst (UNC) who hurt his leg in the Bowl Game.

    I hate to use the term but Norwood isn't a 'threat' so to speak, it's more along the lines of a Jericho Cotchery or Jason Avant. Having threats tend to dictate how you to play defense…decent guys just don't bring that element to the table.

    BUT as always with these things…I could be wrong and would be the 1st to admit :)


    The big knock on Jerricho Cotchery and Jason Avant is that they lack the speed to create separation and threaten the defense downfield. But Norwood is a legit 4.4 receiver who also had one of the best 3-cone times at the combine (6.68). Other than size and length, Norwood has very little in common with those slower receivers.
    User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2812
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • Wow... Football Gameplan needs to do a better job of scouting. Just horrible.

    Richardson ranked #119 when everything I read including a lot of mocks labeled him a surefire 2nd round pick

    Britt not ranked, and we learned after the draft, Britt wasn't going to make it out of the 3rd round. Even then many pegged him as a 4th to 5th round pick.

    Norwood not ranked, ridiculous, that's a big failure to understand Alabama's system.

    Both Cassius Marsh and KPL were ranked as 6th rounders, they most likely wouldn't have made it passed the 5th round.

    Can't really argue about Staten, Scott, Pinkins, and Small... although I would want to see where you ranked Tardiff because sans the heart issues I felt Scott would have been better than LDT especially as an LT considering Scott had 4 years of experience starting and had the biggest SPARQ score out of all offensive linemen.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3237
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


  • Hey Em....me thinks that you ought to borrow Pete Carroll's spectacles. Those suckers are "magic"! He can see things that the average scout is unable to recognize. No disrespect...but I believe that his track record speaks pretty loudly.
    Proud Member of the .Net Old Farts Society
    Bigpumpkin
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7198
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • hawknation2014 wrote:
    EmDiggy wrote:Thanks gang! I always appreciate the feedback.

    I'll take the wait and see approach about Britt because 'nastiness' and 'being an athlete' doesn't equate to being a good football player. I mean, you guys had that in Giacomini. Also why pick a guy in Scott that has that issue when you can get immediate returns on someone that's better I.E. James Hurst (UNC) who hurt his leg in the Bowl Game.

    I hate to use the term but Norwood isn't a 'threat' so to speak, it's more along the lines of a Jericho Cotchery or Jason Avant. Having threats tend to dictate how you to play defense…decent guys just don't bring that element to the table.

    BUT as always with these things…I could be wrong and would be the 1st to admit :)


    The big knock on Jerricho Cotchery and Jason Avant is that they lack the speed to create separation and threaten the defense downfield. But Norwood is a legit 4.4 receiver who also had one of the best 3-cone times at the combine (6.68). Other than size and length, Norwood has very little in common with those slower receivers.


    Yup, Norwood is more tall Doug Baldwin/ shorter Sidney Rice than Cotchery/Avant the guy can seperate, win jump balls and is very clutch in big situations. Perfect fit in a run heavy system that values effeciency.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3237
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


  • Giacomini was atrocious when we plucked him from the GB practice squad and the same staff will coach up the draft picks and F.A.'s as well.

    I have so much confidence in the staffs ability to get the most out of players. And the players themselves were chosen because they buy in. Take a look at our success, it speaks for itself. How many low draft picks and undrafted's were superbowl winners?...A LOT.
    Last edited by Largent80 on Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • hawknation2014 wrote:They give us a C+.

    They like Richardson, Kevin Pierre-Louis, and undrafted Jackson Jeffcoat and Dion Bailey. I like those guys as well, although I'm not sure where Bailey fits in our defensive scheme.

    For whatever reason, they have really underrated Justin Britt. He's a solid athlete who plays with nastiness. I think he will provide solid depth at RT and RG, which is what we needed.

    They also like Cassius Marsh, but I think the jury is still out on him. Carroll wants Marsh to bulk up to 300 lbs, which he was earlier in his career at UCLA, to become an interior rusher. Dan Quinn has also talked about Marsh as an interior rusher. That's an interesting experiment; I'm curious to see how that will play out. There are so many young, talented defensive linemen on this roster with a lot to prove.

