Cortez and the '92 Hawks

Chuckwow

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2022
Messages
308
Reaction score
314
That's who we are if we take Jalen Carter at #2. I've seen enough now to accept that Carter is a luxury. If our goal is to seriously contend any time soon, we need to trade down and gather more picks. We need LBs, safeties, another corner, DL, a center and at least one more back. We have fantastic TEs that are not getting enough targets. Oh yeah, we need a QB, too.

1st rd picks don't cost as much as they used to and with them you get that 5th year option (whether you want it or not). The #2 pick is worth a glorious 2600 pts! The #18 around 900 (for reference). It would take some jockeying around but we could feasibly trade the #2 for picks 18, 19 and 20 (or just picks 9 and 10...whatever makes more sense at the time. BPA and all that).

I think the Hawks natural pick will end up around 14. Worth maybe 1200 pts and our Denver 2nd worth maybe 500. We could pkg those picks and trade for two more late rd 1sts. I mean, while we're getting crazy.

OK...I've lost track, what is that 6? 6 picks in the first round??? Oh hell yes!! And we'd still have the whole draft ahead of us including our own natural 2nd.

How would we make all that happen? Hell, I dunno! I'm just having fun on a message board and nobody even asked me if I wanted the job. It's Jon and Pete's job to figure this **** out. All we can do is hope they hit on some gems. Lots of gems, cuz 1 or 2 ain't gonna cut it.
 

cymatica

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
4,381
Reaction score
3,054
So what happens when the opponent game plans around your star rookie and your coach cannot adjust?
 

Okieseahawk

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
78
Lots of holes to fill, but Tez 2.0 would be a game changer. Yes for me if they feel he is the real deal. Obviously we need some corn fed bruisers on the DL.
 

rjdriver

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,015
Reaction score
1,626
Location
Utah
I've got zero issues with your take Chuck, regardless of whether I agree ..

However, I think your memory is like mine if you actually jive the comparison to the 92 Hawks.

That team went 2-14. It had Stan Gelbaugh as QB. Stan the man was throwing to Louis Clark and Tommy Kane as his starting wideouts. The starting TE was Ron Heller. Read that again real quick.

I agree this team has holes everywhere and your strategy is solid and well thought out. However, adding 5 of the first 83 picks in the draft (no trade backs) and inserting them into a Geno Smith led team that made the playoffs the year prior is a far cry from Rick Tuten's backwards punt.
 

Mase

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
755
Reaction score
292
-- I think your reference to Cortez Kennedy actually argues against your point. In 1990 Seattle had picks 8 and 10. New England had #3. We traded 8 and 10 for #3. We took Tez, and they took LB Chris Singleton and DL Ray Agnew. They were solid NFL starters, but Tez is Hall of Fame and Ring of Honor. Now if New England would have picked Richmond Webb at # 8 and Emmitt Smith at #10, despite Tez's greatness it looks like a great trade, but those were literally the only two players, in the entire first round worth giving up Tez to get. The rest of that first round is a dumpster fire.

-- And you mention 1992, where we were so bad, even with Tez, that in 1993 we picked 2nd. New England was even worse, they picked 1st. Wow, that just gave me a Dan McGuire and Stan Gelbaugh flashback. Tom Catlin with the second best defense Seattle has ever had, but the most putrid offense in the history of football. But I digress.

-- Point being, if we get to #5 and there is no one there that we deem worth it, then yes, move down, but I would never knowingly pass on someone you think will be special, just to get more picks.

Mase
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
DT do not make a huge difference in getting to the SB right now. Or changing the fortunes of a team.

Pass-rushing DEs do. CBs do. DTs and LBs don't.

Even Aaron Donald didn't. (Adding Ramsay and their QB made the difference)
The most dominant DT as a college player I can recall was Suh.
He almost won the freaking Heisman as a defensive player. And it didn't tip the scales at all.

Pass rushing DEs and dominant CBs are the key building blocks for tilting the field on defense. Maybe for us a dominant safety (if we can find one), but dominant DTs, even incredibly dominant DTs, will not move the needle much in terms of changing the fortunes of a team.
 

Seahawker

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
3,348
Reaction score
971
DT do not make a huge difference in getting to the SB right now. Or changing the fortunes of a team.

Pass-rushing DEs do. CBs do. DTs and LBs don't.

