1st Round - 27th pick Jordyn Brooks LB Texas Tech

[Mick063]

They didn't trade the pick down to get more picks.

This is historically the first option.

One can conclude one of two things.

Either there were no takers for the selection (I doubt it), or the Seahawks had their man before the day even started, knew he was going to available at that selection, and they were totally ok with that. In other words, it happened as planned.

I love me some Bobby Wagner, but his career is on the downhill slope and his high price tag will become increasingly hard to play up to, sooner rather than later. Bobby was duly rewarded by the organization with his previous contract and when they part ways, it should be on good terms. Partially because Wagner is smart and represents himself. He knows the business side of it and that he will will land on his feet wearing a golden jacket.

 

[Maelstrom787]

They didn't trade the pick down to get more picks.

This is historically the first option.

One can conclude one of two things.

Either there were no takers for the selection (I doubt it), or the Seahawks had their man before the day even started, knew he was going to available at that selection, and they were totally ok with that. In other words, it happened as planned.

I love me some Bobby Wagner, but his career is on the downhill slope and his high price tag will become increasingly hard to play up to, sooner rather than later. Bobby was duly rewarded by the organization and when they part ways, it should be on good terms. Partially because Wagner is smart and represents himself. He knows the business side of it and that he will will land on his feet wearing a golden jacket.

It's been confirmed that they had a trade down set up with Green Bay that fell through last moment.

 

[bigskydoc]

I don't read draft reports, or try to predict who will go where. Better things to do with my time.

However, I grew up in Lubbock, and, as much as I hate that place, I still have an unexplainable soft spot for Texas Tech. I tend to watch a lot of their games. Every once in a while, a real star sneaks into their system. That's why I was so high on Mahomes, and worried about him going to AZ, with Bruce Arians. He would have completely changed the NFCW power structure.

I don't recall seeing the inability to shed blocks that hawk45 mentioned he read somewhere, although he definitely had the speed and instinct to knife past the blocks frequently. We will have to see.

This kid is good. More of a Crabtree level good than Mahomes level, but really good. I certainly didn't picture him coming here, but that had more to do with how he would fit into a historical Hawks defense than thinking that he wasn't a solid player.

I think the pick tells us a lot about what the Hawks are wanting to do with the defense next year, and, in that light, I think it was a great pick.

He's a different player than Queen, who is more of a Bobby Wagner, sideline to sideline, type of player. I don't think he is appreciably worse, just different. I really don't understand the reason that Queen is seen to be so much better. Smaller, shorter arms, not particularly good against the downhill run. Both players tend to be over-agressive, and find themselves out of position against misdirection.

Queen certainly isn't someone who is going to shed blocks and get into the backfield, like Brooks.

Queen really would be exactly the type of "drafting for the future, not the now" kind of pick that many here are complaining about. He would be a Wagner replacement, not a complement to our current system.

 

[Elemas]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the perceived faulty logic with selecting the best player available. General consensus as I stated before.

I'm not saying Brooks is going to fail. I never heard of the kid. But, I am saying he's a reach. Sometimes, that works out.

Where was this kid on your board? Likely, lower than what he was picked and if you say else-wise, you're lying.

For clarification, this pick is a reach. That doesn't mean he doesn't work out. There's a lot of upside.

Since you mentioned CBS, I'll stick with that. Looks pretty far down the list to me.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/pro ... inebackers

*Forgot to ask...since you mentioned my argument was based solely on internet consensus (a statement that undermines the truth and makes it look like I Googled L33T FUTBAWL PIKS), what's your argument for taking him first?

 

[BASF]

Queen may not have been interested in playing for the Seahawks. It happens. Anyone remember the look on Steve Hutchinson's face when we picked him, and he pulled out all the stops to not re-sign with the Seahawks when he had a chance to get away from our franchise. I also think that the talent around Queen made him look better than Brooks. If Brooks had the D-Line to occupy blockers that Queen had, he would probably pop even more on film.

