Charone Peake, WR, Clemson

[Attyla the Hawk]

To be honest I haven't watched Wilson at all. The Seahawks won't draft him, so I kinda go "why bother.".

You don't think so? How is that? Ya never know what the Hawks might be thinking. Not sure any of us should be so bold to say players that would be available when they are in striking range shouldn't be in play. unno:

I've seen this for a few years now and I think it's a bogus argument based on flawed logic.

The notion that they always get some exotic players we didn't follow absolutely doesn't mean that we don't have any idea what they are thinking.

Seattle just flat out doesn't get bad athletes. One can pine for a bad athlete all day long but Seattle doesn't work that way. Just because we can't pin down the exact names a team will pick -- we absolutely can nail down the profiles of players that they both like and won't ever consider.

Wilson is a guy that we wouldn't take even at TE. He tests about where we want our DTs to be. There is absolutely zero chance we're looking at him.

If one were to look at virtually all of our day 3 picks -- even our UDFA signings -- they are all extremely good to above average athletes. Seattle won't waste a comp 7th on the likes of Wilson even if he's there. The often times floated idea that we'll 'take a flyer on him' ring hollow to me. Because when we look at the R6/R7 picks we make -- about 70% of those players were not combine invites. We don't pick the back end of the combine litter even late. When we take flyers, they are on guys that are much more obscure. And all of them ridiculously athletic.

We do however often times circle back to the combine leftovers in UDFA. So there is that. But we don't go after bad athletes. The guys we do get (and even the ones we tried but failed to get), are generally superior athletes. We share from the same prospect pool as Green Bay/Kansas City and a few others. Given how frequently we claim each others' roster cuts during the season only enhances our ability to confirm the athletic profile we adhere to.

As the drafts have come and gone -- it's becoming much easier to identify the kinds of prospects Seattle considers physically. Obviously the mental aspect we have absolutely no clue on whatsoever. But certainly pruning the players they don't have on their board at all has gotten easier.

You ask how, and it's rooted in analyzing the guys we've been interested in. Each draft only produces 11-15 prospects (draft and UDFA). In that regard, it's a small sample.

But that sample is just the tip of the iceberg. We have 25 official visits a year. And we also bring in UFA free agents for visits. And we go to select pro day workouts. Ultimately every offseason produces a good 50 or so hard candidates, and probably 60 or more suspected ones.

Over that sample size, you can easily start to plot what physical characteristics we're looking for at each position by retroactively analyzing the guys we did show interest in. And then apply that standard going forward. What throws a wrench in the projections are often intangible things. Or unique abilities that don't manifest itself in physical profiles. Ridiculous skills can trump athleticism. But that seems to really apply in the top 4 rounds only.

Bottom line is, there is a really big pool of data points that astute analysts can pore over to create a athletic model that is predictive.

 

[cover-2]

Kearly,
Since another player was brought up, may I ask what you think of De'Runnya Wilson? I know any one of us might beat him in the 40. But, I just can't dismiss him as a player. He scores touchdowns. I just get a vibe about him that he could end up being a guy other teams wish they'd drafted. Not that the Hawks need yet another Wilson (I know the other is Willson everyone). Lol

I know the knocks on him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's just a football player. May not SPARQ out. But, I could see him just being a pest to other teams. Can't quite think of a comparison player.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Wilson's comp may already be on our roster...Jeff Fuller.

Fuller was a very productive WR at Texas A&M. His last two years at in college he had 1,800 receiving yards and 18 TD's. Fuller is 6-4 223 lbs, coming out of college he ran a 4.65 40-yard and had a 36 inch vert. For me he is a very intriguing player that is already on our roster.

If you don't remember his days at Texas A&M, then check out his highlight video...

[youtube]WGc7pnUU_Dk[/youtube]

 

[McGruff]

:th2thumbs:

To be honest I haven't watched Wilson at all. The Seahawks won't draft him, so I kinda go "why bother.".

