According to PFF, Ifedi's was worst pick of day 1

[gowazzu02]

Awesome news. I remember the last time the Seahawks had the worst graded draft like it was yesterday.

Cue RW's post superbowl victory tweet
http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/mvt-mos ... stic-tweet


View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Follow
Russell Wilson
✔
‎@DangeRussWilson

The 2012 @seahawks draft class. They graded us as an F. Now we are World Champs! #GodisGood #GoHawks
3:46 PM - 5 Feb 2014

10,849 10,849 Retweets
12,790

 

[hawknation2016]

A lot of times PFF's writers don't agree. For example, Ifedi was named as one of the Top 2 OTs in PFF's post-season grades due to his strong run blocking:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2 ... wl-season/

But they also had some very negative scouting reports on him due to his inconsistent pass blocking technique, probably by this same writer because he uses similar hyperbole and black-and-white statements.

Objectively, they counted five sacks, three hits, and 18 hurries allowed by Ifedi on the season. Ifedi's 96.2 pass-blocking efficiency was 76th in the FBS. But his run blocking grade was much stronger. Unfortunately, that does not account for the fact that Ifedi played in the SEC and faced some of the better defensive lines in the nation.

I would also like to point out that Russell Okung's pass protection stats were eerily similar to Ifedi's: five sacks (same), three hits (same), and 24 hurries (+6) allowed by Okung in his final college season.

As I have said, I believe Ifedi is just about the closest thing to Okung in this class with his combination of length, power, explosiveness, and athleticism. Run blocking/pass protection style of the two players are also very similar at the same stage. Ifedi is only 21 years old vs. 22 for Okung when he entered the draft.

Okung had some major growing pain in his rookie season playing LT, while dealing with injuries and attempting to improve his technique in pass pro. If Ifedi stays healthy and takes to Cable's coaching, he could be a major upgrade for the Seahawks at RT. He is essentially a younger, healthier, less-seasoned version of Okung.

 

[twisted_steel2]

Hmm..

Don't see how this can be worse than the Niners trading back into the 1st round, giving up 3 picks, for a player that probably would have been there when they picked in the 2nd.

If so you're not going to hear that from PFF b/c they had Garnett graded insanely highly.

Efedi also isn't going to do well in PFF's grading because he's more athelete than football player at this point.

Basically the Seahawks' drafting strategy and PFF's grading seem to be more or less antithetical to each other.

If you think of the Seahawks drafting as being SPARQ based, they're trying to find value by drafting athletes who they then try to coach into football players (i.e. measurables >>> performance).

PFF on the other hand, doesn't give a rat about measurables, and instead, the argument would go, finds value by only caring about performance and not caring at all about what a guy does in shorts or if he looks the part or not (i.e. performance >>>> measurables).

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching. That's likely the process that led them to taking Germain Ifedi with the 31st overall pick. Now it's on them to develop Ifedi into an upper echelon right tackle."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

PFF has no idea at this point, and aren't equipped to even come close to 'grading' what the Hawks are doing.

 

[kearly]

Good stuff Hawknation2016.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching. That's likely the process that led them to taking Germain Ifedi with the 31st overall pick. Now it's on them to develop Ifedi into an upper echelon right tackle."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

PFF has no idea at this point, and aren't equipped to even come close to 'grading' what the Hawks are doing.

Great points.

Pete and Cable DON'T want a finished product already with ingrained bad habits. They would rather start off with the basics of mobile, athletic, intelligent, nasty, etc.............THEN mold that lineman into the proper finished product.

Ifedi seems to be in that mold.

 

[DavidSeven]

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

To play devil's advocate, this has been Cable's approach for years and it hasn't exactly worked. It seems like our OL unit has been more discontented than any other as well and we turned over the entire group in just two years, so there is some disconnect in what we're trying to accomplish and what's actually happening. Historically.

I like the pick generally, but not necessarily because Ifedi's purely SPARQ'ed up or has "grit." If anything, those descriptors sort of turn me off.

 

[12thbrah]

Yup this may be the Hawks worst pick of the 2016 draft considering the FO usually works its magic historically in the later rounds.

