GM Schneider: “This is the Best Draft Since We’ve Been Here"

[kearly]

http://www.seahawks.com/news/2016/04/13 ... e%E2%80%9D

Just from a numbers standpoint, this is the best draft since we’ve been here. Since 2010, sheer numbers—we usually have about 130 or 140 guys on our board, this year we’re going to have about 200, which is a lot.

John Schneider has also said that this draft has very small ledges, meaning that the natural depreciation of talent in the 2016 is remarkably gradual.

Personally, I find these opinions to be surprising, given the lack of overall athleticism in the 2016 draft. This might suggest that Seattle has tweaked or altered their criteria this year to be more inclusive.

Personally, I don't think this draft is all that good and I see a pretty big talent dropoff at most positions by the middle of round 2. These comments by JS are very surprising to me, but I take them as an encouraging sign.

If JS does really believe this to be a very deep, very gradual draft with small ledges, then we can probably expect him to make trading down a draft day priority.

 

[McGruff]

I agree with you and the comment shocked me. The athletic ability, at least at the top end, has got to be almost historically bad. But I haven't compared the depth the past year's to see if there is a longer middle class. But yeah, my perception is totally at odds with what Schneider is selling.

 

[Seafan]

It might be deeper in the kind of players JS likes. That might not be obvious to other observers. When I heard him say 200 I thought they will be trading down at least once.

 

[chris98251]

I think it is about a bunch or guys that may never be All Pros but may be decent journeymen type players, really would you take 5 journeymen O linemen over what we had last year as a whole? I think the average talent level can be increased but less star power.

 

[Blitzhawk]

Reading between the lines, I think he is saying the top end is not that high but the bottom end is not that low and there is a huge middle area where he likes to play. Lets face it, barring some block buster trade up we were never going to get into that top end first round talent (just like past as we are a perennial playoff teams....ahhh, poor us). I guess we will just have to settle for those middle tier hard working grinders with a chip on their shoulder. :179422:

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I feel like going into a Chris Tucker routine in agreement with John Schneider. I've felt all along this was the case. I even made a comment about this earlier today.

 

[Largent80]

I appreciate all the work you draftniks do, and Schneider is saying the opposite. Kinda weird.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I think this draft stinks, but in JS I trust.

If it is really that good in the mid rounds though, then LOL at the Rams even more.

 

[titan3131]

I personally really like this drafts depth. I am no expert at this whole draft thing but compared to 13 and 14 this draft seems AMAZING.

I can sorta see the lack of Elite top talent as some have said but to me the Depth/Diamonds in the rough is a strength here.

 

[McGruff]

I personally really like this drafts depth. I am no expert at this whole draft thing but compared to 13 and 14 this draft seems AMAZING.

I can sorta see the lack of Elite top talent as some have said but to me the Depth/Diamonds in the rough is a strength here.

I think one of the interesting things that happens is snap judgments at the combine time. And at this year's combine, it was a pretty lame group of athletes.

But as pro days have circled around, some injured players have healed and upped the ante, some combine snubs have shown up big time, and some small school sleepers have proven that their dominant tape was not a fluke. And the good news for teams who draft well in the middle rounds, is that the middle round is where those types of players tend to congregate.

I suspect what Schneider is really saying to the fans is "buckle up, cause you are going to be scratching your head come draft weekend with the names we pull out of the hat, but be patient . . . "

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I personally really like this drafts depth. I am no expert at this whole draft thing but compared to 13 and 14 this draft seems AMAZING.

I can sorta see the lack of Elite top talent as some have said but to me the Depth/Diamonds in the rough is a strength here.

I think one of the interesting things that happens is snap judgments at the combine time. And at this year's combine, it was a pretty lame group of athletes.

But as pro days have circled around, some injured players have healed and upped the ante, some combine snubs have shown up big time, and some small school sleepers have proven that their dominant tape was not a fluke. And the good news for teams who draft well in the middle rounds, is that the middle round is where those types of players tend to congregate.

I suspect what Schneider is really saying to the fans is "buckle up, cause you are going to be scratching your head come draft weekend with the names we pull out of the hat, but be patient . . . "

I think this entirely.

The chasm of difference in combine numbers, versus improvements in pro day numbers is pretty insane. But I think that's only a small part.

Basically, I tend to agree, that there aren't huge shelves of talent. That can mean one of two things:

One, the draft is super deep and the 2nd/3rd tier guys just are good compared to the 1st tier.

Two, the draft is super shallow in the 1st tier and there isn't a huge delta between them and the 2nd/3rd tier guys.

I personally see it as the latter, with a sprinkling of the former. The alpha 1st round talents are really magoo this year. And from a generic national standpoint -- that's the headline and all that gets the pub. So it's seen as a 'bad year'.

The 2nd/3rd/4th round options seem pretty consistent all the way through.

If we know anything about PCJS, is they love their exotic no name testers. And as of now looking at the testing numbers -- about 80% of the good testing values are coming from either mid round combine invitees or combine snubs altogether. These kinds of prospects are the mother's milk of our kind of draft classes.

It really looks like Seattle could get as many as 7-8 guys of the same caliber as Thomas Rawls, Ryan Murphy, Tory Slater or Mark Glowinski in rounds 6, 7 and UDFA. There are probably as many 60th percentile safeties in this class that are destined for day 3 as there have been in the entire 2013/14/15 draft classes combined.

Really, if you're a team that likes good testers and doesn't want to spend high draft capital to get them (and we are), then this draft is pretty much one of the best ones to come along in that regard. When you go past the R3 kinds of players and just look at the sheer volume of good testing prospects that will be available past R4 -- the pool is very impressive.

