Hawks First Round draft History 2011 to Present

[Largent80]

........... the Seahawks have consistently traded down – and often out – of the first round entirely. Here’s what has happened with Seattle’s own first-round pick over the previous eight drafts:

2012: Seattle held the 12th overall selection. The Seahawks traded that pick to the Eagles who used it on Fletcher Cox. The Seahawks moved back three spots, picked Bruce Irvin at No. 15, and received the fourth-round pick used on defensive end Jaye Howard and the sixth-round choice used to select cornerback Jeremy Lane.

.
.
.

2019: Seattle held its own first-round pick at No. 21 and the Chiefs’ first-round pick at No. 29 by virtue of the Frank Clark trade. The Seahawks actually used the Chiefs’ first-round pick to select DE L.J. Collier. The Seahawks traded back four times from No. 21, picking up three fourth-round choices and a fourth-round selection, before choosing Marquise Blair in the second round (No. 47 overall). The Seahawks then used the third-round pick it acquired (No. 77 overall) and one of those three fourth-round picks (No. 118) to acquire the last pick of the second round and choose DK Metcalf. Finally, Seattle moved down six spots with one of their two remaining fourth-round picks and picked up a sixth-round pick. So an accounting of what Seattle turned that first-round pick into: S Marquise Blair (No. 47), WR DK Metcalf (No. 64), WR Gary Jennings (No. 120), CB Ugo Amadi (No. 132) and RB Travis Homer (No. 204).
------ Danny O'Neil.

See O'Neil's complete write up of all eight years here >>>>>> [urltargetblank]https://sports.mynorthwest.com/838180/oneil-three-things-seahawks-upcoming-draft/[/urltargetblank]gtew com

 

[FlyingGreg]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

 

[Seahawker]

The seahawks have had very little success trading down over the last many years. It's like they are at the carnival and greedily want every quarter they can get to toss and try to win a goblet or beer mug, but they keep winning ashtrays. They need to hold on their top three pics and get some value for once. But they won't will they? It's going to hurt watching them trade down and likely pass on a left tackle when D Brown is on his last legs.
I like JS and PC but dicking around and trading down has become their Kryptonite.

 

[seabowl]

Funny it seems when they rarely trade up they score big. Lockett, Metcalf, Reed. Maybe they should trade up more.

 

[oldhawkfan]

For those of you saying they haven’t gotten value out of those 1st round trades, I didn’t see any names that really jumped out at me by the teams that used the Seahawks picks. Just because a guy is picked higher than other guys does not make him a better player. There is never going to be a 100% hit rate on a teams draft picks. The 1st round itself is maybe a 50% hit rate. Maybe. People always expect superstars to be available in the 1st round. Fans expect that their teams pick in the 1st round will be a difference maker. It’s just not reality. If you are picking in the top 10, then your potential for an impact player is better than the end of the 1st round. In any given year, picks 15-45 could be just about interchangeable depending on the picking teams needs.

If they pick a player in the 1st round, fans cheer that this is the next superstar that they have dreamed about (if that player aligns with the mock drafts they have followed). When that player fails to live up to the fans expectations, he is labeled a bust and Management gets the reputation of not being able to draft.

If you look at the mathematics of the draft, do you base your future drafting success on the relatively low hit rate of 1st rounders or do you increase your odds through more hit opportunities by gaining additional picks throughout the draft?

The average NFL career is 2-3 years. Looking at the picks detailed in the OP, we don’t see any superstar all pro types drafted by either Seattle or by the teams they traded with. On the Seahawks side of the ledger we see contributors from nearly every year. These trades on the Seahawks parts can’t even be fully evaluated without taking into consideration the rest of each draft class. Whoever they may have picked with the additional picks gained, had a direct affect on who they picked with their other choices.

Trade up or trade down? The system that Pete and John have in place has created one of the top teams in the NFL over the last decade. We know with almost complete confidence that they will not be picking a player with choice number 27. I’m perfectly fine with it.

 

[Cyrus12]

Great info. Some whiffs and some success. As a hawks fan I've resigned myself not to get excited on day 1 of the draft.