Frankly since Schneider has taken over I'm usually more excited about who the Hawks pick up in rounds 2-7. Let the fun begin!

:snack:

 

[two dog]

Opinions are...well, you know. PFF is guilty of the same stupidity as all
the TV "expurts" and others who make instant analysis of draft picks.

But even among that lot, PFF stands out as being notably bad.
I have absolutely no problem with Ifedi....yet.

 

[hawknation2016]

Tip of the hat to Texas A&M for recruiting four offensive tackles who went in the First Round in consecutive years. That is a feat that I do not think has been accomplished before by one school. All the previous tackles struggled as rookies, and I would expect Ifedi to take his lumps as he refines his technique. Ifedi will benefit from playing on the right side, as opposed to Okung, who was making the transition on the blind side. Russell Wilson is uniquely gifted as eluding pressure, particularly from the right side. That will help Ifedi make his transition in pass pro.

 

[Hawknballs]

This is why you don't spend all season trying to talk about how good your team is based on how PFF grades them; you can't do that and then turn around now and try to disregard their analytics.

 

[BlueTalon]

Frankly since Schneider has taken over I'm usually more excited about who the Hawks pick up in rounds 2-7.

Probably a good thing, since half the time we don't have a 1st round pick on draft day.

 

[hawknation2016]

This is why you don't spend all season trying to talk about how good your team is based on how PFF grades them; you can't do that and then turn around now and try to disregard their analytics.

As noted above, grading college players poses a particular challenge for their system. I wouldn't disregard anything; just look at their grades with the skeptical eye of someone who knows their particularized weaknesses and the limits of their scope.

Ifedi was not unscathed in pass pro as a junior in college. Neither was Okung. PFF admits Ifedi was much better in pass pro as a sophomore. The only thing that matters now is how he acclimates and improves in the NFL. College grades be damned.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

To play devil's advocate, this has been Cable's approach for years and it hasn't exactly worked. It seems like our OL unit has been more discontented than any other as well and we turned over the entire group in just two years, so there is some disconnect in what we're trying to accomplish and what's actually happening. Historically.

I like the pick generally, but not necessarily because Ifedi's purely SPARQ'ed up or has "grit." If anything, those descriptors sort of turn me off.

Other than being the #1 or top 1 or 2 rushing offenses in the league in the Carroll era with Cable?

We can debate Pass protection, sacks allowed, etc.........but it's clearly evident that Cable was hired and is paid as much as he's paid so that we don't have to spend high draft picks and free agent money on the O-line so that we can have the #1 defense and run game to do what it takes to put out a consistent winner and possibly win SB's.

And THAT cannot be debated, it's worked.

 

[brimsalabim]

Before the draft they had him rated as a six round pick so it makes sense they would rate his selection even with the last pick of the first round as a bad one. Joe Thuney is projected to the cards in the third. Hopefully we can snatch him. He may not be a blow your mind sparq guy but he can pass and run block and has showed he can protect the QB's blind side from first round pass rushers. ifedi is bigger though so in the long run if we have a coach that can coach him up he could work into a good pick.

 

[DavidSeven]

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

To play devil's advocate, this has been Cable's approach for years and it hasn't exactly worked. It seems like our OL unit has been more discontented than any other as well and we turned over the entire group in just two years, so there is some disconnect in what we're trying to accomplish and what's actually happening. Historically.

I like the pick generally, but not necessarily because Ifedi's purely SPARQ'ed up or has "grit." If anything, those descriptors sort of turn me off.

Other than being the #1 or top 1 or 2 rushing offenses in the league in the Carroll era with Cable?

We can debate Pass protection, sacks allowed, etc.........but it's clearly evident that Cable was hired and is paid as much as he's paid so that we don't have to spend high draft picks and free agent money on the O-line so that we can have the #1 defense and run game to do what it takes to put out a consistent winner and possibly win SB's.

And THAT cannot be debated, it's worked.

I'd agree that the system worked between 2012-2014, where the OL was a mix of players acquired by a previous regime and Cable. 2015 was not a good year for the OL, which is when it was primarily filled with players selected for pure athleticism over technique. That is what I was referring to. The players drafted between 2011-2014, under this supposed philosophy, have not worked out as expected.

