I would rather take the best available player appropriate to the draft position and pursue a pass rusher in a different slot.

You also really can't just trot out crap like "great pass rushers are usually great right away" when there's ample evidence that many guys who end up with very good career numbers often start out slow.

He was the "best available player."

You guys are crazy. He led all rookies in sacks...He may not be the heir to the LEO throne, but he will be a 10.0 sacks guy per year, and that's definitely worth it. I also think Quinn will help him out. I honestly can't believe you guys sometimes... SMH

No doubt. Has Golden Tate taught us nothing about these knee jerk proclamations of "this guy's a bum!"? The bad draft picks that we've had; EJ Wilson, Mark Legree, Kris Durham have all been jettisoned with extreme prejudice. If a guy is no good he'll be gone, regardless of where he was drafted. If he's sticks around, the staff will bring out the talent.

Have faith padawans...

But the only opinion that matters is PC and JS. He was the "best available player" according to the 2 poeple who spent countless hours dissecting all the top-end prospects in the draft. And your going to tell me that they were wrong, base on your cursory reasearch? That makes alot of sense. I think I'll trust PC and JS over a bunch of internet posters.

But out of curiosity, who do you suppose was "worthy" of the pick?

Only Aldon Smith, Von Miller, and Reggie White had better years. So it defeats your argument.

Your assumption is Bruce Irvin vs all other rookie DEs. There were other options at that pick, including trading back.

95% !?!? That would mean the other 5% he had a sack or solo tackle. Other than Howard, Bruce Irvin has the least amount of playing time among D-linemen. He would only get a handful of plays a game, except during the three blowout games we had. So basically what you're saying is that Irvin's play is black and white. He can't just do his job, that he's either getting destroyed or making a big play.

I doubt when you're watching a Seahawks game that you're focusing on Bruce Irvin the ENTIRE time. Most likely you happened to see him get pancaked or taken out of a play a few times and came to the conclusion that he's not getting the job done.

I'll admit, I use to do this all the time. Until one of my friends put me in my place by telling me there are 22 players on the field and its impossible to focus on every single one of them on every play. Quarterbacks are basically the only guy on the field you're watching every play. Unless you're a scout for an NFL team and you're at a college game to watch one particular player. But you/we are not. We're fans. So to say that you have eyes and they see Bruce Irvin getting destroyed on 95% of the plays he is on the field for is ridiculous...

Hey revisionist historian, they did trade back to draft Irvin. Plus the Jets were going to take him at 17...

Irvin was the guy they wanted, we all knew how raw he was and he had 8 sacks on pure speed/potential alone. Once he starts to learn new techniques and adds a little more weight, watch out. This kid is going to be special, limited role or not.