    Jimmy Staten is a strong athlete, but he looks like just a guy on this roster. A similar player like Michael Brooks, who went undrafted last year, seems to have more upside and football intelligence than Staten.

    Garrett Scott is a raw athlete who is dealing with a cardiovascular issue that will keep him out of action this season. His career is TBD until he gets his medical condition resolved. Garry Gilliam has taken what Scott's role would have been as the developmental option at LT.

    It's too early to tell what to expect from Eric Pinkins and Kiero Small. Pinkins is a good athlete who they are trying to convert into a big corner. Small is a terrible athlete whose sheer hustle may overcome his physical limitations. Those are two more interesting experiments from this draft class.

    Overall, I would give it a B+. I like WRs Richardson and Norwood, who is not mentioned. Britt gives them important OL depth. KPL is a great athlete who they hope to mold into a great player. Meanwhile, Marsh, Pinkins, and Small are projects that could pay off over time.


    Just a few things.

    Cassius Marsh is expected to play around 270 not 300, they likened him to Michael Bennett type player.

    Staten imo was a stab in the dark at getting a player similar to Red Bryant... coachable big body player with quality strength + length and great leadership intangibles.

    Michael Brooks is more of a Clinton McDonald type. Shorter, slimmer, more athletic, great pass-rush potential.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3237
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


  • Pandion Haliaetus wrote:Wow... Football Gameplan needs to do a better job of scouting. Just horrible.

    Richardson ranked #119 when everything I read including a lot of mocks labeled him a surefire 2nd round pick

    Britt not ranked, and we learned after the draft, Britt wasn't going to make it out of the 3rd round. Even then many pegged him as a 4th to 5th round pick.

    Norwood not ranked, ridiculous, that's a big failure to understand Alabama's system.

    Both Cassius Marsh and KPL were ranked as 6th rounders, they most likely wouldn't have made it passed the 5th round.

    Can't really argue about Staten, Scott, Pinkins, and Small... although I would want to see where you ranked Tardiff because sans the heart issues I felt Scott would have been better than LDT especially as an LT considering Scott had 4 years of experience starting and had the biggest SPARQ score out of all offensive linemen.


    I love how I 'just don't have a complete understanding' of ANYTHING you don't agree with. Lol. We shall see.

    But anyhoo, here I explain my OWN philosophy

    I am in charge of me!
    EmDiggy
    * The Czar *
     
    Posts: 316
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:42 pm


  • Pandion Haliaetus wrote:
    Just a few things.

    Cassius Marsh is expected to play around 270 not 300, they likened him to Michael Bennett type player.

    Staten imo was a stab in the dark at getting a player similar to Red Bryant... coachable big body player with quality strength + length and great leadership intangibles.

    Michael Brooks is more of a Clinton McDonald type. Shorter, slimmer, more athletic, great pass-rush potential.


    I can go pull the quote for you from Carroll in which he said he wanted Marsh to get back up to around 300 lbs. They also likened him to playing the Michael Bennett role, and Quinn later said they saw Marsh primarily as an interior player.

    Brooks actually played at the five technique in place of Red Bryant last season. He's shown that he can handle that role. IMO, it's highly unlikely we will ever see Staten playing outside.
    User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2812
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • hawknation2014 wrote:
    EmDiggy wrote:Thanks gang! I always appreciate the feedback.

    I'll take the wait and see approach about Britt because 'nastiness' and 'being an athlete' doesn't equate to being a good football player. I mean, you guys had that in Giacomini. Also why pick a guy in Scott that has that issue when you can get immediate returns on someone that's better I.E. James Hurst (UNC) who hurt his leg in the Bowl Game.

    I hate to use the term but Norwood isn't a 'threat' so to speak, it's more along the lines of a Jericho Cotchery or Jason Avant. Having threats tend to dictate how you to play defense…decent guys just don't bring that element to the table.

    BUT as always with these things…I could be wrong and would be the 1st to admit :)


    The big knock on Jerricho Cotchery and Jason Avant is that they lack the speed to create separation and threaten the defense downfield. But Norwood is a legit 4.4 receiver who also had one of the best 3-cone times at the combine (6.68). Other than size and length, Norwood has very little in common with those slower receivers.