This is a good linebacker and we definitely need the speed at the position after how many times we were seriously flat footed as runners simply made the edge with little if any resistance. He will have an impact, though it may not be day one. The fact that we now have flexibility to cut KJ means that he may have day one impact if it comes to that.

 

[Uncle Si]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the perceived faulty logic with selecting the best player available. General consensus as I stated before.

I'm not saying Brooks is going to fail. I never heard of the kid. But, I am saying he's a reach. Sometimes, that works out.

Where was this kid on your board? Likely, lower than what he was picked and if you say else-wise, you're lying.

For clarification, this pick is a reach. That doesn't mean he doesn't work out. There's a lot of upside.

Since you mentioned CBS, I'll stick with that. Looks pretty far down the list to me.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/pro ... inebackers

*Forgot to ask...since you mentioned my argument was based solely on internet consensus (a statement that undermines the truth and makes it look like I Googled L33T FUTBAWL PIKS), what's your argument for taking him first?

This is the guy they wanted and there was plenty of steam that he would be gone early in the 2nd, maybe even the Bengals. Those ranking and all that fade pretty quickly when the pros start drafting. And to be honest, it doesn't matter if mocks and rankings had him wherever,it only matters where the teams have the players. 9ers picked up a WR in 1st round I saw going late 2nd or early 3rd. Where's the outrage?

They tried to drop back to green bay, and I imagine they felt if they dropped further they would lose him.

But This was the player they wanted and they didn't think he would last to 59, even if journos did.

 

[beaumaris]

It's next level entertaining when people all the sudden become experts on a pick they don't like. People have already talked out him going early 2nd. But as usual, the typical "we could have had him the 3rd or 4th round" argument rolls in, with zero proof that he would have even lasted a few picks in to the 2nd round. Welcome to dot negative

Rumour is Ravens had him for their first pick.just saying.

 

[Grahamhawker]

It's next level entertaining when people all the sudden become experts on a pick they don't like. People have already talked out him going early 2nd. But as usual, the typical "we could have had him the 3rd or 4th round" argument rolls in, with zero proof that he would have even lasted a few picks in to the 2nd round. Welcome to dot negative

Well in fairness, I did read a draft analysis paragraph on Brooks so...

 

[Maelstrom787]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the perceived faulty logic with selecting the best player available. General consensus as I stated before.

I'm not saying Brooks is going to fail. I never heard of the kid. But, I am saying he's a reach. Sometimes, that works out.

Where was this kid on your board? Likely, lower than what he was picked and if you say else-wise, you're lying.

For clarification, this pick is a reach. That doesn't mean he doesn't work out. There's a lot of upside.

Since you mentioned CBS, I'll stick with that. Looks pretty far down the list to me.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/pro ... inebackers

*Forgot to ask...since you mentioned my argument was based solely on internet consensus (a statement that undermines the truth and makes it look like I Googled L33T FUTBAWL PIKS), what's your argument for taking him first?

CBS final mock had him going 28th, dude. Jason LaCanfora is retweeting takes that said Brooks was higher on Baltimore's board than Queen was. Dave Lapham and Trey Wingo say Cincinnati is disappointed that Brooks is off the board, and Lapham had him going at 33. Lapham is rarely wrong about the Bengals.

Your entire argument is predicated on this being a reach pick, based on consensus rankings. The only consensus rankings you have access to are ones on the internet. Therefore, you're basing your opinion off internet big board consensus. Here's a quote:

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

I don't have a big board, but if I had to rank Brooks, I would have ranked him third behind Simmons and Murray at LB. Ahead of Queen. There has been plenty of buzz prior to the draft that Brooks could be a late first rounder, or at least is a heavy riser.

I can't call this a reach. I can't. Even my initial post a moment after it happened specifically said this isn't a reach, because it isn't. I would bet money that if he got past Seattle, he would not make it past pick 33.

