Guys...we currently have a top 5 pick

[Zybot]

I think Eli Manning was traded because he wouldn’t play for San Diego

Here were the details:

• In the 2004 draft the Chargers traded Manning—the No. 1 overall pick to the Giants. In exchange, San Diego received the following from New York: Philip Rivers (picked #4), the Giants' third round pick in 2004 along with their first and fifth round selections in the 2005 draft.

 

[chrispy]

That formula, trading draft picks for veteran players and trading down to accumulate more lower selections, has been a losing formula and one that we changed last season as we made no player for pick trades and didn't trade down during the draft.

The results were that we had the best draft that we've had in ten years, and it's one of the reasons why I might just jump back on the Pete bandwagon.

I honestly felt that Pete and John had a certain degree of smugness about them, that they felt that their system was so far superior to everyone else's that they didn't need high draft picks in order to find players that could succeed in their system, hence the player-for-picks trades and trading down to accumulate more, lower round selections.

Did Pete and John have to eat a serving of humble pie in order for them to realize the failings of their ways? Did missing the playoffs, posting the worst record of their tenure, and having their franchise QB forcing a trade cause them to re-evaluate their process? Did the talk of firings induce a "come to Jesus" moment?

Of course, none of us know if that scenario is true or false, but it is a viable explanation of their change of strategy, and being that they were successful with it, I hope and expect that it continues.

I, personally, don't think there's a huge profound shift in draft philosophy- just application. It seems to me that '22s success is more liberty to do what they've always professed; what they did in '10 and '11.

I think there were some some valuations in the RCW era to 1)placate the QB and 2)try to compensate for known deficiencies. My guess would be that PC/JS felt compelled toward certain individual players that perhaps showed some ability to play in the system that was QB limited. That, as opposed to their preference of drafting players with outlier-type, individual talents and building around that talent. The best drafts coincidentally (or not) fall before and after the RCW era.

I would guess that even a single must-have or highly-desireable player (that might be able to block for hyperactive passers or go off script or are personally identified by RCW) could change a draft board top-to-bottom. It seems like this is exactly the type of "control" RCW talks about and covets. I believe those valuations, whether they ultimately got the individual players or not, hamstrung their process.

JS will hit on both 1sts whether they're in the top 5 or not. He's money above pick 20. His worst pick is Collier at 29. Outside of Collier: Ifedi and JCarpenter (25 and 31) who were both long-term starters in Seattle but more successful elsewhere. They never pass blocked well for RCW scrambling. It's hard for me to imagine either pick being later than 25...but that's just my opinion. I see '23 as Okung/Thomas similar.

Maybe I'm wrong and timing is all just coincidental. Whether it's reality or imagination, it's musical to hear the clang of handcuffs hitting the floor.

 

[FlyingGunHawk]

Let's be greedy,
A Lombardi in February
No 1 pick in April !!!!

We let Russ cook and now he's cooked

Kidding aside, Has that ever happened? A team winning the super bowl holding the overall #1 in the draft? I wonder if that will ever happen.

 

[Jegpeg]

What is the trade value of a number 1 pick?

I am not sure I remember the overall #1 pick being traded before.

If the Hawks had the #1 pick, what kind of draft capital would a team have to cough up?

The Rams traded up to get Goff in 2016, The Falcons to get Vick in 2001 and it happened 3 times in the 90s
This gives you an idea of the sort of picks you could get. (Each pick is geven a value, so any combination that sums to 3000)

NFL Draft Trade Value Chart – WalterFootball

walterfootball.com

 

[Mick063]

That formula, trading draft picks for veteran players and trading down to accumulate more lower selections, has been a losing formula and one that we changed last season as we made no player for pick trades and didn't trade down during the draft.

The results were that we had the best draft that we've had in ten years, and it's one of the reasons why I might just jump back on the Pete bandwagon.

