JS - "The best drafting GM in the past 20 years!"

[randomation]

I think the thing many are failing to realize it that JS/PC build teams based on unique abilities that will fit with what we have or don't have and need not what a sports analyst or fan thinks. There is a thread on this forum viewtopic.php?f=2&t=136940 that everyone needs to read. Look at how the people we drafted scored and it will tell you alot about why we picked them. Hell, Carson who was taken in the 7th round scored 2nd amoung all RB's, Pocic score #1 against all centers, even our UDFA FB from BYU scored #2.

Just because a ESPN or NFL Network Analyst has someone as their "top rated player" at that position doesn't necessarily mean they really are. Mel Kiper " Jimmy Clausen is the most football ready QB in the draft" and we got an F for not taking him or Ponder, etc... Look where they are today and we won a SB. Just saying.

I've read it the issue I have with it is it being applied to Oline which I think is far more about technique than measurables. Even watching Robinson's good tape against Garret he wasn't winning because of being being a superior athlete he was markedly inferior athletically but his technique in that game was excellent he adapted to punching and engaging early so Garret couldn't dip. This did leave him open inside but most likely Garret was told to keep contain so Bama's qb couldn't escape it was a risk to take but it was a smart one. Slay can't really evaluate technique because it isn't built for that and I think it matter a whole hell of a lot on Oline which is why I have banged the drum for Ram or Lamp over Cam because they have better technique despite him being a more impressive physical specimen. It's also something that I haven't seen Tom Cable really being able to teach now if we were to have say Walter Jones teaching technique then it might make sense to purely focus on athleticism as long as you could still get smart players but Cable hasn't seemed to be a master of teaching technique so far.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Since Scott was asked to leave town the Hawks drafts have been nothing but average to below average.

Can you prove that the correlation equals causation? Could be coincidental timing... proving it either way is probably impossible.

 

[Seafan]

In response to this and other threads here as well:

The draft is just one part of Schneider's player acquisition system. The fact is the Hawks have a very talented roster and have had a talented roster for several years. They find players and they come to the Hawks and compete. The draft is just one of the ways they do it. If drafted players don't make the roster it shouldn't be a surprise.

JS is an outstanding drafter but even more than that he and the system he has put into place are great at player acquisition. Pete is a part of that and so is the entire scouting department and asst coaches. Teams that heavily rely on the draft and then draft poorly (Cleveland for example) to stock their team will consistently field bad teams.

The team has a method. And they aren't afraid of moving players around to find where they fit best. Britt and Shead are examples of how they find players with certain characteristics that they value and plug them into spots to get the best from them.

Some fans question their drafting prowess even though they are the best in the NFL. But more than drafting they know how to fill out the roster and have been very consistent at it.

 

[Schadie001]

I think the thing many are failing to realize it that JS/PC build teams based on unique abilities that will fit with what we have or don't have and need not what a sports analyst or fan thinks. There is a thread on this forum viewtopic.php?f=2&t=136940 that everyone needs to read. Look at how the people we drafted scored and it will tell you alot about why we picked them. Hell, Carson who was taken in the 7th round scored 2nd amoung all RB's, Pocic score #1 against all centers, even our UDFA FB from BYU scored #2.

Just because a ESPN or NFL Network Analyst has someone as their "top rated player" at that position doesn't necessarily mean they really are. Mel Kiper " Jimmy Clausen is the most football ready QB in the draft" and we got an F for not taking him or Ponder, etc... Look where they are today and we won a SB. Just saying.

I've read it the issue I have with it is it being applied to Oline which I think is far more about technique than measurables. Even watching Robinson's good tape against Garret he wasn't winning because of being being a superior athlete he was markedly inferior athletically but his technique in that game was excellent he adapted to punching and engaging early so Garret couldn't dip. This did leave him open inside but most likely Garret was told to keep contain so Bama's qb couldn't escape it was a risk to take but it was a smart one. Slay can't really evaluate technique because it isn't built for that and I think it matter a whole hell of a lot on Oline which is why I have banged the drum for Ram or Lamp over Cam because they have better technique despite him being a more impressive physical specimen. It's also something that I haven't seen Tom Cable really being able to teach now if we were to have say Walter Jones teaching technique then it might make sense to purely focus on athleticism as long as you could still get smart players but Cable hasn't seemed to be a master of teaching technique so far.

