Another possible reach??

[Sgt. Largent]

I think Collier is not playing because he's not very good.

Collier isn't playing because he missed over a month of camp and pre-season, and that put him way behind the other players on the line.

Same goes for Blair. Pete isn't going to just throw rookies out onto the field until the show him that they're better then the guys ahead of them......and right now both Blair and Collier haven't caught up to who's ahead of them on the depth chart in order to see game snaps.

There's nothing worse for a rookie's development and earning the trust of his coach then getting hurt in camp and pre-season.

 

[DomeHawk]

Collier isn't playing because there is no need to rush him back with the depth we already have.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Collier isn't playing because there is no need to rush him back with the depth we already have.

I mean I hope this is the case, but quite frankly I think there is a little of both here. I don't think Collier is going to be that great.

 

[Scorpion05]

It must be hard to be a coach in the modern NFL. In this week to week, internet/social media era people want instant oatmeal. Players are no longer allowed to go through the process.

Athletes are like students. Not everyone learns the same, and everyone's story doesn't follow the same trajectory. To be concerned over a rookie who's still learning under the coach is peak 2019 over analysis. Everything is being scrutinized and analyzed every second

 

[HawkGA]

Quite a few rookies were bitten by the injury bug in training camp and it has hampered their ability to see the field. Collier and Blair are often healthy scratches, Haynes and Christmas are still injured. I expected the first three to have a pretty big impact this season but they are just too far behind on the learning curve or not even available.

 

[Smellyman]

I hated the pick and it doesn't look great now.

But pump the brakes a bit. He was hurt and is slowly coming back.

 

[rcaido]

Looks like he's playing this Sunday due to Jackson injury.

 

[The Breh]

We should be thankful we don't have to rush any rookies out there.
We got guys who've been waiting in the wings to show they're worth a damn.
So far, so good.

 

[Mad Dog]

We should be thankful we don't have to rush any rookies out there.
We got guys who've been waiting in the wings to show they're worth a damn.
So far, so good.

It’s the rare day 1 rookie starter that excels. Baldwin is the last rookie I recall that performed at a high level immediately. Earl and Kam took a year. Sherman took 6-7 games to get in games. Wagner took about 4 games to start looking like a good LB. Wright caught on pretty quickly. Wilson took 6 games to really start looking like the franchise guy. Every OL other than Okung sucked as rookie starters.

I expect rookies to only start if necessary and to take their lumps if they do start. I won’t fuss about the Collier pick until this time next year if he’s still a seldom used backup.

 

[BigMeach]

All to say as an outsider I think they APPROACH the draft in the right way and have a good philosophy about the draft, but when it comes to actually picking in the draft I'm much less enthused. The Hawks seem to really be into making picks that prove the other 31 teams and draft analysts wrong, and more often than not, as would be true of any team doing this over and over again, the Hawks are the ones who are wrong.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they've had a few good picks sprinkled in over the last 5-7 years. I didn't say they didn't. Don't @ me. :lol:

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

 

[sc85sis]

Collier isn’t needed right now. That’s a good thing. Let the kid develop at this level.

Clowney has had several pressures/QB hits, a sack, a forced fumble with a recovery, a pick six, nine combined tackles and three passes defensed. Seems pretty good to me. (Shrug)

 

[Spin Doctor]

All to say as an outsider I think they APPROACH the draft in the right way and have a good philosophy about the draft, but when it comes to actually picking in the draft I'm much less enthused. The Hawks seem to really be into making picks that prove the other 31 teams and draft analysts wrong, and more often than not, as would be true of any team doing this over and over again, the Hawks are the ones who are wrong.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they've had a few good picks sprinkled in over the last 5-7 years. I didn't say they didn't. Don't @ me. :lol:

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

The answer is that the FO doesn't do that. They just have a different grading scale than most other teams. I believe Fade pointed out what they look for, and what their approach is. They draft based on need. It is exactly why we took Penny the year before, and McDowell before that. In this draft there was a huge run on DE's and the Seahawks pegged that as their top priority (rightfully so). I personally don't think that Collier was their second, or perhaps even third choice. He just happened to be what was available at the moment. They traded down because Collier was graded as a second round prospect in their books.

Personally I really think they needed to go Savage here. He was the best player available at that spot, and he played a position that was arguably our second biggest need. Our safety position was one held together by bubble gum and duct tape. Quite frankly I was a little shocked when he wasn't the choice there. They ultimately went with what they deemed to be the biggest position of need.

That is how we ended up with Penny as well. Pete wanted to establish a running game and identified RB as the biggest priority. Carson played well but he had a big history of injuries, plus a particularly bad injury that year. Penny was identified as the one due a combination of his high SPARQ scores and durability. I think the reason why they decided against the likes of Chubs and Michel was due to injury concerns. They wanted a "sure thing" after the McDowell fiasco.