 

[Elemas]

I respect your perspective. I had not been tracking him (as he was pretty far down the list of players I was looking at) and just being a fan, can only base my judgement on what I've read. I certainly don't have time to "scout".

I do understand there's more to a pick than meets the eye. Potential, fit, desire to play for a team, etc...

I still believe he's a questionable pick as I've lost my first round faith in JS and PC BUT, as with any Hawks fan, I hope he's worth it. Only time will tell.

Not an out... not going to come back and be a Brooks Bandwagon, I supported this pick all along guy. Nothing wrong with being wrong and as it goes with our picks, I hope every single one down to UDFAs are Pro Bowlers.

At most, if the discussion merits it, I'd say I prefer/preferred Queen. If Brooks shows out and Queen doesn't, good on JS and PC. That just hasn't happened much as of late.

 

[JayhawkMike]

A shit pick by shit pickers who have picked shit for over half a decade. They really should contract out the draft process.

Oh, and I don’t have a guy I really wanted but more a “any of these 10 guys” group that were first round rated players in positions of need. Of course we will have the same 5 people grasping at straws, telling us to wait 5 years to react and crying for us to trust two idiots who the draft game has clearly passed them by.

And after all this we will sit on our asses for the first half of games, sign run blockers instead of pass blockers praying RW doesn’t get hurt and mourn a secondary that ONLY looks like crap because we have no pressure on opposing QBs. JS seems good at trades. But signing them to extensions I guess is too much to ask.

 

[jammerhawk]

It's next level entertaining when people all the sudden become experts on a pick they don't like. People have already talked out him going early 2nd. But as usual, the typical "we could have had him the 3rd or 4th round" argument rolls in, with zero proof that he would have even lasted a few picks in to the 2nd round. Welcome to dot negative

I'm surprised people don't just literally come out and say "This pick sucks, they didn't pick who I WANTED!"

A man with perspective. :2thumbs: Soulfish!

If the pick isn't a guy some draft mediots say is the proper choice for the team, or is drafted at a different spot in the draft than they say is when the player should have been drafted, it's somehow a bad pick for those knee jerking folks. Let's wait and see, time will tell.

 

[toffee]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

How so? Like to know why our boy check more boxes than queen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toffee]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

How so? Like to know why our boy check more boxes than queen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maelstrom787]

A shit pick by shit pickers who have picked shit for over half a decade. They really should contract out the draft process.

Oh, and I don’t have a guy I really wanted but more a “any of these 10 guys” group that were first round rated players in positions of need. Of course we will have the same 5 people grasping at straws, telling us to wait 5 years to react and crying for us to trust two idiots who the draft game has clearly passed them by.

And after all this we will sit on our asses for the first half of games, sign run blockers instead of pass blockers praying RW doesn’t get hurt and mourn a secondary that ONLY looks like crap because we have no pressure on opposing QBs. JS seems good at trades. But signing them to extensions I guess is too much to ask.

K.

So, what's wrong with Jordyn Brooks as a prospect? I'm of the firm belief that this was the right range for him.

Also, off-topic, but your tidbit about run blockers over pass blockers in free agency this year has been thoroughly debunked in the relevant threads.

 

[Maelstrom787]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

How so? Like to know why our boy check more boxes than queen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brooks is a 4 year all conference player. Queen is a 9 game starter.

Brooks is a better run defender, with a worse defensive line.

Queen is 229 lbs. Brooks is a solid 240, with longer arms.

Brooks has the same speed despite being actual linebacker size.

Not sure about Queen, but Brooks has positive leadership qualities and is a versatile quick learner, which is a specific focus for prospects this year per PC/JS.

 

[jammerhawk]

In the end every season it's the same thing, either I hate the first pick, it's not the guy I'd have picked, or the team doesn't seem to be relatively improving at key areas of "my perceived need".

Oh well, I can accept I am not a draft expert or have the degree of insider knowledge of positional needs the team does. Some here have limitations in that regard. In the end of course they could be right, but the results the team has got since 2013 with all their allegedly dubious picks sort of refutes that argument.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

We were just shocked they didn't trade down. On JS's press conference, he did say they were ready to trade down, til the trade partner got a better offer.