 

[kf3339]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

If you want to see just how bad this strategy has worked for them, just look at the next 10 players picked each year from their original draft slot. You could have built some serious All Pro talent within this team. Of course, no one knows how a player will develop, but you also have to ask why has our talent evaluation been so piss poor in the first 1 to 2 rounds of every draft. You would think that PC and JS are either afraid to make a high pick, or they don't have the right talent evaluators within the organization. But this strategy hasn't been that effective at all.

But I will say they partially make up for it in trades and FA signings. But there is a downside to this as well. It is what it is.

 

[Ad Hawk]

For those of you saying they haven’t gotten value out of those 1st round trades, I didn’t see any names that really jumped out at me by the teams that used the Seahawks picks...

...trade up or trade down? The system that Pete and John have in place has created one of the top teams in the NFL over the last decade. We know with almost complete confidence that they will not be picking a player with choice number 27. I’m perfectly fine with it.

A well-written post, and filled with perspective needed by many on this board. There is no guarantee of quality, longevity, or team-fit in the top of the first round vs. 20-30 spots later. You draft for your team, and everyone else's boards are irrelevant.

 

[Erebus]

There is never going to be a 100% hit rate on a teams draft picks. The 1st round itself is maybe a 50% hit rate. Maybe. People always expect superstars to be available in the 1st round. Fans expect that their teams pick in the 1st round will be a difference maker. It’s just not reality. If you are picking in the top 10, then your potential for an impact player is better than the end of the 1st round. In any given year, picks 15-45 could be just about interchangeable depending on the picking teams needs.
...
If you look at the mathematics of the draft, do you base your future drafting success on the relatively low hit rate of 1st rounders or do you increase your odds through more hit opportunities by gaining additional picks throughout the draft?

The question here is, how many additional picks to you need to actually increase your odds? Obviously lower picks have a lower success rate and lower average ceiling.

John Gilbert at Field Gulls did a good write-up about this.
https://www.fieldgulls.com/2020/4/1...-picks-av-round-wilson-wagner-sherman-lockett

Pro Football Reference's AV is not perfect, but is a decent summary of a player's overall worth. How do you define a successful career? I don't know, but 50 AV seems like a good starting point. From John's chart, I added up the numbers of players drafted on days 1 and 2 that exceeded 50 career AV. 343 players drafted in round 1 met that criteria, out of a total of 902 players, for a rate of 38%. 271 players drafted on day 2 met that criteria, out of 1862 eligible, for a 14% success rate. Day 3 picks have a 5% chance of reaching 50 AV. Based on PFR ratings, the chances of a player drafted in the first round has 2.7 times the likelihood of exceeding 50 career AV than that of someone drafted in rounds 2-3.

If you really want a difference maker, you're better off trading up, even with the risk of a bust. I would want three picks on Day 2 to make it worth trading out of the first round. And I would completely avoid trading out of the third round for Day 3 picks.

 

[JPatera76]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

If you want to see just how bad this strategy has worked for them, just look at the next 10 players picked each year from their original draft slot. You could have built some serious All Pro talent within this team. Of course, no one knows how a player will develop, but you also have to ask why has our talent evaluation been so piss poor in the first 1 to 2 rounds of every draft. You would think that PC and JS are either afraid to make a high pick, or they don't have the right talent evaluators within the organization. But this strategy hasn't been that effective at all.

But I will say they partially make up for it in trades and FA signings. But there is a downside to this as well. It is what it is.

In my opinion our talent evaluation when PC and JS first arrived vs now is more of a result of how far removed PC has been to college ball. I feel that was the huge benefit of getting him when we did. He saw the talent as a college coach and was exposed to it. So he knew already when he came into the NFL who he wanted or had an idea. Now that he’s removed from college level he doesn’t have that advantage anymore.

That’s my 2cents

 

[kf3339]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

If you want to see just how bad this strategy has worked for them, just look at the next 10 players picked each year from their original draft slot. You could have built some serious All Pro talent within this team. Of course, no one knows how a player will develop, but you also have to ask why has our talent evaluation been so piss poor in the first 1 to 2 rounds of every draft. You would think that PC and JS are either afraid to make a high pick, or they don't have the right talent evaluators within the organization. But this strategy hasn't been that effective at all.