Carroll and company seem to believe that they can coach just about anyone up as well. Take them and mold them to their liking. There seems to be an emphasis on SPARQ numbers and just overall athleticism in many cases. They are great at finding guys late in the draft, but their early drafting is just about as horrid as I've seen. Some of the worst first round drafting in the business.

Carroll and company seem to favor volume above all else. They absolutely love those late round picks.

 

[Mad Dog]

All to say as an outsider I think they APPROACH the draft in the right way and have a good philosophy about the draft, but when it comes to actually picking in the draft I'm much less enthused. The Hawks seem to really be into making picks that prove the other 31 teams and draft analysts wrong, and more often than not, as would be true of any team doing this over and over again, the Hawks are the ones who are wrong.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they've had a few good picks sprinkled in over the last 5-7 years. I didn't say they didn't. Don't @ me. :lol:

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

The answer is that the FO doesn't do that. They just have a different grading scale than most other teams. I believe Fade pointed out what they look for, and what their approach is. They draft based on need. It is exactly why we took Penny the year before, and McDowell before that. In this draft there was a huge run on DE's and the Seahawks pegged that as their top priority (rightfully so). I personally don't think that Collier was their second, or perhaps even third choice. He just happened to be what was available at the moment. They traded down because Collier was graded as a second round prospect in their books.

Personally I really think they needed to go Savage here. He was the best player available at that spot, and he played a position that was arguably our second biggest need. Our safety position was one held together by bubble gum and duct tape. Quite frankly I was a little shocked when he wasn't the choice there. They ultimately went with what they deemed to be the biggest position of need.

That is how we ended up with Penny as well. Pete wanted to establish a running game and identified RB as the biggest priority. Carson played well but he had a big history of injuries, plus a particularly bad injury that year. Penny was identified as the one due a combination of his high SPARQ scores and durability. I think the reason why they decided against the likes of Chubs and Michel was due to injury concerns. They wanted a "sure thing" after the McDowell fiasco.

Carroll and company seem to believe that they can coach just about anyone up as well. Take them and mold them to their liking. There seems to be an emphasis on SPARQ numbers and just overall athleticism in many cases. They are great at finding guys late in the draft, but their early drafting is just about as horrid as I've seen. Some of the worst first round drafting in the business.

Carroll and company seem to favor volume above all else. They absolutely love those late round picks.

Is it really that horrid given where they've been drafting in the first round in the last 6 years? No top fifteen picks in ages.

We seem to view the lower first round as opportunity to garner more picks rather than a chance to get a great player. WE've been goos at getting more picks and that's produced some good results.

But I would have to see the outcomes of every teams first round picks to establish that we are terrible. Seems outside of the top 15 lots of players flame out.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Just because he hasn't played much this year doesn't automatically mean he's a reach or a bust. Give the kid a chance, would that hurt?

 

[Seahawkfan80]

All to say as an outsider I think they APPROACH the draft in the right way and have a good philosophy about the draft, but when it comes to actually picking in the draft I'm much less enthused. The Hawks seem to really be into making picks that prove the other 31 teams and draft analysts wrong, and more often than not, as would be true of any team doing this over and over again, the Hawks are the ones who are wrong.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they've had a few good picks sprinkled in over the last 5-7 years. I didn't say they didn't. Don't @ me. :lol:

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

The answer is that the FO doesn't do that. They just have a different grading scale than most other teams. I believe Fade pointed out what they look for, and what their approach is. They draft based on need. It is exactly why we took Penny the year before, and McDowell before that. In this draft there was a huge run on DE's and the Seahawks pegged that as their top priority (rightfully so). I personally don't think that Collier was their second, or perhaps even third choice. He just happened to be what was available at the moment. They traded down because Collier was graded as a second round prospect in their books.

Personally I really think they needed to go Savage here. He was the best player available at that spot, and he played a position that was arguably our second biggest need. Our safety position was one held together by bubble gum and duct tape. Quite frankly I was a little shocked when he wasn't the choice there. They ultimately went with what they deemed to be the biggest position of need.

That is how we ended up with Penny as well. Pete wanted to establish a running game and identified RB as the biggest priority. Carson played well but he had a big history of injuries, plus a particularly bad injury that year. Penny was identified as the one due a combination of his high SPARQ scores and durability. I think the reason why they decided against the likes of Chubs and Michel was due to injury concerns. They wanted a "sure thing" after the McDowell fiasco.