You don't think so? How is that? Ya never know what the Hawks might be thinking. Not sure any of us should be so bold to say players that would be available when they are in striking range shouldn't be in play. unno:

I've seen this for a few years now and I think it's a bogus argument based on flawed logic.

The notion that they always get some exotic players we didn't follow absolutely doesn't mean that we don't have any idea what they are thinking.

Seattle just flat out doesn't get bad athletes. One can pine for a bad athlete all day long but Seattle doesn't work that way. Just because we can't pin down the exact names a team will pick -- we absolutely can nail down the profiles of players that they both like and won't ever consider.

Wilson is a guy that we wouldn't take even at TE. He tests about where we want our DTs to be. There is absolutely zero chance we're looking at him.

If one were to look at virtually all of our day 3 picks -- even our UDFA signings -- they are all extremely good to above average athletes. Seattle won't waste a comp 7th on the likes of Wilson even if he's there. The often times floated idea that we'll 'take a flyer on him' ring hollow to me. Because when we look at the R6/R7 picks we make -- about 70% of those players were not combine invites. We don't pick the back end of the combine litter even late. When we take flyers, they are on guys that are much more obscure. And all of them ridiculously athletic.

We do however often times circle back to the combine leftovers in UDFA. So there is that. But we don't go after bad athletes. The guys we do get (and even the ones we tried but failed to get), are generally superior athletes. We share from the same prospect pool as Green Bay/Kansas City and a few others. Given how frequently we claim each others' roster cuts during the season only enhances our ability to confirm the athletic profile we adhere to.

As the drafts have come and gone -- it's becoming much easier to identify the kinds of prospects Seattle considers physically. Obviously the mental aspect we have absolutely no clue on whatsoever. But certainly pruning the players they don't have on their board at all has gotten easier.

You ask how, and it's rooted in analyzing the guys we've been interested in. Each draft only produces 11-15 prospects (draft and UDFA). In that regard, it's a small sample.

But that sample is just the tip of the iceberg. We have 25 official visits a year. And we also bring in UFA free agents for visits. And we go to select pro day workouts. Ultimately every offseason produces a good 50 or so hard candidates, and probably 60 or more suspected ones.

Over that sample size, you can easily start to plot what physical characteristics we're looking for at each position by retroactively analyzing the guys we did show interest in. And then apply that standard going forward. What throws a wrench in the projections are often intangible things. Or unique abilities that don't manifest itself in physical profiles. Ridiculous skills can trump athleticism. But that seems to really apply in the top 4 rounds only.

Bottom line is, there is a really big pool of data points that astute analysts can pore over to create a athletic model that is predictive.

:th2thumbs:

 

[titan3131]

back on topic

Charone peake ran at pro day today.

Former Dorman standout Charone Peake ran the fastest 40-yard dash at Pro Day. The wide receiver clocked unofficial times of 4.36 and 4.38.

 

[kearly]

Former Dorman standout Charone Peake ran the fastest 40-yard dash at Pro Day. The wide receiver clocked unofficial times of 4.36 and 4.38.

It's very tempting to make the Ricardo Lockette comparison based on tools, especially after reading the above quote. But I think there was a lot more to Lockette than just tools. The guy had insane heart and hustle. All those plays where he blew up returners or blocked three guys on a big run.

Peake is NOT that guy. His heart isn't really in the game and he usually gives minimal effort when the ball isn't in his hands. If Seattle drafted Peake to be a ST demon I think he would frustrate coaches with his lack of motivation. However, if Seattle used him in a Chris Matthews / Braylon Edwards type of role, Peake could make a lot of sense and wouldn't need to be the most fiery player ever.