But I will say they partially make up for it in trades and FA signings. But there is a downside to this as well. It is what it is.

In my opinion our talent evaluation when PC and JS first arrived vs now is more of a result of how far removed PC has been to college ball. I feel that was the huge benefit of getting him when we did. He saw the talent as a college coach and was exposed to it. So he knew already when he came into the NFL who he wanted or had an idea. Now that he’s removed from college level he doesn’t have that advantage anymore.

That’s my 2cents

:ditto:

 

[oldhawkfan]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

If you want to see just how bad this strategy has worked for them, just look at the next 10 players picked each year from their original draft slot. You could have built some serious All Pro talent within this team. Of course, no one knows how a player will develop, but you also have to ask why has our talent evaluation been so piss poor in the first 1 to 2 rounds of every draft. You would think that PC and JS are either afraid to make a high pick, or they don't have the right talent evaluators within the organization. But this strategy hasn't been that effective at all.

But I will say they partially make up for it in trades and FA signings. But there is a downside to this as well. It is what it is.

I’m too lazy to look up “the next 10 players picked each year” but if someone wanted to do that it would be interesting to look at. My guess is that’s not a very accurate assessment of who they could have picked. Sure, they could have chosen player X instead of player Y, but player Y might play a position not considered a position of need in that year or draft. A draft really needs to be assessed on not only who the player drafted is but also on whether or not the teams needs have been met. For example, Minnesota used Seattle’s pick at the end of the 1st round to pick QB teddy Bridgewater. Did they need to trade up to get Bridgewater? Maybe, maybe not. So the question becomes how many of those 10 players after the Seahawks pick were positions of need?

 

[seabowl]

JS has almost become the Al Davis of this era. He picks people in the higher rounds that are just not expected to go that high based on reports even after trading down. I remember that when we had a shot to get Fletcher Cox I was so excited only to see the dreaded "TRADE" come across the screen for our first selection. It seems like when it's our time to pick we all have someone in mind but TRADE flashes on the screen and we are back to saying JS has a plan and player in mind. It's been in JS we trust but the plan has not worked out in that the production from these high picks pretty much sucks of late.

 

[Seahawker]

Just spitballing here but I'm wondering if our scouting department is up to par or maybe their grading system creates a surplus of similarly valued players compared to other teams draft boards? Example, trade down once or twice out of the bottom first into upper second, wow we had 3 or four targeted players and all but one are still on the board, high fives all around extra gravy. But it's not, you've diluted and yardsaled your best shot at an impact player for another year. Outside of Russell Wilson, no one really values your targeted players you seem to get so excited about post draft. With this multi-tiered hierarchy I could see them on the clock with three or more options and differing preferences, after a quick discussion/mediation I could see how feathers could be silently ruffled. Could this system trend towards poor outcomes or even cause dysfunction?
I want them to stay put or trade up in the first and take a left tackle. Number 27 and one of our seconds might get us up to 16 to 20, our late third and change might get us to 22- 24. The Seahawks have always had a checkered past drafting, outside of their early drafts PC and JS have done nothing to change that. In my opinion at this point it would be better to have two talented guys with high upside over multiple project/practice squad types. Anyway, those are the ramblings of a quarantined day drinker who has been frustrated with our drafts for a long time.

 

[kf3339]

Great info. Not a lot of success in that sequence, for sure. They are allergic to making good picks in the 1st round, it seems.

I get that they want to constantly acquire more picks. But at some point, isn't quality more important than quantity?

By the way, this grouping is just terrible: DT Malik McDowell (No. 35), S Delano Hill (No. 95), S Tedric Thompson (No. 111), S Michael Tyson (No. 187). Complete whiff. Fortunately, the selection of Chris Carson made it somewhat bearable.

If you want to see just how bad this strategy has worked for them, just look at the next 10 players picked each year from their original draft slot. You could have built some serious All Pro talent within this team. Of course, no one knows how a player will develop, but you also have to ask why has our talent evaluation been so piss poor in the first 1 to 2 rounds of every draft. You would think that PC and JS are either afraid to make a high pick, or they don't have the right talent evaluators within the organization. But this strategy hasn't been that effective at all.

