Agree with Sando on this. I believe if there was any disappointment from the Hawks that Easley got taken by the Pats, it wasn't because they had eyes for him with their first pick, but rather that they were hoping he'd make it to #64, which for a long time seemed very plausible.GoHawks":3fh1kw46 said:Mike Sando, ESPN.com @SandoESPN 7m
Don't think #Seahawks were going to take the DT at 32. They were eager to move back. Said so repeatedly before draft.
NorthDallas40oz":2g3g3wbv said:Agree with Sando on this. I believe if there was any disappointment from the Hawks that Easley got taken by the Pats, it wasn't because they had eyes for him with their first pick, but rather that they were hoping he'd make it to #64, which for a long time seemed very plausible.GoHawks":2g3g3wbv said:Mike Sando, ESPN.com @SandoESPN 7m
Don't think #Seahawks were going to take the DT at 32. They were eager to move back. Said so repeatedly before draft.
I highly doubt that. If they truly thought they could get Richardson at 64 they never would have taken him at 45. And JS has said repeatedly that they were very nervously sweating out the picks leading up to 45 in hopes that Richardson wouldn't get taken, and that they nearly had a heart attack when Philly traded up to 44 (and indeed took a WR, fortunately it wasn't Richardson).Timmahawk":1o49qyoe said:NorthDallas40oz":1o49qyoe said:Agree with Sando on this. I believe if there was any disappointment from the Hawks that Easley got taken by the Pats, it wasn't because they had eyes for him with their first pick, but rather that they were hoping he'd make it to #64, which for a long time seemed very plausible.GoHawks":1o49qyoe said:Mike Sando, ESPN.com @SandoESPN 7m
Don't think #Seahawks were going to take the DT at 32. They were eager to move back. Said so repeatedly before draft.
Or they wanted him at 40 or 45 and Richardson at 64.
Yep, and that Richardson was their #1 target, and that they felt confident that they could move down and still get him, though they would have been prepared to take him at 32 if a fair trade-down scenario didn't come about. Easley would have been no better than an option at 64 (or perhaps even lower if they'd traded down from that slot too). I think the Pats really reached on Easley at 29, but that's neither here nor there.HansGruber":79etxvaz said:You could also use JS's interview on the second day of the draft as evidence of it being untrue. Since he came right out and said they weren't targeting Easley or any other specific player. All he ever said, before and after the first day of the draft, was that the Seahawks wanted to trade down for more picks.
jlwaters1":3ufa4p99 said:Danny O'Neill on the Brock and Danny stated yesterday that he "knew for a fact that the reaction on the team cam before their 1st pick had nothing to do with Easley going off the board." He didn't go into anymore detail, but was quite adamant that about that and that the card in New York that was filled out in case they needed to use it was for PAUL RICHARDSON, JS confirmed that. So I'm with Sando on that, I don't believe that was true.
bbsplitter":34tjizjb said:I think one scenario that might be possible is they had a conditional trade set up with another team who was willing to trade up for pick #32, who really wanted Easley. And it was a really good deal for the seahawks, but once he was picked the trade fell through, and they had to go with the Vikings deal.
bbsplitter":3otpbzhv said:I think one scenario that might be possible is they had a conditional trade set up with another team who was willing to trade up for pick #32, who really wanted Easley. And it was a really good deal for the seahawks, but once he was picked the trade fell through, and they had to go with the Vikings deal.
hawknation2014":344ibjs0 said:John Schneider was interviewed today on 710 ESPN, and he said Paul Richardson was the No. 1 player on their board at 32, but they thought they could move down to add more picks while still keeping Richardson. They held their collective breaths hoping no one would take Richardson in the meantime.
theENGLISHseahawk":26hdlxg6 said:I don't really get why this is had so much attention.
Some national guys (Rapoport, La Canfora) reported Seattle liked Easley. Now he's a Pat. It's nearly a week ago.
Who cares whether they liked him or not?
My guess is they probably did (although they will have liked a lot of players) but knew all along he wouldn't get past the Pats. If they knew who they were getting in round four (and by Carroll's clues, they pretty much knew who they were getting in each round) -- they almost certainly knew Easley wasn't going to make it to #32 anyway, so never get it that much thought.
Timmahawk":32fqu0ey said:jlwaters1":32fqu0ey said:Danny O'Neill on the Brock and Danny stated yesterday that he "knew for a fact that the reaction on the team cam before their 1st pick had nothing to do with Easley going off the board." He didn't go into anymore detail, but was quite adamant that about that and that the card in New York that was filled out in case they needed to use it was for PAUL RICHARDSON, JS confirmed that. So I'm with Sando on that, I don't believe that was true.
Also - wouldn't they have already known who was picked before Goodell made the announcement? As soon as a pick is in, every team is notified, not when the pick is made on TV.
At this point in the draft, I'm pretty sure there was a big delay between the time the pick was in and when the announcement was made.