Carroll and company seem to believe that they can coach just about anyone up as well. Take them and mold them to their liking. There seems to be an emphasis on SPARQ numbers and just overall athleticism in many cases. They are great at finding guys late in the draft, but their early drafting is just about as horrid as I've seen. Some of the worst first round drafting in the business.

Carroll and company seem to favor volume above all else. They absolutely love those late round picks.

Is it really that horrid given where they've been drafting in the first round in the last 6 years? No top fifteen picks in ages.

We seem to view the lower first round as opportunity to garner more picks rather than a chance to get a great player. WE've been goos at getting more picks and that's produced some good results.

But I would have to see the outcomes of every teams first round picks to establish that we are terrible. Seems outside of the top 15 lots of players flame out.

I agree with this last statement. There are a lot of first rounders that dont make it on their team. Didnt we get 4 first rounders from other teams that did not excel enough to stay or be starters on their team? They being first rounders from 5 to 9 years ago?

Great post.

 

[HawkerD]

I actually think it could be beneficial to not have to throw a rookie into a n important role, no matter where they get drafted. If he can watch and learn for a year from a couple good DE's, it may mean more about the quality ahead of him and not be about his lack of progress.
They don't seem to force feeð many rookies, RW being the exception. I think next year at this point we'll forget about how slowly they brought him along to begin his career.

Nick Bosa looked pretty damm ready to start to me on Monday night.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He was the #2 pick in the draft, he better look good.

 

[HawkerD]

All to say as an outsider I think they APPROACH the draft in the right way and have a good philosophy about the draft, but when it comes to actually picking in the draft I'm much less enthused. The Hawks seem to really be into making picks that prove the other 31 teams and draft analysts wrong, and more often than not, as would be true of any team doing this over and over again, the Hawks are the ones who are wrong.

DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know they've had a few good picks sprinkled in over the last 5-7 years. I didn't say they didn't. Don't @ me. :lol:

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

I does sound insane but then again it is happening. Penny, Collier, Ifedi, etc. Occam's razor???

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And there it is, 5 games in to his rookie season and he's somehow a bust. Got it

 

[Spin Doctor]

Do you truly believe they make their picks to prove they're right? That they ignore talented players because the draft analysts like those players? Or they pick players because noone else is talking about said player?
That sounds completely insane to me, why would anyone do that?

The answer is that the FO doesn't do that. They just have a different grading scale than most other teams. I believe Fade pointed out what they look for, and what their approach is. They draft based on need. It is exactly why we took Penny the year before, and McDowell before that. In this draft there was a huge run on DE's and the Seahawks pegged that as their top priority (rightfully so). I personally don't think that Collier was their second, or perhaps even third choice. He just happened to be what was available at the moment. They traded down because Collier was graded as a second round prospect in their books.

Personally I really think they needed to go Savage here. He was the best player available at that spot, and he played a position that was arguably our second biggest need. Our safety position was one held together by bubble gum and duct tape. Quite frankly I was a little shocked when he wasn't the choice there. They ultimately went with what they deemed to be the biggest position of need.

That is how we ended up with Penny as well. Pete wanted to establish a running game and identified RB as the biggest priority. Carson played well but he had a big history of injuries, plus a particularly bad injury that year. Penny was identified as the one due a combination of his high SPARQ scores and durability. I think the reason why they decided against the likes of Chubs and Michel was due to injury concerns. They wanted a "sure thing" after the McDowell fiasco.

Carroll and company seem to believe that they can coach just about anyone up as well. Take them and mold them to their liking. There seems to be an emphasis on SPARQ numbers and just overall athleticism in many cases. They are great at finding guys late in the draft, but their early drafting is just about as horrid as I've seen. Some of the worst first round drafting in the business.

Carroll and company seem to favor volume above all else. They absolutely love those late round picks.

Is it really that horrid given where they've been drafting in the first round in the last 6 years? No top fifteen picks in ages.

We seem to view the lower first round as opportunity to garner more picks rather than a chance to get a great player. WE've been goos at getting more picks and that's produced some good results.

But I would have to see the outcomes of every teams first round picks to establish that we are terrible. Seems outside of the top 15 lots of players flame out.

I agree with this last statement. There are a lot of first rounders that dont make it on their team. Didnt we get 4 first rounders from other teams that did not excel enough to stay or be starters on their team? They being first rounders from 5 to 9 years ago?

Great post.

The draft is a crapshoot, but the Seahawks are exceptionally bad in the first round, I don’t get why you guys are refuting that. There have been a lot of rookies taken in the first round near our original drafting spots in the last few years that are some of the best in the business at the moment. These players also happened to be at a position of need as well. There is no denying that the Seahawks have consistently been bad at first round drafting. Even our trades have not been very good. Percy Harvin, and Graham were duds.