    I wasn't talking about his 'speed' and '3-cone numbers'…what I really was saying, in a nice diplomatic way was that Norwood is just another guy. Nothing special, not a threat..basically an average prospect. Guys, IMO, like Norwood are a dime a dozen.
    I am in charge of me!
    EmDiggy
    * The Czar *
     
    Posts: 316
    Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:42 pm


  • EmDiggy wrote:
    hawknation2014 wrote:I wasn't talking about his 'speed' and '3-cone numbers'…what I really was saying, in a nice diplomatic way was that Norwood is just another guy. Nothing special, not a threat..basically an average prospect. Guys, IMO, like Norwood are a dime a dozen.


    No offense, but how likely is it that you would have said the same kind of things about Doug Baldwin when he came out?

    Baldwin had the same 40 time as Norwood and a very similar 3-cone time. Also like Norwood, Baldwin played in a run-heavy offense in college and didn't get as many opportunities to be that attacking, go-to receiver. But the speed, agility, hands, and leadership are all there.

    Plus, Norwood is a bigger bodied guy (about four inches taller than Baldwin) with all those other great qualities to become an impact player for the Seahawks.
    User avatar
    hawknation2014
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2812
    Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:59 am


  • Maaaaaan, I think the B+ - C- range of grades should be expected by this point. Seattle evaluates guys differently than most pundits. Most pundits are aware of this, so they split the difference by sharing their analysis AND still giving Seattle a good draft grade.

    What this says to me is that the dude is not enthusiastic about a couple of our picks, but that he clearly understands that not only was there clear value in his eyes (Paul Richardson), but that even the "misses" aren't so egregious that they are worth worse than a C+ because even though he liked other guys better, who the hell knows?

    I do disagree about Norwood, though. He has good body control, a nice catch radius, and a good sense of where he is on the field. Guys like that are not a dime-a-dozen.
    Colin Kaepernick is a great person, something that the NFL is sorely lacking.
    User avatar
    Smelly McUgly
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4282
    Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:30 pm
    Location: God's Country AKA Cascadia AKA The Pacific Northwest


  • Remember Kiper dissing the Russell Wilson pick, and Gruden let him know about it?

    Not saying you are Kiper... Em, because ya know I love ya.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 33673
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • hawknation2014 wrote:
    Pandion Haliaetus wrote:
    Just a few things.

    Cassius Marsh is expected to play around 270 not 300, they likened him to Michael Bennett type player.

    Staten imo was a stab in the dark at getting a player similar to Red Bryant... coachable big body player with quality strength + length and great leadership intangibles.

    Michael Brooks is more of a Clinton McDonald type. Shorter, slimmer, more athletic, great pass-rush potential.


    I can go pull the quote for you from Carroll in which he said he wanted Marsh to get back up to around 300 lbs. They also likened him to playing the Michael Bennett role, and Quinn later said they saw Marsh primarily as an interior player.

    Brooks actually played at the five technique in place of Red Bryant last season. He's shown that he can handle that role. IMO, it's highly unlikely we will ever see Staten playing outside.


    Sure I would like to see that quote because this is what Marsh said himself not even two weeks ago:

    "They (the coaches) have a goal weight for me: they want me to get to around 270, eventually. But they want me to do it the right way."

    And yeah Michael Brooks played 5-Tech but just as well in the PS he also played 3T and dominanted. And who knows where Staten ends up, you can't project, IIRC Carroll said they going to put him inside for now but they would like him to play inside and out...

    Staten's college tape reminded me of Bryant's first 2 years in the NFL. Maybe he doesn't become anything at all but there is a always possibility that he could end up better on the outside in our scheme than he was inside in College. I'm certainly not going to write it off... if your versatile and can multiple positions you're likely going to make this team over someone who is not.

    With that said, I believe Brooks will make the team, and Staten will be stashed on the PS. Doesn't give me the right to cement Staten's career and what he can and can't do based on what he did in college. All I'm saying is I see similarties to Staten and Bryant.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3237
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


  • Thanks for the effort Em, nobody knows how these guiys will turn out, we are one of the teams that likes to develop players and puit them into rolls, example being Pinkins a safety being groomed as a press CB etc, we red shirted most or draft last year. What you see draft day isn't always what you get here. I also understand the grades are based on projections, nobody knows how they will be used etc.