I don't disagree technique is key, but technique isn't everything. You can teach technique, you can't teach athleticism that's something you are born with or you are not. You can like Cable dislike Cable whatever, I happen to think he has polished a turd pretty well in his time here with what he has been given. Our Oline was much different in the second half of the year vs the first. JS has said he admits they had too much youth last year on the line, combine that with Russell not being able to move and we make it the divisional round instead of the finals or SB. We won a SB with a below average line and almost won one with another below average line. Our team wins because our D is lights out. This has been touted at one of the deepest Defensive drafts in a decade and one of the worst Offensive line drafts in the same time. As we have seen with the QB, PC/JS are NOT going to be one of those teams who freak out and draft someone who they haven't graded high just because they are the "top" guy per the analysts. We aren't the Browns (26 QBs in 15 years), no we use a T. Jack until a Russell Wilson comes along in the 3rd round. No different on the Oline. When you can get a interior DL who is can pressure the QB, you don't reach on an Olinemen. I would also argue that aside from 2013 these guys have done a pretty dam good job in the draft.

 

[Tusc2000]

Look, everyone knows these guys had phenomenal drafts from 2010-2012. But since then, it has been average at best. Yes, they've added some capable guys, but few have come in later rounds. The odds are simply much better at getting top talent in the first two rounds. As stated above, Pete was in an unique position in 2010-2012, no one in the NFL could match his breadth or depth of college player assesssment back then.

 

[Popeyejones]

Even if the Hawks end up only winning that one SB with this coure group, the Hawks' 2010-2012 draft run is one of the best in NFL history, and I think it's already recognized as such.

Their issue is that they haven't drafted any core starters in the four drafts since then (obviously not including this one). There's still time for some of those guys to develop into core starters (Frank Clark; does Britt get a second contract? Can Lockett stay healthy and develop into a starting WR? Will Reed or Ifedi make a year two jump into being core starters?), but four years out 2013 is already a wasted draft year, and three years out Britt is the only person who has made a contribution worth talking about for 2014. (for frame of reference: 2.5 core starters per draft is the standard most teams go by, with 2 being a bad year and 3 being a good year).

 

[Jville]

Draft objectives change from year to year.

During those first three years they were taking the team thru a cultural and personnel make over. Lots of starting jobs were opened up and made available to those new comers who wanted those starting roles the most.

With regards to the 2013 draft class, there seems to be a consensuses that it was the worst in 15 years.

Since their first Super Bowl appearance, the objectives have been targeted at specific scheme or transition upgrades. Draft objectives have been driven by a "win forever" goal. Transitioning rather than rebuilding has directed the talent acquisition process.

Unlike the early days, some future core players have stronger incumbents in front of them. We can be a little less anxious about year one performances. However, given that their current cap model makes room for only 8 to 9 highly paid second or third contract core players, the need to draft well remains a primary objective. After all, teams that draft well tend to see their personnel targeted by others.

There are a lot of former ex-Seahawk rookies thru out the league. I expect, once again, to see a large number of Seahawk cuts and practice squad players claimed and signed by other teams again this year. And those exit numbers, are another indication of just how good the college scouting and evaluation program is under John Schneider.

 

[chris98251]

Draft objectives change from year to year.

During those first three years they were taking the team thru a cultural and personnel make over. Lots of starting jobs were opened up and made available to those new comers who wanted those starting roles the most.

With regards to the 2013 draft class, there seems to be a consensuses that it was the worst in 15 years.

Since their first Super Bowl appearance, the objectives have been targeted at specific scheme or transition upgrades. Draft objectives have been driven by a "win forever" goal. Transitioning rather than rebuilding has directed the talent acquisition process.

Unlike the early days, some future core players have stronger incumbents in front of them. We can be a little less anxious about year one performances. However, given that their current cap model makes room for only 8 to 9 highly paid second or third contract core players, the need to draft well remains a primary objective. After all, teams that draft well tend to see their personnel targeted by others.

There are a lot of former ex-Seahawk rookies thru out the league. I expect, once again, to see a large number of Seahawk cuts and practice squad players claimed and signed by other teams again this year. And those exit numbers, are another indication of just how good the college scouting and evaluation program is under John Schneider.

Good post, very hard for rookies to unseat pro bowl and all pros and guys close to that level of play, probably why we have a lot1 year contract FA as well hoping some of these guys step up and help us get cheaper and younger guys while still making it worth while for Vets who want a shot at a Super Bowl to sign.

 

[modernman]

I understand our Draft Objective shifts from year to year.....and while seeming this year was about the Line of Scrimmage...I can't help but think we may have gotten 'our' guys...but also some very missed opportunities....especially for defense/secondray team like the Seahawks....Its rare to see a draft as stacked defensively like we just witnessed, and while we were picking our guys the rest of the league just got a tad bit better across the board too...only time will tell.

I'm not a super fan of JS, I think he's one of the good guys when it comes to wheeling and dealing, but outside of that my opinion is still being concluded.

I do think, Mcgaughlin and Quinn had a lot more to do with our drafting success in terms of scouting and player evaluations......so for the WP to claim JS as the almighty is like saying Tom cable is the best oline coach of the last 20 yrs too.

 

[ringless]

The data in the article linked is fascinating and validates what many of us here have talked about.

2010 - 2012 - PC/JS crushed it adding core guys at great value with a cumulative + 299.8 AV thanks to ET, Tate, and Kam in 2010, KJ, Sherman, and Smith in 2011, Wagner, Wilson, and Sweezy in 2012.

2013/2014 - OOF. 2013 was a complete abortion and 2014 was almost as bad albeit Britt saves it with a + 15.6 AV. The cumulative AV is - 28.8.

2015/2016 - Better but not near 2010-2012. 2015 class was + 6.4 AV and 2016 + 0.4. In fairness, the 2016 scores were impacted by guys like Jefferson, Vannett, and Odhiambo not really playing and with Procise being hurt.

There's no question it's harder to sustain given where you pick, roster needs, etc. but I do think it's positive that the last two drafts are at least in the black.

I think this post sums up all sides. Seattle arguably did have overall the best drafts in history from 2010-2012. They got such extreme value in weighting that it has carried the last 3-4 drafts still. But when you look at the trends you have to start giving the 2010-2012 years less value since players are now aging, departing etc from those drafts. Much like advanced metrics don't weigh week 1 as heavily as they do week 12 late in the season. What you can see is that Seattle's draft have been closer to the 0 baseline which would mean the team is likely heading into the average territory as a team.

I will say this in regards to some of the other picks. Just my perspective as an outsider. Lockett had a tremendous first year, but the production wasn't exactly reproduced. Especially on special teams where I was scared he was going to score anytime someone kicked to him that first year. I see a lot of fans here post all of the time about Richardson and his potential. But his potential has not resulted in actual production and I think he gets a higher grade on this board then he deserves. He's made a few big plays, but he spends more time injured. He's going into his 4th season already, and has career 599 yards, on 51 catches with 2 TD's. Forget potential, results are a C. It's easy to get excited about players like Rawls, but sustaining success is much different than lightning in a bottle like those one hit wonder bands. Prosise is another example. He doesn't deserve a A, B, C, D, of F. He deserves an incomplete as he hasn't had an opportunity yet. 30 touches isn't enough to saw one way or the other of who he may, or may not become. Frank Clark on the other hand may actually end up being the most productive player in the last 3-4 drafts if Lockett's value continues to decline etc.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Agreed, but I think EVERY fan board for EVERY team tends to overvalue young players who have looked good from time-to-time and haven't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they won't ever be worth the draft capital given up for them.

 

[Jimjones0384]

But you will remain on the wagon (with a shocking amount of redundancy) that every move they make is terrible...

not hypocritical at all....

Winner, winner...........

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Look, everyone knows these guys had phenomenal drafts from 2010-2012. But since then, it has been average at best. Yes, they've added some capable guys, but few have come in later rounds. The odds are simply much better at getting top talent in the first two rounds. As stated above, Pete was in an unique position in 2010-2012, no one in the NFL could match his breadth or depth of college player assesssment back then.

I've been critical with parts of our last couple of drafts, but isn't it unrealistic to think John and Pete should draft like 2010-2012 each and every year?

They gutted the team when they got here, so the biggest reason they're not continuing to draft 4-5 pro bowl caliber players every year is because there's literally only 5-6 open starting positions/rotating spots even there for a player to come in here and make that kind of impact and production.

We're also now continually drafting at the end of every first round, if there at all if we haven't traded away picks to try and get better through FA. Kinda impossible to draft the next Earl Thomas, Russell Okung or Bruce Irvin when those home run can't miss players are long gone by the time it's our turn to pick.

What I'm looking for realistically with drafts now is;

- quality depth
- are we drafting OUR TYPE of guys (tough, fast, physical, love the game of football)
- 2-3 starters to fill holes, and hopefully 1-2 of those turns into a very productive 4-5 starter

 

[Popeyejones]

I've been critical with parts of our last couple of drafts, but isn't it unrealistic to think John and Pete should draft like 2010-2012 each and every year?

They gutted the team when they got here, so the biggest reason they're not continuing to draft 4-5 pro bowl caliber players every year is because there's literally only 5-6 open starting positions/rotating spots even there for a player to come in here and make that kind of impact and production.

We're also now continually drafting at the end of every first round, if there at all if we haven't traded away picks to try and get better through FA. Kinda impossible to draft the next Earl Thomas, Russell Okung or Bruce Irvin when those home run can't miss players are long gone by the time it's our turn to pick.

What I'm looking for realistically with drafts now is;

- quality depth
- are we drafting OUR TYPE of guys (tough, fast, physical, love the game of football)
- 2-3 starters to fill holes, and hopefully 1-2 of those turns into a very productive 4-5 starter

Almost entirely agreed with all of this. Most importantly I think you're spot on and it's crazy to expect them to draft as well as they did in 2010-2012 over time because that's impossible. Most teams get between 2 and 3 starting level players per draft, and from 2010-2012 the Hawks got two PRO-BOWLERS per draft in addition to a bunch of other starting level players. :lol: It's just unheard of.

To be fair, I also think it's pretty impossible to over time draft as poorly as they did in 2013-2014. So far from both of those years they got one average to above average starter (Britt).

As we should predict with wild swings like this, for 2015-2016 they seem to have regressed to the mean a bit, having what so far looks to be in the range of average drafts.

I think the only thing we disagree about it is that the Seahawks' 2013-2016 draft classes haven't performed because there hasn't been room in the starting lineup for them to do so contribute. That's what 9ers fans used to say about Baalke's awful drafts back when the team used to be good. I didn't think it was true for the 9ers, and I think it's even less true for the Hawks because of the way they are built.

Unlike most good teams, the Hawks are incredibly uneven throughout their lineup. By my count they've basically got 10 pro-bowl caliber starters (Wilson; Baldwin; Graham; Bennett; Avril; Wright; Wagner; Sherman; Thomas; Chancellor), one guy who is an average to above average (Britt), and then fully 50% of their starters (or just over 50% if you want to count NCB as a starting position) who are either below average or young players they're hoping to soon see more from. You essentially have 50% of your starting players who get to play surrounded by pro-bowlers and so far seem to be average NFL starters at best.

TL;DR: Basically, unlike most good teams there's bizarrely a ton of room on the Hawks for draft picks to come in and be average to above average starters, but as a group across nearly 40 draft selection with the exception of Britt (and Clark, see below) the Hawks draft picks from 2013-2016 haven't been able to do that. On top of that, almost all of these guys guys aren't even great depth guys. Really the only strong player who I can point to who has been stuck behind someone is Frank Clark (who would be more than the pretty exceptional role player that he has been so far if it weren't for Avril, IMO).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

TL;DR: Basically, unlike most good teams there's bizarrely a ton of room on the Hawks for draft picks to come in and be average to above average starters, but as a group across nearly 40 draft selection with the exception of Britt (and Clark, see below) the Hawks draft picks from 2013-2016 haven't been able to do that. On top of that, almost all of these guys guys aren't even great depth guys. Really the only strong player who I can point to who has been stuck behind someone is Frank Clark (who would be more than the pretty exceptional role player that he has been so far if it weren't for Avril, IMO).

Lockett deserves to be in there.............and I will agree with you, but only after this year because I truly think guys like Vannett, Reed and Jefferson are going to contribute greatly in 2017.

 

[Popeyejones]

Lockett deserves to be in there.............and I will agree with you, but only after this year because I truly think guys like Vannett, Reed and Jefferson are going to contribute greatly in 2017.

Yeah, from what he has shown so far (read: the book definitely isn't written on him yet) I think we can absolutely count Lockett as an average WR3 (and a very good kick returner), but kinda like Nickle CB that's an evolving position that's not really a starter and not really a not-a-starter these days.

I should included it and Lockett in parenthetical the same way I did for NCB in that post.

And 100% agreed that passing evaluation on the other guys you listed (I'd throw Ifedi in there too) is WAY TOO EARLY. All of those guys have plenty of developmental time left.

 

[chris98251]

Lockett and many of the receivers were down a bit due to Wilson being hurt and the Line, safety valve catches were probably up more, Lockett doesn't work the middle and the flat, he's been deep threat seam guy somewhat and those routes take time. If Wilson is healthy and Lockett comes back with a better line I think his Receiving numbers will bounce back as will some of the other guys.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Just going off stats (and people can complain about that obviously), but using 2016 numbers and assuming WR1 == 1-32, WR2 == 33-64 and WR3 == 65-96 here's what we get:

Lockett's 2015 puts him at #67 for yards (Top WR3), #83 for receptions (Mid WR3), and #35 for TDs (Top WR2). That puts him pretty solidly as a bottom WR #2/ top WR #3 IMO.

His 2016 puts him at #75 for yards (Mid WR3), tied for #106 with five players for receptions (Mid WR4), and tied for #174 with a ton of other guys for TDs with 1 (Mid WR5). That puts him pretty solidly as a bottom WR3/High WR4 IMO.

I hadn't looked at any stats when making my post above, but using them as a way to try to be objective it looks like "average WR3" across two years is about right for him so far.

As for more subjective stuff, agreed that Wilson being injured last year didn't help him , but the one area he has shined most as a receiver (2015 TDs) also coincides with that crazy historic tear that Wilson went on in 2015, in which in five games Lockett caught 5 of his 6 total TDs for the year, and Doug Baldwin caught 10 of his 14 TDs for the year. (in those five games Wilson through 19 TDs, 0 picks, and was completing something like 75% of his passes -- just absurd. :lol: ).

Basic point is that if we want to discount Wilson playing injured through some of last year when talking Lockett's 2016 production (on the basis that it's not gonna happen again), we also have to discount a run in which Wilson was heads and shoulders better than the best QB in the history of the NFL on Lockett's 2015 production (on the basis that that's probably not going to happen again either).

I think it's obviously still arrow up for him and he's got PLENTY of time to further refine and develop, but given the package of picks the Hawks gave up for him, so far, as a WR at least, he's gotta be a bit of disappointment. That ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean it has to stay that way though.

 

[chris98251]

^^^ Just going off stats (and people can complain about that obviously), but using 2016 numbers and assuming WR1 == 1-32, WR2 == 33-64 and WR3 == 65-96 here's what we get:

Lockett's 2015 puts him at #67 for yards (Top WR3), #83 for receptions (Mid WR3), and #35 for TDs (Top WR2). That puts him pretty solidly as a bottom WR #2/ top WR #3 IMO.

His 2016 puts him at #75 for yards (Mid WR3), tied for #106 with five players for receptions (Mid WR4), and tied for #174 with a ton of other guys for TDs with 1 (Mid WR5). That puts him pretty solidly as a bottom WR3/High WR4 IMO.

I hadn't looked at any stats when making my post above, but using them as a way to try to be objective it looks like "average WR3" across two years is about right for him so far.

As for more subjective stuff, agreed that Wilson being injured last year didn't help him , but the one area he has shined most as a receiver (2015 TDs) also coincides with that crazy historic tear that Wilson went on in 2015, in which in five games Lockett caught 5 of his 6 total TDs for the year, and Doug Baldwin caught 10 of his 14 TDs for the year. (in those five games Wilson through 19 TDs, 0 picks, and was completing something like 75% of his passes -- just absurd. :lol: ).

Basic point is that if we want to discount Wilson playing injured through some of last year when talking Lockett's 2016 production (on the basis that it's not gonna happen again), we also have to discount a run in which Wilson was heads and shoulders better than the best QB in the history of the NFL on Lockett's 2015 production (on the basis that that's probably not going to happen again either).

I think it's obviously still arrow up for him and he's got PLENTY of time to further refine and develop, but given the package of picks the Hawks gave up for him, so far, as a WR at least, he's gotta be a bit of disappointment. That ABSOLUTELY doesn't mean it has to stay that way though.

Ahh the 49er's must have hope again, they are now back discounting players here and thinking they will be failures.

Good to know

 

[Jville]

Cherry picking stats. Knowing full well such highly restricted stats produce nothing approaching an objective ranking. Wearing blinders once again.

Subjectively, Tyler Lockett has been an influential and decisive difference maker. He has been a key upgrade since the first day he stepped on the field in a Seahawk uniform. He is someone opponents best include in their game day plans.

Tyler is an example of the kind of impact pick the "best drafting GM in the past 20 years" likes to find and deliver.