I honestly felt that Pete and John had a certain degree of smugness about them, that they felt that their system was so far superior to everyone else's that they didn't need high draft picks in order to find players that could succeed in their system, hence the player-for-picks trades and trading down to accumulate more, lower round selections.

Did Pete and John have to eat a serving of humble pie in order for them to realize the failings of their ways? Did missing the playoffs, posting the worst record of their tenure, and having their franchise QB forcing a trade cause them to re-evaluate their process? Did the talk of firings induce a "come to Jesus" moment?

Of course, none of us know if that scenario is true or false, but it is a viable explanation of their change of strategy, and being that they were successful with it, I hope and expect that it continues.

Losing formula?
Seattle's overall record during John/Pete's tenure. What is it? Number of times they finished top two in the division. Number of times they have reached the playoffs.
Seattle's record against San Francsico, the most consistent NFC West threat during John/Pete's tenure. What is it?
Marshawn Lynch. Is this veteran acquisition included in the losing formula?
Wilson is the winningest quarterback (winning percentage) in the first ten years of a QB career in NFL history. Losing formula?
Get some perspective. The Jacsonville Jaguars are a "losing formula". Calling Pete/John era a "losing formula" is the definition of fan entitlement.

 

[Spohawks]

The Rams traded up to get Goff in 2016, The Falcons to get Vick in 2001 and it happened 3 times in the 90s
This gives you an idea of the sort of picks you could get. (Each pick is geven a value, so any combination that sums to 3000)

NFL Draft Trade Value Chart – WalterFootball

walterfootball.com

Thanks for the info! So a 1st would reel in a 7th and 8th overall pick...that would be awesome! Its just rarely done.

 

[seatownlowdown]

The Rams traded up to get Goff in 2016, The Falcons to get Vick in 2001 and it happened 3 times in the 90s
This gives you an idea of the sort of picks you could get. (Each pick is geven a value, so any combination that sums to 3000)

NFL Draft Trade Value Chart – WalterFootball

walterfootball.com

hmm. interesting! for the 1st overall pick we could get about ~300 total 7th rounders. that's 30 7th rounders each year for 10 years. sound like a good idea?


anybody? huh? guys? hello?

 

[Seahawker]

^LOL. I'd take six #40 picks in the 2nd round, 3 - 2nd rounders a year for three years, JS would clean up.

 

[seatownlowdown]

The Texans are lucky they will have 2 Top 5 picks in the next draft.

that alone should net them a top coach, allowing someone to come in and remake the team. texans also own the browns 2023 3rd rd pick, and the 2024 1st rd and 4th rd picks

 

[Ruminator]

hmm. interesting! for the 1st overall pick we could get about ~300 total 7th rounders. that's 30 7th rounders each year for 10 years. sound like a good idea?
[unwatchable looping GIF removed]

anybody? huh? guys? hello?

that alone should net them a top coach, allowing someone to come in and remake the team. texans also own the browns 2023 3rd rd pick, and the 2024 1st rd and 4th rd picks

I'm not a Texans fan, but would be interesting if a Seahawks-Texans Super Bowl could happen in 3-5 years. Not that I care who the other team is as long as we get there.

 

[Seahawker]

ESPN currently has us ranked #13 in their power poll. If we win against the NYG's & Denver loses in London, we could have a top 5 power ranking while holding a top 5 first round pick. Never has a 5', 10" 3rd rounder yielded so much for one team.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Broncos remaining schedule- Jags (neutral), Titans (away), Raiders (home), Panthers (away), Ravens (away), Chiefs (home), Cardinals (home), Rams (away), Chiefs (away), Chargers (home).

How many wins do they get? Seems quite tough on paper but a lot will depend on if they make a change at head coach, injuries to other teams etc.

None really look like slam dunk wins, maybe Panthers who are trying to tank, Jags is a toss up? Cardinals are capable of laying an egg and who knows if the Chargers/Herbert will be right by then?

Currently have 2 wins, I could see them finish with 6 at best unless Wilson finally regains some form/the offense unexpectedly click. If they lose this week and trade Chubb, Jeudy etc then all bets are off.