In terms of a direct player comparison, I think Martavis Bryant comes the closest. And by that I mean to say that Charone Peake is a very, very, very poor man's Martavis Bryant. Their size, athleticism, and skillsets are very similar. It wouldn't shock me if Peake ended up in Pittsburgh given Bryant's suspension and uncertain future.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

Kearly,
Since another player was brought up, may I ask what you think of De'Runnya Wilson? I know any one of us might beat him in the 40. But, I just can't dismiss him as a player. He scores touchdowns. I just get a vibe about him that he could end up being a guy other teams wish they'd drafted. Not that the Hawks need yet another Wilson (I know the other is Willson everyone). Lol

I know the knocks on him. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's just a football player. May not SPARQ out. But, I could see him just being a pest to other teams. Can't quite think of a comparison player.

Anyway, your thoughts?

Wilson's comp may already be on our roster...Jeff Fuller.

Fuller was a very productive WR at Texas A&M. His last two years at in college he had 1,800 receiving yards and 18 TD's. Fuller is 6-4 223 lbs, coming out of college he ran a 4.65 40-yard and had a 36 inch vert. For me he is a very intriguing player that is already on our roster.

If you don't remember his days at Texas A&M, then check out his highlight video...

[youtube]WGc7pnUU_Dk[/youtube]

Thanks. Yes, I remember his college days, but appreciate the video. Might want to tell Attyla that there's no way that a comp player to De'Runnya Wilson could be on the roster. If he's a comp, he's no athlete. So, Seattle would have no interest.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

:th2thumbs:

To be honest I haven't watched Wilson at all. The Seahawks won't draft him, so I kinda go "why bother.".

You don't think so? How is that? Ya never know what the Hawks might be thinking. Not sure any of us should be so bold to say players that would be available when they are in striking range shouldn't be in play. unno:

I've seen this for a few years now and I think it's a bogus argument based on flawed logic.

The notion that they always get some exotic players we didn't follow absolutely doesn't mean that we don't have any idea what they are thinking.

Seattle just flat out doesn't get bad athletes. One can pine for a bad athlete all day long but Seattle doesn't work that way. Just because we can't pin down the exact names a team will pick -- we absolutely can nail down the profiles of players that they both like and won't ever consider.

Wilson is a guy that we wouldn't take even at TE. He tests about where we want our DTs to be. There is absolutely zero chance we're looking at him.

If one were to look at virtually all of our day 3 picks -- even our UDFA signings -- they are all extremely good to above average athletes. Seattle won't waste a comp 7th on the likes of Wilson even if he's there. The often times floated idea that we'll 'take a flyer on him' ring hollow to me. Because when we look at the R6/R7 picks we make -- about 70% of those players were not combine invites. We don't pick the back end of the combine litter even late. When we take flyers, they are on guys that are much more obscure. And all of them ridiculously athletic.

We do however often times circle back to the combine leftovers in UDFA. So there is that. But we don't go after bad athletes. The guys we do get (and even the ones we tried but failed to get), are generally superior athletes. We share from the same prospect pool as Green Bay/Kansas City and a few others. Given how frequently we claim each others' roster cuts during the season only enhances our ability to confirm the athletic profile we adhere to.

As the drafts have come and gone -- it's becoming much easier to identify the kinds of prospects Seattle considers physically. Obviously the mental aspect we have absolutely no clue on whatsoever. But certainly pruning the players they don't have on their board at all has gotten easier.

You ask how, and it's rooted in analyzing the guys we've been interested in. Each draft only produces 11-15 prospects (draft and UDFA). In that regard, it's a small sample.

But that sample is just the tip of the iceberg. We have 25 official visits a year. And we also bring in UFA free agents for visits. And we go to select pro day workouts. Ultimately every offseason produces a good 50 or so hard candidates, and probably 60 or more suspected ones.

Over that sample size, you can easily start to plot what physical characteristics we're looking for at each position by retroactively analyzing the guys we did show interest in. And then apply that standard going forward. What throws a wrench in the projections are often intangible things. Or unique abilities that don't manifest itself in physical profiles. Ridiculous skills can trump athleticism. But that seems to really apply in the top 4 rounds only.

Bottom line is, there is a really big pool of data points that astute analysts can pore over to create a athletic model that is predictive.

:th2thumbs:

"Duly noted"