But I will say they partially make up for it in trades and FA signings. But there is a downside to this as well. It is what it is.

I’m too lazy to look up “the next 10 players picked each year” but if someone wanted to do that it would be interesting to look at. My guess is that’s not a very accurate assessment of who they could have picked. Sure, they could have chosen player X instead of player Y, but player Y might play a position not considered a position of need in that year or draft. A draft really needs to be assessed on not only who the player drafted is but also on whether or not the teams needs have been met. For example, Minnesota used Seattle’s pick at the end of the 1st round to pick QB teddy Bridgewater. Did they need to trade up to get Bridgewater? Maybe, maybe not. So the question becomes how many of those 10 players after the Seahawks pick were positions of need?

You know I will take you up on that offer. It will have to be this weekend when I have the time, but more than happy to make my point.

 

[Ozzy]

I'm a huge JS fan but that's worse than I even realized. It does seem like we're married to the idea of trading down for the sake of it. The reasoning is sound but I think in hindsight I bet they would stay put or trade up if they could do it all again. I may be completely wrong.

 

[Teahawks]

I've always heard the Hawks only have X number of guys that they view as first round talent, and usually the number is in the teens. So, do they basically treat anything past pick, let's say 22, as the same range as say, pick 50?

I'm curious if other teams have this same mentality, or if they consider most players selected in the first round as having first round talent.

 

[Teahawks]

Just spitballing here but I'm wondering if our scouting department is up to par or maybe their grading system creates a surplus of similarly valued players compared to other teams draft boards? Example, trade down once or twice out of the bottom first into upper second, wow we had 3 or four targeted players and all but one are still on the board, high fives all around extra gravy. But it's not, you've diluted and yardsaled your best shot at an impact player for another year. Outside of Russell Wilson, no one really values your targeted players you seem to get so excited about post draft. With this multi-tiered hierarchy I could see them on the clock with three or more options and differing preferences, after a quick discussion/mediation I could see how feathers could be silently ruffled. Could this system trend towards poor outcomes or even cause dysfunction?
I want them to stay put or trade up in the first and take a left tackle. Number 27 and one of our seconds might get us up to 16 to 20, our late third and change might get us to 22- 24. The Seahawks have always had a checkered past drafting, outside of their early drafts PC and JS have done nothing to change that. In my opinion at this point it would be better to have two talented guys with high upside over multiple project/practice squad types. Anyway, those are the ramblings of a quarantined day drinker who has been frustrated with our drafts for a long time.

I missed this comment, but yes this is basically where my post was going after too. Is it all about the Hawks talent brackets and grading system that leads to this strategy?

 

[kf3339]

Just spitballing here but I'm wondering if our scouting department is up to par or maybe their grading system creates a surplus of similarly valued players compared to other teams draft boards? Example, trade down once or twice out of the bottom first into upper second, wow we had 3 or four targeted players and all but one are still on the board, high fives all around extra gravy. But it's not, you've diluted and yardsaled your best shot at an impact player for another year. Outside of Russell Wilson, no one really values your targeted players you seem to get so excited about post draft. With this multi-tiered hierarchy I could see them on the clock with three or more options and differing preferences, after a quick discussion/mediation I could see how feathers could be silently ruffled. Could this system trend towards poor outcomes or even cause dysfunction?
I want them to stay put or trade up in the first and take a left tackle. Number 27 and one of our seconds might get us up to 16 to 20, our late third and change might get us to 22- 24. The Seahawks have always had a checkered past drafting, outside of their early drafts PC and JS have done nothing to change that. In my opinion at this point it would be better to have two talented guys with high upside over multiple project/practice squad types. Anyway, those are the ramblings of a quarantined day drinker who has been frustrated with our drafts for a long time.

^ Yes, I agree and referred to the talent evaluators in my post as well. It's very easy to see that there is a disconnect between talent evaluation and our trading strategy for many years now. At least that is how I see it.

 

[Largent80]

The best decade plus of Seahawk football success yet people are ragging on the way things get done. Get your asses into the late 80's early 1990's all of you doubters.