 

[Hawkstorian]

I give the Seahawks draft so far a G& in the very intricate Hawkstorian grading scale which ranges from V% through WW()Q. If you'll recall I gave the 2012 draft an overall grade of *R~~ so that should help you determine the credibility of my method.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'd agree that the system worked between 2012-2014, where the OL was a mix of players acquired by a previous regime and Cable. 2015 was not a good year for the OL, which is when it was primarily filled with players selected for pure athleticism over technique. That is what I was referring to. The players drafted between 2011-2014, under this supposed philosophy, have not worked out as expected.

If our line is sub par again like last year THIS year? I'm with you. But it remains to be seen how the line now with Britt, Gilliam, Glowinski, Lewis and I assume more draft picks over the weekend gel and play in 2016.

But in general, the O-line philosophy of using cap space elsewhere and relying on Cable to develop lineman has worked.

 

[pehawk]

I think you're right, what Sheil over at ESPN said:

"One thought on how the Seahawks evaluate offensive linemen: It seems to be less about college tape and more about the athletic profile and mental makeup. They are not expecting anything close to a finished product. They want someone with elite physical tools who will take to Tom Cable's coaching."

The Hawks are looking for SPARQ'ed up o-lineman that can be coached up. Not less athletic technician types.

To play devil's advocate, this has been Cable's approach for years and it hasn't exactly worked. It seems like our OL unit has been more discontented than any other as well and we turned over the entire group in just two years, so there is some disconnect in what we're trying to accomplish and what's actually happening. Historically.

I like the pick generally, but not necessarily because Ifedi's purely SPARQ'ed up or has "grit." If anything, those descriptors sort of turn me off.

Other than being the #1 or top 1 or 2 rushing offenses in the league in the Carroll era with Cable?

We can debate Pass protection, sacks allowed, etc.........but it's clearly evident that Cable was hired and is paid as much as he's paid so that we don't have to spend high draft picks and free agent money on the O-line so that we can have the #1 defense and run game to do what it takes to put out a consistent winner and possibly win SB's.

And THAT cannot be debated, it's worked.

I'd agree that the system worked between 2012-2014, where the OL was a mix of players acquired by a previous regime and Cable. 2015 was not a good year for the OL, which is when it was primarily filled with players selected for pure athleticism over technique. That is what I was referring to. The players drafted between 2011-2014, under this supposed philosophy, have not worked out as expected.

An odd phenomena is those who bash Cable, selectively ignoring rushing statistics, usually defend Bevell using overall offensive statistics. Its a fascinating section of fans. I'm not picking on DavidSeven here because he's not alone. This contradiction is an easy way to identify self-anointed, "Seahawks Twitter" experts.

Anyway, thanks for taking my call. Big fan.

 

[DavidSeven]

An odd phenomena is those who bash Cable, selectively ignoring rushing statistics, usually defend Bevell using overall offensive statistics. Its a fascinating section of fans. I'm not picking on DavidSeven here because he's not alone. This contradiction is an easy way to identify self-anointed, "Seahawks Twitter" experts.

Anyway, thanks for taking my call. Big fan.

I don't find it that odd. If you scheme a good offense, from both a pass and rush perspective, then where do you have room to criticize? On the other hand, if your OL consistently grades near league-worst in 50% of what it does, then there is room to criticize.

Anyway, I've defended the OL ardently in years past when I felt an appropriate balance was struck, even if the run game was favored. However, that was not the case last year. And primarily, our past successes relied on players drafted pre-2011 or acquired via free agency. There is still a point to prove with regard to characteristics we prioritize in the draft process.

 

[volsunghawk]

I give the Seahawks draft so far a G& in the very intricate Hawkstorian grading scale which ranges from V% through WW()Q. If you'll recall I gave the 2012 draft an overall grade of *R~~ so that should help you determine the credibility of my method.

I'm not adept at these advanced metrics, but I assume that *R~~ would be the equivalent of "rrrrrrr" to us laypeople?