Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:49 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 109
Forgive me if this has already been hashed through. I'm relatively new to the process.

So, let's assume Flynn is a Raider. And let's assume that Seattle stays put at #56. If EJ Manual, Tyler Wilson, Matt Scott are there to be taken, as well as Robert Woods, Sylvester Williams, Margus Hunt, David Amerson, Menelik Watson, Kyle Long, ect.

Is it against some unwritten rule to draft a QB a full round ahead of your franchise QB?

The advantageous are obvious: cheaper, can be molded, will buy into competition, can build up as collateral.

So, for the 56th pick in the draft to have the most value, do you take Matt Scott?

_________________
It is what it is...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 3:56 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1864
Location: Vancouver, Wa
Personally, I would only want to draft a 2nd rd QB if the idea was that he can grow into the starter role eventually. That's not the case here. That 2nd rd pick QB would remain a backup (hopefully) for four years and then probably want to move to a team that will give him a chance to start.

I'd be ok with a 3rd rounder (since its a late 3rd), but I'd rather look at backup QB possibilities starting in the 4th round.

_________________
I got passion for my Hawks and I ain't afraid to show it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:46 pm 
NET Bench Warmer
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:25 pm
Posts: 22
If I was concerned about our quarterback getting lazy or content, I might address the the backup QB spot in a mid round. Beings that it's not a concern, I wait until later. There are other positions to add depth to and even though quarterback is one of those, it's not the first to be addressed. The fact is, if RW goes down with a season ending injury at some point, our chances of winning the SB are over for the year.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:11 pm 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9816
This is not an easy answer for me.

The obvious answer for most would be a flat "no." You shouldn't spend a 2nd round pick on a guy that is fairly unlikely to contribute next season given how close Seattle is to a championship. It's also harder to turn that backup into a profit down the road if he does well.

That said, the group of 2nd round QBs this year is very strong IMO, and our needs aren't that great. If it happened, I wouldn't complain. And not just if it was for Matt Scott.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 7:56 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 109
so, hear me out. let us say we line fitzpatric, Drew Cason, matt scott next to each other, and have them through 40 crisp throws to Seattle WR.

What doe you think the out outcome, full of impressions, would be from the wider receivers.

You find an enormous underbelly of "unyielding need come sucking up from the floor.

the place would go mad.. plain mad!!!

and just for the kicker... yo them take the winner to PJCS, perform the drill again... let all that shall be be.

I'd be wise to got bed now :)

_________________
It is what it is...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 11:31 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:12 pm
Posts: 2081
nbk35zw wrote:
so, hear me out. let us say we line fitzpatric, Drew Cason, matt scott next to each other, and have them through 40 crisp throws to Seattle WR.

What doe you think the out outcome, full of impressions, would be from the wider receivers.

You find an enormous underbelly of "unyielding need come sucking up from the floor.

the place would go mad.. plain mad!!!

and just for the kicker... yo them take the winner to PJCS, perform the drill again... let all that shall be be.

I'd be wise to got bed now :)

I'm either more intoxicated than I think, or...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 9:27 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 11:47 am
Posts: 520
I don't like the idea of using a 2nd round pick on a backup QB...But looking at the Packers recent draft history they drafted Brian Brohm in the 2nd round and Matt Flynn in the 7th round of the 2008 draft, which was 3 years after using a 1st round pick on Aaron Rogers.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:48 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
Only if we identified a QB who we were absolutely sure could net us multiple high level picks in a couple years when we might need to restock the roster after some FA acquisitions weaken us.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:06 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 661
Location: Yakima
I think it's an excellent idea if his name is Matt Scott. Strong arm, quick feet,
reminds me of Wisconsin's QB from last year.

With an infusion of Russell's film study group and a time with this coaching staff,
he would provide quality backup at the most important position for a bargain rate.

In a couple of years, when Russell gets his payday, you would have another year of
service on Scott's rookie contract. Or you could flip him for a first round plus.
It's an investment I would make.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:29 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:52 pm
Posts: 1335
nbk35zw wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been hashed through. I'm relatively new to the process.

So, let's assume Flynn is a Raider. And let's assume that Seattle stays put at #56. If EJ Manual, Tyler Wilson, Matt Scott are there to be taken, as well as Robert Woods, Sylvester Williams, Margus Hunt, David Amerson, Menelik Watson, Kyle Long, ect.

Is it against some unwritten rule to draft a QB a full round ahead of your franchise QB?

The advantageous are obvious: cheaper, can be molded, will buy into competition, can build up as collateral.

So, for the 56th pick in the draft to have the most value, do you take Matt Scott?


If we were completely stocked at all other positions this would be an option. But the fact is that we do have more pressing needs on our DLine and WLB just to name two areas. So no, it's not a valid option this year IMO.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:42 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:04 pm
Posts: 1959
No.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am
Posts: 2875
I want a contributor at #56... not a bench-riding back-up QB.

_________________
EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

Moved to Seattle in 1980. Hawks fan for 34 years and counting.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:06 pm 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
onanygivensunday wrote:
I want a contributor at #56... not a bench-riding back-up QB.


But what IF Wilson goes down? I've read on this board that it's absolutely paramount we have a starting QB in place on the bench!

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:26 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm
Posts: 629
No.

We have a very young franchise QB. We should be 5 years or more away from even considering a QB on day 1 or 2. Unless it's a freakish drop of a guy we regard very highly. Like a guy who we thought would be a top 12 overall pick just sliding into the late 2nd round.

Even if a Brett Favre were to be available at our second round pick, what's the likelihood that he would even see the field. I'm pretty confident in stating that Wilson will not be anything close to Sanchez. Sanchez' abilities as a QB never approached what we've seen from Russell in the last 6 weeks of this season. So I don't think any QB without the inflated expectation of a top 5 overall pick stands a chance at supplanting Wilson in the next 5 years.

Some unforeseeable injury disaster will have to befall Wilson for us to consider taking a QB in those rounds.

EDIT: That said, this is a FO that is notorious for bucking convention and considering all options. From everything they've hinted at, they aren't interested in QBs except as projects.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:29 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 109
No more posts after two hefty goblets of Makers'.

Appreciate the thoughtfulness, y'all.

_________________
It is what it is...


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:17 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 871
Hell No, you also have to think that the FO loved Wilson and they didn't reach for him in the 2nd. I hope like hell Robert Woods is there and we take him.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:50 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3075
Location: Anchorage, AK
No

If we needed a backup QB that badly we wouldn't have traded away Flynn. You can adress this CREATED need by signing a FA for not to much more than a draft pick.

I honestly rather spend it on a kicker (but we won't). If there is a decent kicker in the third round I really hope we get him


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is drafting a QB #56 a good idea?
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:26 am 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 109
Quote:
I think it's an excellent idea if his name is Matt Scott. Strong arm, quick feet,
reminds me of Wisconsin's QB from last year.

With an infusion of Russell's film study group and a time with this coaching staff,
he would provide quality backup at the most important position for a bargain rate.

In a couple of years, when Russell gets his payday, you would have another year of
service on Scott's rookie contract. Or you could flip him for a first round plus.
It's an investment I would make.


This is exactly what I was thinking. It is what GB did with Brohm (and failed, I might add). I am intrigued by it solely due to the increased value the pick garners if the QB a) backs up RW solidly, b) is traded for a better or equal value.

_________________
It is what it is...


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Threedee, tooshort and 12 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.