This draft is bad....

[ImTheScientist]

After watching the combine, this draft is bad. I almost wonder if the equipment they are using is working correctly.

 

[McGruff]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

 

[pehawk]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

Agreed and good analogy. You should only judge women by ethnicity and/or religious preference.

I like the WR and RB class also.

 

[Scottemojo]

I have a hard time with the rating of entire draft classes. It seems really that pundits who spout this stuff are usually referring to the quality of the first round and the quarterback class. Defining a draft class by the number of stars seems silly. Especially since we have gotten a GM who makes his hay drafting no name guys.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

Talent is talent. There is a reason the Seahawks look to SPARQ. You can't teach it, its the reason we are on a message board and not in the NFL.Either you have big tits or you don't to use your analogy. If you like big tits then bra size is important to you. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Compare the results of this years combine to last years. Athletically this years class is horrible compared to last years.

 

[hawknation2014]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

Talent is talent. There is a reason the Seahawks look to SPARQ. You can't teach it, its the reason we are on a message board and not in the NFL.Either you have big tits or you don't to use your analogy. If you like big tits then bra size is important to you. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Compare the results of this years combine to last years. Athletically this years class is horrible compared to last years.

The SPARQ numbers for this year's class of WRs is way better than last year's. Yet I would not argue that this year's WRs are better overall players than last year's epic class.

I would definitely say the same thing about RB but in reverse. Last year's RBs had way better SPARQ numbers than this year's, but I would never argue that this year's RBs are not light years better than last year's.

This year's OL class is also way superior to last year's, although the SPARQ numbers look similar.

This is true of several position groups. SPARQ numbers never tell the whole story.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

Talent is talent. There is a reason the Seahawks look to SPARQ. You can't teach it, its the reason we are on a message board and not in the NFL.Either you have big tits or you don't to use your analogy. If you like big tits then bra size is important to you. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Compare the results of this years combine to last years. Athletically this years class is horrible compared to last years.

The SPARQ numbers for this year's class of WRs is way better than last year's. Yet I would not argue that this year's WRs are better overall players than last year's epic class.

I would definitely say the same thing about RB but in reserve. Last year's RBs had way better SPARQ numbers than this year's, but I would never argue that this year's RBs are not light years better than last year's.

This year's OL class is also way superior to last year's, although the SPARQ numbers look similar.

This is true of several position groups. SPARQ numbers never tell the whole story.

Link to this SPARQ overall you are referencing? I would take last years draft class over this years any day of the week. Guess we are going to have to disagree.

 

[hawknation2014]

Judging a draft off of the combine is like judging a pretty girl off her bra size. Not a smart idea.

I think this draft is outstanding at WR. I love the RB's . . . combine be damned. I think there is good talent in the first two rounds at OL and DL. The DB's and TE's are a bit of a mess, and I haven't looked at LB yet enough to know.

Talent is talent. There is a reason the Seahawks look to SPARQ. You can't teach it, its the reason we are on a message board and not in the NFL.Either you have big tits or you don't to use your analogy. If you like big tits then bra size is important to you. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Compare the results of this years combine to last years. Athletically this years class is horrible compared to last years.

The SPARQ numbers for this year's class of WRs is way better than last year's. Yet I would not argue that this year's WRs are better overall players than last year's epic class.

I would definitely say the same thing about RB but in reserve. Last year's RBs had way better SPARQ numbers than this year's, but I would never argue that this year's RBs are not light years better than last year's.

This year's OL class is also way superior to last year's, although the SPARQ numbers look similar.

This is true of several position groups. SPARQ numbers never tell the whole story.

Link to this SPARQ overall you are referencing? I would take last years draft class over this years any day of the week. Guess we are going to have to disagree.

Calculate it yourself here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1448880936

 

[ImTheScientist]

Calculate it yourself here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1448880936

Done.....my numbers say that last years SPARQ was better.

 

[hawknation2014]

Calculate it yourself here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 1448880936

Done.....my numbers say that last years SPARQ was better.

At which position groups? The DBs haven't even finished yet.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Depends what position you are looking for. RB is very deep. WR is pretty good rounds 1-3 .. TE is decent .. lot of good defensive players.

But yeah, the 2014 draft was pretty deep across the board for the most part..

Thank god we have Wilson cause the QB classes of the last two years... yikes.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

The draft is really poor at LB this year in terms of measurables/testing.

Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at how many good day 2 prospects fared horribly this season. Melvin Gordon and Jordan Phillips really kind of shat themselves on the national stage. These guys were expected to really shine here.

Shaq Thompson and Paul Dawson were two really solid R2 prospects who did terrible.

In all, it really seems like this draft is very light on raw/great athlete types to mold in the later rounds. Don't really see many KPL kinds of prospects late. The old adage that you don't downgrade for poor combines from what you see on tape looks to be tested sorely this class.

The WR class, I like very very much. I actually like it better than last year if we're talking about the top 12 at the position. I think last year's top 3 were better than the top three this year. But the next 6-7 in this years' class I like better than last years.

This year you have better size/speed combinations in the 20th to 75th overall selection range. Really for Seattle, this draft is very good at what we need, where we are picking. Whether it's WR or OL. I can even see us taking a luxury selection at 31 and still coming away with solid day 1 contributors in R2/R3.

 

[Uncle Si]

. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Thanks for my new signature. Credit given

 

[ImTheScientist]

. The Seahawks organization likes big tits.

Thanks for my new signature. Credit given

:thirishdrinkers:

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I was just looking over the draft last year and it seems like there was a major drop off somewhere in the mid 4th round. A few gems after that, but not much. I think this 2015 draft looks to have more "football players" rather than athletes, if what is being said in this thread is accurate. I still think we'll be able to look back in a couple of years to compare the 2014 vs. 2015 drafts and see many more players making an impact in the league for their teams. Take a look at the 2014 draft and, overall, it's not that impressive. Maybe I gotta give it a bit more time. Probably. But, thus far, only a few teams really nailed their 2014 draft.

I'm intrigued enough with SPARQ and all, but that's not the first nor final way I assess players. I don't see the category for "heart" - that can look inside and see the kind of player you're going to get. You all that point to SPARQ have shown that the Seahawks utilize this in terms of who they tend to target in the draft. Not always, but there's always a couple of guys that seem to be drafted higher than their projected value and the SPARQ score tends to justify the selection.

I am much more comfortable with those who have production in college (but, avoid guys who have red flags like a Ryan Leaf or Maurice Clarett.) I've watched football for 40 years and have watched football prior to that in all the available highlights of players and teams before my time. At the end of the day, methods to try to make the most informed decisions are just that... methods. But, it's still just as much an art as it is a science. But, chemistry seems to be a more important factor and method than math at determining which players are going to fit in with specific teams.

 

[CPHawk]

This is a deeper draft overall, just lacks the star power up top. Oh and if you're a team who needs a TE, you're screwed.

 

[McGruff]

Sparq is a big part of the Hawks equation, but John admitted last year that they are putting a bigger emphasis on "heart" or field intensity or whatever you want to call it. Its the difference between Kris Durham and Paul Richardson. Durham was more Sparqy, and Richardson is one of the lowest Sparq players on our receiving corps . . . but he's the highest picked because they valued his competitivness on the field.