    This board on Draft day went thru near meltdowns on some picks and whome we passed on etc. Don't get to wrapped up in either positions positive or negetive till we see what the dish served is going to be, the menu isn't written in stone and Pete likes to surprise.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24368
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • The Seahawks will most likely always get mediocre draft grades because of the way they evaluate players compared to the way draft "experts" evaluate them. They are less interested in solid NFL-ready prospects and more interested in players with the type of attitude, intelligence and toughness they value who also have exceptional physical attributes that fit their schemes even if they don't fit the normal NFL prototype in some respect or are raw and unfinished. They believe they can coach up these types of players to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. It doesn't work with every player they draft but when it does it can produce spectacular results.

    That's how Carroll and Schneider managed to revamp an aging, undersized roster into a Super Bowl champion in a relatively short time while leaving draft experts scratching their heads about their selections year after year.
    User avatar
    TXHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 378
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 7:03 am
    Location: Arlington, TX


  • I never pay attention to draft grades any more. It's a waste of time because these analysts still don't understand the system here. PC/JS have their own plan. It seems to be working pretty well.
    Image
    R.I.P. Cortez
    User avatar
    lsheldon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1166
    Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:04 pm
    Location: Everett WA


  • I hadn't even heard of 7 of our draft picks before we picked them, and of all the receivers getting 1st/2nd round hype, Richardson seemed to get the least. I had literally never heard of Justin Britt until his name was called. I'd done a decent amount of reading about the draft beforehand too. I am now excited to see the rookies go and, based on PCJS' s prior efforts I am expecting big things, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape about a low grade.

    I know that football gameplan did a tonne of research on the prospects but, as others have mentioned, the Seahawks put importance on different attributes than most, specifically attitude and athleticism. It is probably worth bearing in mind that the WRs selected have to go up against the LOB in practice and cope with their intensity and talent. This probably removed a decent number of receivers from their board altogether, even the highly rated ones.

    Maybe the track record of the FO needs to be factored in, but I guess if Em is rating these players against his pre-draft grades then why not back himself and his research.
    User avatar
    Hawkspur
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1437
    Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 12:12 pm


  • I expect low draft grades, because Seattle doesn't have any needs so pressing that any of these guys have to start this season. Most will be essentially 'red-shirted' if they even make the cut. If they do make the team, most will actually play a little bit, as Pete is a master at getting guys involved and coaching up players, and especially at getting them experience. If any of them do achieve 'starter' status, he will have earned it.
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 15039
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


  • To any credible grading of the value of any draft prior to seeing how the players do on the field I say "Whatever".

    Knowing if the Hawks over drafted Britt, or under drafted any other player taken like Cassius Marsh, or whether this was yet another redshirt draft like last season's effort, will depend upon how the player responds to coaching, deals with the pressures of being a pro and how they compete on the field against pro competition. How anyone can accurately predict this after a draft smacks horribly of group thinking as to the draft value of players taken and is unrelated to actual performance in their professional environment.

    There are many here that bought the Draft Scout valuations and zoned out on known health issues or the group thinking missed on the unknown health issues on several highly ranked players. As well there are other seasons why players fall and or simply don't fit the personality of teams that may need a player at their positions.

    This was an interesting draft and many supposedly highly valued players didn't get drafted i.e. Jackson Jeffcoat or Tiny Richardson along with lots of others who's selection in terms of group think would have been solid draft picks and of whom several might not be even able to play a down in the NFL for ability, physical or psychological reasons. Some of whom may just be so full of themselves they aren't good team players or are too thick to comprehend a new playbook. Ascribing value at this early stage is actually quite presumptuous and reflective of some egocentrism that may be based upon an incomplete understand of the who what why and where of each guy picked.

    Who thought Sherman would quickly become arguably the best CB in the league or that Sweezy would prove to be a solid pick as a G when he played DT in college? Waiting 3 seasons to fairly grade out a player's draft value is at least a situation that allows an objective basis in justification of their relative value.

    To understand the value of any draft to a team the draft needs to be looked at in several ways, present value, actual value, cap value, need now vs. potential future need., time required for positional development. In short, thanks for your opinion Em but it's really not very valuable other than furthering group thought which already seemingly is somewhat off the mark.
    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!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5265
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm




It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:31 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online