Even Aaron Donald didn't. (Adding Ramsay and their QB made the difference)
The most dominant DT as a college player I can recall was Suh.
He almost won the freaking Heisman as a defensive player. And it didn't tip the scales at all.

Pass rushing DEs and dominant CBs are the key building blocks for tilting the field on defense. Maybe for us a dominant safety (if we can find one), but dominant DTs, even incredibly dominant DTs, will not move the needle much in terms of changing the fortunes of a team.
I get the premise of your post, but this defense was gashed by the run all season and the bleeding won't stop until we bigtime upgrade two DT's and a couple of LBers. Until then we can forget about regaining the division lead or playoff wins.
DE's & CB's = 3rd & 10.
DT's & LBers = 3rd & 6... both matter. I've seen enough 3rd & short conversions against our D.
Run to open up the passing game, throw to open up the run game.
Our defense sucks, we need instinctive players that diagnose, disengage and tackle.
Sure another DE & CB wouldn't hurt, but not before upgrades at DT & LB IMHO.
 

Mase

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
755
Reaction score
292
-- One of the oldest rules in defensive football is "strongest /closest" You have to be strongest at positions closest to the ball. Re-watch a few of the games where Nwosu, Mafe and even Taylor are screaming off the edge, only to watch the QB step up into a clean pocket. Now, find a DT who can squeeze that front edge, and he may not get many sacks, but those edge screamers will (see Fletcher Cox and Jordan Davis in Philly). That pressure will help the corners. But your corners could absolutely blanket a wide receiver, then watch a RB run right by them for a TD. Watch the Raider game for that.

-- Also, I think Ramsey is a helluva cornerback, but if you tell me Carter is the next Donald, I would give up both our firsts to get him. We don't pick high very often, and hopefully won't for a while, so get difference makers.

-- Finally, Linebackers are run stoppers, pass rushers AND cover guys. We were bottom against TEs last year. Gashed by RBs. Linebackers matter.

Mase
 

JGreen79

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
172
Location
Newberg, Oregon
DT do not make a huge difference in getting to the SB right now. Or changing the fortunes of a team.

Pass-rushing DEs do. CBs do. DTs and LBs don't.

Even Aaron Donald didn't. (Adding Ramsay and their QB made the difference)
The most dominant DT as a college player I can recall was Suh.
He almost won the freaking Heisman as a defensive player. And it didn't tip the scales at all.

Pass rushing DEs and dominant CBs are the key building blocks for tilting the field on defense. Maybe for us a dominant safety (if we can find one), but dominant DTs, even incredibly dominant DTs, will not move the needle much in terms of changing the fortunes of a team.

Most of the time you are correct... However, this team is is already good at DE and CB. Where they lack is DT and LB. A dominant DT will improve this defense drastically.
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,408
Location
Tijuana/San Diego
DT do not make a huge difference in getting to the SB right now. Or changing the fortunes of a team.

Pass-rushing DEs do. CBs do. DTs and LBs don't.

Even Aaron Donald didn't. (Adding Ramsay and their QB made the difference)
The most dominant DT as a college player I can recall was Suh.
He almost won the freaking Heisman as a defensive player. And it didn't tip the scales at all.

Pass rushing DEs and dominant CBs are the key building blocks for tilting the field on defense. Maybe for us a dominant safety (if we can find one), but dominant DTs, even incredibly dominant DTs, will not move the needle much in terms of changing the fortunes of a team.
Do you believe Carter would be a 0 tech for us? Not gonna happen. If we draft him, he is an instant upgrade at 4i or 5 tech. We need difference makers there. Harris was the closest we had to a possible difference maker, but he was not enough. Poona did not perform well in the role and the others are JAGs and that is being kind.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
Not saying we don't need a DT.
We desperately need a DT and a LB, if not 3.
The problem is can you pick one at #5?
The difference between a good DT, very good DT, and exceptional DT is not that significant (in terms of impact) to warrant a #5 pick, because you can get a good to very good DT later.
(Not sure I agree we are 'set' at DE, we don't have a great pressure rate or sack rate...)
Teams with great DTs do about the same as teams without great DTs. Does it make sense to spend a tremendously scarce #5 pick for something that rarely moves the needle? And likely will make little difference in overall playoff success long term?