 

[aawolf]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the perceived faulty logic with selecting the best player available. General consensus as I stated before.

I'm not saying Brooks is going to fail. I never heard of the kid. But, I am saying he's a reach. Sometimes, that works out.

Where was this kid on your board? Likely, lower than what he was picked and if you say else-wise, you're lying.

For clarification, this pick is a reach. That doesn't mean he doesn't work out. There's a lot of upside.

Since you mentioned CBS, I'll stick with that. Looks pretty far down the list to me.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/pro ... inebackers

*Forgot to ask...since you mentioned my argument was based solely on internet consensus (a statement that undermines the truth and makes it look like I Googled L33T FUTBAWL PIKS), what's your argument for taking him first?

CBS final mock had him going 28th, dude. Jason LaCanfora is retweeting takes that said Brooks was higher on Baltimore's board than Queen was. Dave Lapham and Trey Wingo say Cincinnati is disappointed that Brooks is off the board, and Lapham had him going at 33. Lapham is rarely wrong about the Bengals.

Your entire argument is predicated on this being a reach pick, based on consensus rankings. The only consensus rankings you have access to are ones on the internet. Therefore, you're basing your opinion off internet big board consensus. Here's a quote:

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

I don't have a big board, but if I had to rank Brooks, I would have ranked him third behind Simmons and Murray at LB. Ahead of Queen. There has been plenty of buzz prior to the draft that Brooks could be a late first rounder, or at least is a heavy riser.

I can't call this a reach. I can't. Even my initial post a moment after it happened specifically said this isn't a reach, because it isn't. I would bet money that if he got past Seattle, he would not make it past pick 33.

As one who was hoping we would draft Queen, I feel better that we had tried to trade down but could not. I didn't see the mocks you mentioned having Brooks so high. I was watching the ABC draft where the College Football Gameday folks were high on him, but Herbstreet said that he can't believe any Texas Tech defensive player is worth taking in the first round. Like every pick, its wait and see before you judge, but I believe we certainly could have traded down and gotten him.

 

[toffee]

The fans don't have to be experts with draft analysis. There's plenty of scouting reports out there. There's plenty of resources and one has to use their best judgement in trusting a source. That trust is built over time. Everyone gets it wrong at some point.

In my opinion, JS and PC are slowly eroding that trust. Sure, they are experts. Sure, they know what they like. Sure, they thought they could convert projects like Flowers similarly to what they did for Sherman. Sure, in some instances, it's worked great. But, let's be honest, their recent years first round picks have left many scratching their heads.

If you have multiple reports and a general OVERALL consensus that player A is better, rated higher, etc...than Player B and you select the lower rated player, YOU ARE REACHING. Sometimes it works out....sometimes it doesn't.

If they were absolutely intent on taking a LB here, they should've drafted Queen just like they should've drafted Chubb just like they should've drafted Sweat just like they should've drafted.....

Assuming that they target an Edge within the next two picks, I'm going to laugh (more like cry) when they get cute and think they can nab a solid RB in later rounds.

The only pick that made me scratch my head more than taking Brooks over Queen is GB's. I guess we have that going for us.

Absolutely hate this crap argument.

Literally an endorsement of drafting purely based on the internets consensus best available at the position.

If you weren't scratching your head at the Raiders pick, that's interesting. He wasn't the consensus best available, so that's an unforgivable reach too. Conversely, you should be fine with Green Bay's selection, Jordan Love was the consensus best quarterback available, so its ok!

Plenty of sources had Brooks rising into this range, CBS had him going 28th. I am confident Brooks was gone at 33 to Cincinnati, which I've been saying, and that's now backed up by info from Trey Wingo and Dave Lapham. Brooks checks more boxes for Seattle than Queen.

How so? Like to know why our boy check more boxes than queen?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk