On the OT topic

[purpleneer]

If Okung is brought back for the short-term, what's the range of feelings about the rest of the plan? I think the third tackle is still a noticeable priority, but how early is too early if we hope he waits at least a year? That has me thinking it makes sense to aim at 2 of the later guys, maybe from the group of Cooper, Lewis, Nembot, Robertson or whoever who may need time, but should absolutely have the tools to stay at tackle if the development is there. Shell might have a chance, but seemed a little less sure of being able to stay there.
Who are your favorites? I've barely started watching film on OL guys yet, so even the names I mentioned are just ones who have been talked about like the length and feet aren't an issue (other than Shell).

 

[pcbball12]

I think it is still a top priority for a number of reasons. It wouldn't change my plan to draft a guy like Conklin or Coleman early if they liked em one bit.

1. Okung is still injury prone and bound to miss at least a few games.

2. While I like Gilliam, I still think he has a lot to prove and could use some legitimate competition.

3. If Okung does resign, I imagine it is a very short term deal for cheaper than he wanted and wound maximize his next deal in a year or two and would be gone then. So, having a guy already in the wings to either replace him at LT or put at RT and slide Gilliam over is a great idea.

I believe both Conklin and Coleman could also come in and play LG and be dominant run blockers. Meaning they would help short term at LG and be a long term replacement at either tackle spot.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

High priority.

1. Depth/Durability

Okung shouldn't be counted on to play the entire year. We're woefully short on OTs. What if Gilliam gets hurt early? We probably need 2 (resigning Bailey could be one). Britt can cover at RT if required.

2. Prospect availability

Seattle has been looking for OTs since 2013. Yet we've been unable to get our guy consistently. It's a position that is heavily overdrafted every single year. Players we wanted or were heavily linked to were taken before we had a chance. Unless you plan on not making the playoffs, getting good prospects is difficult. Seattle has drafted projects for OT almost every year (2015 - Poole, 2014 - Scott and Britt, 2013 - Bowie and Bailey). In fact the only year we've not drafted an OT was 2012. After having spent 1st round picks the previous two years on the position.

This year, there should be good players at this long term, highly coveted position available. It could be years before we have this opportunity again. Need and availability are combining neatly in this draft.

Resigning Okung at worst provides a very good bridge player while a long term OT solution develops. We're not going to find another OT that is that imminently familiar with our scheme. And if you get a quality first round type OT -- should Okung go down that player should be in a decent position to plug in and play for extended stretches as the season moves along.

 

[purpleneer]

Yeah, I feel it's still a priority as Okung makes the 3rd tackle more important than usual, and I really don't want more than a 1-year commitment to him. Maybe I'm still a little paranoid from when Rob made me fall in love with Coleman and convinced us that he would move too far up the board, but I'm kinda asking for the case where the options available at 26 would make it feel a bit forced, like the Britt pick. I'd also nitpick a little about all those other "project tackle" picks as they were for the most part late enough where everyone's a project, and/or their physical profile was a questionable fit at tackle. And the one who fit it the best was derailed by a heart condition, not a common issue.
It's also really not all that rare for very good tackles to come after the 1st (and way too common for guys in the 1st to bust or require a move to guard); it feels like 2nd and 3rd rounders in particular have a decent track record (my limited memory could be a poor representative). And one of the biggest factors, at least for the perceptions, is that some guys get to start off as a backup and then have a year in the league before becoming a starter.
I don't disagree with you guys. I was trying to get more into what the backup plans are and who the favorite later-round guys might be. Partly because even with one of those 2 in the first, I want to double down and make sure there's a developmental guy whose physical fit at tackle isn't in question.

 

[firebee]

I'm inclined to trade out into the 2nd for extra picks on the 2nd and 3rd day. Trade down to 35-40 range. Maybe Coleman, Conklin or Spriggs slide to us there. If not, we still have a couple options at Center with Ryan Kelly or Nick Martin, or we could go DT. I just don't see us getting great value for ourselves at #26 in this draft. No standouts, but a lot of starter quality.

Save the money with Okung and sign Bradley Sowell for a fraction of the cost. I'm plenty confident in having Sowell at LT if all else fails. He might even turn out to be a really good one.

 

[TheWebHead]

Spriggs may have combine'd himself out of reach for the Hawks... Athleticism abounds with him.

 

[McGruff]

Spriggs may have combine'd himself out of reach for the Hawks... Athleticism abounds with him.

That was expected, though. Not sure it makes that big of a difference. All you had to do was watch the tape and you could see it.

 

[Overseasfan]

On the plus side, if Spriggs moves up that means that one of Conklin, Decker and Coleman move down and into our reach.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

On the plus side, if Spriggs moves up that means that one of Conklin, Decker and Coleman move down and into our reach.

Still kind of expect 2 of the four (Conklin, Spriggs, Decker and Coleman) should be on the board by #26.