 

[seatownlowdown]

Broncos remaining schedule- Jags (neutral), Titans (away), Raiders (home), Panthers (away), Ravens (away), Chiefs (home), Cardinals (home), Rams (away), Chiefs (away), Chargers (home).

How many wins do they get?

based on how their offense has played, morale, coaching, mounting injuries, and looking at what matchups they have left i'd say they win 3 more (max). the wins:

Jags (neutral)
Raiders (home)
Panthers (away)

which would put them at 5-12, which nets us a top 7 pick. but if they do trade somebody like chubb before the deadline, then what little morale / pride they still have would be dealt a deathblow and subsequently assist our draft position even further. i'm hoping they trade some of their veterans by the deadline (Nov. 1)

 

[Own The West]

A 5-10 and 15-20 would be fine for what we need:
- DT Carter or Breese early
- ILB Campbell or Simpson late

The rest is gravy.

 

[Hollandhawk]

Nothing would be less surprising to me than to see the front office turn a top 10 pick into multiple picks. In fact, this last draft probably upped their confidence level for player evaluation into the stratosphere. I would say that it is likely that they do one of two things.
a) Package picks to bring in a player they have fallen in love with. Marshawn Lynch and Jamaal Adams are examples of that.
b) Trade down to create more picks.
I don't see them "standing pat". It isn't in their historical DNA. Once they are smitten with a player, good or bad, they don't compromise. Which means the EXACT player they covet has to be within range of a given pick or they will move out of it.

There is also something to be said about getting good at your craft through experience. This goes for evaluating/drafting players as well. I'm sure they have learned a hard lesson more than once and swore off ever "making that same mistake" again. "Trial and error" is a great teacher and the continuity within this organization really should be considered a strength.

When is the last time the Seahawks traded down from a high 1st round pick? They haven't done it since Carroll and Schneider got here I believe? They just did it with late 1st rounders since the drop off in talent was negligible (in their opinion).

 

[Jegpeg]

When is the last time the Seahawks traded down from a high 1st round pick? They haven't done it since Carroll and Schneider got here I believe? They just did it with late 1st rounders since the drop off in talent was negligible (in their opinion).

Carroll and Schneider have had very few high 1st round picks to be able to trade, the only seasons seasons we didn't make the play-offs were:
2010 Draft: Pete & John were new to the Seahawks, and kept the No 6 pick
2012 Draft Had the Number 12 Pick and traded it down to 16. I would count this as a high pick but you may not.
2022 Draft: Traded our 1st Rounder as part of the Adams deal (before we knew what pick it would be ended up being 10)
2022 Draft: Kept the No 9 kept the pick we got as part of the Wilson trade.

Only having late first rounders is a nice problem to have

 

[Mick063]

When is the last time the Seahawks traded down from a high 1st round pick? They haven't done it since Carroll and Schneider got here I believe? They just did it with late 1st rounders since the drop off in talent was negligible (in their opinion).

I'm still trying to find the spot where I referenced "high 1st round pick". What I basically said, is that they lock on to specific players and move out of the pick if they don't think the specific pick is high enough to land him or alternatively, if a later pick could land him. No mention of if the pick was high, mid, or late in the first round. They have a track record of repositioning, to pick players they are smitten with, regardless of where the pick is. If a winning organization only averages one top ten pick per decade, the sample size is too small to make any generalizations about their top ten draft pick tendencies. The sample size is large enough, however, to conclude that they will reposition to take players they covet.

 

[toffee]

AFTER 4 hours of high knees, quite sure Russ will play in this game?

 

[vihawk]

Don't forget the Percy Harvin err... whatever you call that.

 

[evergreen]

Kidding aside, Has that ever happened? A team winning the super bowl holding the overall #1 in the draft? I wonder if that will ever happen.

I think Dallas did it with tony Dorset and us. Maybe it was 2nd pick.