Just from an averages perspective, there could be 2-3 Rawls kinds of prospects to come out of this day 3 haul for Seattle. The UDFA signing period is probably going to make this draft for every team. And it's absolutely loaded for bear. We will be 'Huh?' in May. But when we see them in August we'll understand.

This class won't look it in a couple weeks, but has the potential to look like our 2012 class in two years' time.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

I think every season Seahawks add more infomation to thier database. And that while they look for certain parameters, I think they have enough evidence that sparqed up players dont always mean successful. The Seahawks could have broaden thier range of limitations to players that dont necessarily fit their athletic profile to an exact measure but bring the necessary amount of attitude, aptitude, intelligence, and Professionalism to produce right away.

And I feel that is where this draft is deep, it lacks players that are both highly athletic and highly skilled.

However, this draft is littered with talent that are sparqy and lengthy but are on the younger side, small school prospects, or just inexperienced.

And there is a large mix of players that arent as sparqy or lengthy but still have a great deal of skill, experience, and/or the competitive grittiness the Seahawks love.

And if you look at the immediate needs of the Seahawks, it is mostly trench positions and then RB and SLB. The draft might not be particularly talented in those areas but there is definately a strong depth of players at those positions throughout the entirety of the draft. And the Seahawks probably have done thier due dilligence on every one of then whether or not they fit thier athletic profile and might have identified guys they think can contribute despite of it.

 

[kearly]

I think this draft is decent if you don't care about athleticism. But in terms of finding athletes with good production and good tape, this draft is like an arid desert. That's why I am surprised that Seattle has so many players on their board, given what we know about their criteria you'd think it would be the opposite. That's why I wonder if maybe Seattle tweaked their process a bit.

 

[chris98251]

I think this draft is decent if you don't care about athleticism. But in terms of finding athletes with good production and good tape, this draft is like an arid desert. That's why I am surprised that Seattle has so many players on their board, given what we know about their criteria you'd think it would be the opposite. That's why I wonder if maybe Seattle tweaked their process a bit.

Could be they have more on the board because the selection process and predictability will be harder with so many prospects on the same basic level, gives them more depth in the event that another team pulls a rabbit out.

 

[Seafan]

I think this draft is decent if you don't care about athleticism. But in terms of finding athletes with good production and good tape, this draft is like an arid desert. That's why I am surprised that Seattle has so many players on their board, given what we know about their criteria you'd think it would be the opposite. That's why I wonder if maybe Seattle tweaked their process a bit.

Could be they have more on the board because the selection process and predictability will be harder with so many prospects on the same basic level, gives them more depth in the event that another team pulls a rabbit out.

I tend to agree with both of these. If you look at various expert mocks you don't see the usual uniformity.

Some experts see only 2 first round QBs while others are predicting as many as 6.

There are so many trench guys that most experts say this is a really deep draft. Compared to previous drafts you see that the majority of these guys are rated below Justin Britt in explosiveness. That doesn't sound awesome since most experts had Britt rated as a 5th rounder. I probably shouldn't confuse explosive potential with NFL starting ability.

You look at this draft and see the dearth of talented WR, RB, TE, CB, S, LB and QB and I scratch my head at Schneider's statement.

The Hawks say they rate their board based on the Hawk's roster. I hope that since there are more players on their draft board this season it isn't an indictment of the talent on the current roster.

 

[xgeoff]

I personally really like this drafts depth. I am no expert at this whole draft thing but compared to 13 and 14 this draft seems AMAZING.

I can sorta see the lack of Elite top talent as some have said but to me the Depth/Diamonds in the rough is a strength here.

Yes, I agree. Lots of depth, especially throughout the middle rounds. So many guys that have intriguing qualities or compelling game tape. Most of them simply will not pan out in the NFL, that's just the way it goes. But every year, there are guys who make an impact as rookies and I think this draft class has as much chance as any.

 

[Hawks46]

I think it is about a bunch or guys that may never be All Pros but may be decent journeymen type players, really would you take 5 journeymen O linemen over what we had last year as a whole? I think the average talent level can be increased but less star power.

Seeing as we had literally no star power on the OL last year, I concur with this post.

 

[jammerhawk]

I wonder if the general lack of good tape on players has lead to a more significant broadening of the draft pile for the team as the FO is having rely on scouting reports and other information on players? The narrowing of the lists is tougher as well when the group has players who may look better on film but don't necessarily fit the desired parameters. The team is as a matter of need having to look at a bigger group.

In a comparative sense there are a good number of high SPARQ players but many are players with almost no redeeming tape and several are from small programs. It is curious there are not many on the OLine who fit into the TEF parameters and also few who fit the conventional DB size parameters the team prefers. As well many of the superior DLinemen have lower than preferred SPARQ numbers, so special abilities or exceptional physical characteristics may qualify some for the lists. I bet more pure ballers with less than desirable physical parameters are on the team's longer than usual lists this year.

I suspect the team has several in each position group that may not fit into what we've come to understand is a formula size (length, speed, strength, etc) for each position group as a result. We all need to remember the team has a different approach to player selection than conventional and the team drafts not from some conventional list of expected value but from a team centric valuation positionally and how the specific player could in prove the team at that position. This might explain the small shelf remarks.

The combine group as a whole was underwhelming and there were few exceptional performances especially at the skill positions, in fact as a whole they were disappointing. In fact to me the DB group was the only group that performed well. Perhaps the Indie venue is a hard place to extract exceptional results from?

It's a curiously different draft and harder to see players who won't need some significant developmental periods or pure fits.