Carter is strong and he is fast. He doesn't look fast enough to get you 12+ sacks. Or the required # of pressures. If so, he isn't worth a #5 pick.
 

morgulon1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
3,674
Location
Spokane, Wa
Not saying we don't need a DT.
We desperately need a DT and a LB, if not 3.
The problem is can you pick one at #5?
The difference between a good DT, very good DT, and exceptional DT is not that significant (in terms of impact) to warrant a #5 pick, because you can get a good to very good DT later.
(Not sure I agree we are 'set' at DE, we don't have a great pressure rate or sack rate...)
Teams with great DTs do about the same as teams without great DTs. Does it make sense to spend a tremendously scarce #5 pick for something that rarely moves the needle? And likely will make little difference in overall playoff success long term?

Carter is strong and he is fast. He doesn't look fast enough to get you 12+ sacks. Or the required # of pressures. If so, he isn't worth a #5 pick.
An effective DT will change games , change the pocket and make it easier for the edge rushers.
A phenomenal DT could wreck an entire
Game plan , making everyone around better.
I personally don't know if Seattle takes Carter at #5. I'm not sure he's the one.
There are other people I like better . But I don't have a job with the Seahawks.
A lot can change between now and April
With the combine, interviews, physicals, etc...
But if Seattle does decide he's the deal
They HAVE to take him .
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
Well go look at the Bengals.
Crappy owners. One very good/great WR - middling receivers otherwise (Higgens looks more like a product of Burrows and Chase). Decent RB, nothing spectacular.
Below average OL. Capable but not exceptional secondary. Average pass rush, no dominant pass rushers, not really a dominant DT.
Top playoff team, regular trips, recent SB appearance. - The difference? They have an elite young QB.
The only DT I can think of that changed the fortunes of a team was Vita, and it was probably because they got Brady (obviously)
DTs do not change fortunes of teams. They barely move the needle.
Are they valuable to a team with the rest of the pieces? sure.
But you can get a very good DT that is not a top 5 pick that will contribute almost as much.
To be honest, a great RB can make the difference between a team winning and losing much more than a great DT, but few spend high picks on RBs because an almost as good one can be had for cheaper later. Same thing with LBs.

DTs are not worthless, but they aren't worth a top 5 pick unless you think you have some HOF option, and maybe not even then. Frankly for us, and for Pete, some kind of monster safety or LB that is also a pass rushing specialist would be a better use of that pick (if we went defense). Those tend to do well for him and his defense thrives when he can leverage them. Not even sure an exceptional DT would change our fortunes that much, the offense would just put 2 people on him - we don't have anyone that would do much else. It took half a season for this DC to figure out Taylor should just be a wide 9.


A top 5 pick needs to be :

1 - a QB

2 - a pass rushing specialist (DE or LB)

3 - a top 3 OT

4 - a lockdown corner (not sure we need but if you can get a lockdown corner, you might do it anyway)


You don't waste top 5 picks on a freaking DT. No matter how much you need one. And it should be mentioned, that we don't have a great track record of filling gaps anyway. You pick the player that is the most valuable and the one you would have the hardest time getting. Getting a decent DT outside of a top 5 pick isn't hard. Chris Jones was a second-round pick as an example. Vita Vea was a 1st but not a freaking top 5 pick. DTs that are strong pass rushers are expensive and easy to stop, you just hold them.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,900
Reaction score
1,075
Jones wasn't a top 5 pick. Not sure of your point BASF.

I am happy to spend a 2nd round pick on DT like the Chiefs did.
But you don't waste top-five picks on a DT.

Can you point to a top 5 pick for a DT that worked out for a team recently?
In the last 8 years?
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,798
Reaction score
2,408
Location
Tijuana/San Diego
Jones wasn't a top 5 pick. Not sure of your point BASF.

I am happy to spend a 2nd round pick on DT like the Chiefs did.
But you don't waste top-five picks on a DT.

Can you point to a top 5 pick for a DT that worked out for a team recently?
In the last 8 years?
Which ones have been drafted in those spots in that time frame?
 

morgulon1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
7,822
Reaction score
3,674
Location
Spokane, Wa
So Twisted Husky isn't fond of the idea of taking a DT in the top 5 ?

Just kidding , and hey I'm not trying to refute anyone's take . I lean towards Seattle trading back for more capital.
It's what they like to do. They have to get this draft right.
 
Top