What is the Seahawks draft success rate lately?

[TwistedHusky]

There is a theory that Scott McCloughan was a driver being the great successful drafts we had in the early part of the decade that netted us guys like Kam, Earl Thomas, etc.

Considering that, what is the draft success rate in the past 5 years?

Obviously we do not get to count all the picks we never made (the 1st rounders that because guys like Graham and Harvin) but is there a way to contrast the success rate of our existing picks against the league average?

It feels like we have been spotty on the success rate lately, but since feelings are not facts I was hoping there was a resource out there to check this.

Since the draft is coming, it would be nice to know what kind of chances we have to actually see plug and play type guys come in and make a difference next year.

It would also be interesting to contrast success rates against position, because clearly we seem to draft guys in the secondary much better than guys in the OL. It does not seem to be because of draft position either, because we have put early round draft capital into places like the OL without much impact while later round guys in the secondary seem to do better.

(That might, however, be an issue with how we develop and use draft picks from certain positions as well)

Is there a reference site or collection of resources for something like this or is this one of those things that we would have to go digging into the numbers to find?

 

[original poster]

There isn't really any 'stat measurement' that I'm aware of (and I really pay attention to this sort of stuff).

You can find a whole lot of opinions, though. But they're obviously just that, opinions not facts based on statistical analysis.

 

[original poster]

Interestingly John Schneider just said himself he hasn't made the best decisions in recent drafts.

 

[kobebryant]

It feels like it has regressed to league average the past few years after having an unsustainable rate of success early.

Guys like Britt, Richardson, Lockett, Reed, Clark, possibly Jefferson now, and the rooks Pocic, Naz, Shaq and Carson all are, or look like, quality players. That's 10 guys as of the 2014 draft (you may want to add to or remove from the aforementioned guys), so slightly more than 2 per draft. That feels about 'league average' looking around the league.

2012 Seahawks or 2017 Saints rookie classes are anomalies that are hard to duplicate.

The roster has become undoubtedly harder to make, which gives rookies a shorter window of opportunity to solidify their spots, and with entrenched starters in a lot of positions the idea of true competition for jobs may not have been what it was early on like when you had KJ bump Curry.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Our roster is not harder to make.

That is a ridiculous excuse given the numerous holes throughout it.

Unless the kid drafted plays MLB or maybe WR, we can probably use him.

We desperately need a SAM, or the hybrid LEO we had with Irvin, we need depth at safety & corner, we need both OL Guards and Tackles, we need pass rush DE and DT, we need a RB, a FB and apparently TE. We might need a backup QB. We might even need a Kicker.

The idea this team is deep so guys drafted cannot make the team is a canard.

And it should be pointed out that we 'needed' these things for several years now.

 

[DomeHawk]

Our roster is not harder to make.

That is a ridiculous excuse given the numerous holes throughout it.

Unless the kid drafted plays MLB or maybe WR, we can probably use him.

We desperately need a SAM, or the hybrid LEO we had with Irvin, we need depth at safety & corner, we need both OL Guards and Tackles, we need pass rush DE and DT, we need a RB, a FB and apparently TE. We might need a backup QB. We might even need a Kicker.

The idea this team is deep so guys drafted cannot make the team is a canard.

And it should be pointed out that we 'needed' these things for several years now.

I think there may be something in what you say but I also can see the previous poster's point also, and have in fact heard NFL insiders echo the same on the radio lately. Like most things, it's a combination of things. Suffice it to say, it's not an exact science.

 

[chris98251]

Our roster is not harder to make.

That is a ridiculous excuse given the numerous holes throughout it.

Unless the kid drafted plays MLB or maybe WR, we can probably use him.

We desperately need a SAM, or the hybrid LEO we had with Irvin, we need depth at safety & corner, we need both OL Guards and Tackles, we need pass rush DE and DT, we need a RB, a FB and apparently TE. We might need a backup QB. We might even need a Kicker.

The idea this team is deep so guys drafted cannot make the team is a canard.

And it should be pointed out that we 'needed' these things for several years now.

The problem is we have brought the players in but whether it's coaches or lack of preparation or scheming the guys can't break thru, now that could be the comfort zone the coaches have with what players they have in place and not opening the door to replace a shutdown corner with a guy that could be another shutdown corner if given some more reps and given up some plays as he learns.

Just an example but to illustrate my thoughts.

The O line well I really think it was lack of stability, the musical chairs they were doing can't help growth. Misuse of players and bad route trees is another as well as more motion and isolation sets ups to break guys free and make the defense have more to think about.

 

[JGreen79]

I pulled some draft data from https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ since the 2013 draft. I collected numbers for All Pro Selections, Pro Bowls, Years as primary starter, Games played, and Games Started.

Seattle has 1 All Pro Selection, 6-way Tie for 10th (LA Rams have the most with 5).
Seattle has 1 Pro Bowl Selection, 5-way tie for 25th (Dallas has the most with 11).
Seattle has 16 Years as a primary starter, ranked 32nd. (Jacksonville has the most with 45)
Seattle has 872 games played, ranked 28th. (Green Bay has the most with 1329)
Seattle has 335 games started, ranked 32nd. (Jacksonville has the most with 692)

To me this shows the team is really struggling to find talent in the draft. If you take the data back just one more year(2012) you get the following.

Seattle has 4 All Pro Selections, 3-way Tie for 4th (LA Rams have the most with 6).
Seattle has 9 Pro Bowl Selections, 2-way tie for 7th (Minnesota has the most with 13).
Seattle has 40 Years as a primary starter, ranked 3-way tie for 16th. (LA Rams have the most with 498)
Seattle has 1514 games played, ranked 10th. (Minnesota has the most with 1790)
Seattle has 726 games started, ranked 12th. (LA Rams have the most with 920)

Seattle has been living off of the draft success of 2011-2012. This draft is critical for the future of the franchise IMO.

 

[brimsalabim]

Pete and John’s program is not sustainable and makes the drafts appear even worse than they are. They pick players who need time to learn and develop in order to reach potential. Unfortunately by the time any good players begin to click their contracts up and they are off to better other teams. We are left with the guys who haven’t put it together yet and a few who never will.

 

[naholmes]

...

Seattle has been living off of the draft success of 2011-2012. This draft is critical for the future of the franchise IMO.

Great post! Others have made the same statement but good to finally see the metrics that prove it.

 

[A-Dog]

I have a problem with how the Seahawks draft.

Instead of targeting the player they really like, and moving in the draft to a spot where value matches need, they seem to say to themselves "Well, there are 7 guys rated high enough to take ten spots down, so let's move down, pick up some additional picks, and most likely one of those seven guys will still be there, and we get great value."

Sometimes trading up for the guy you really like, who really fits your scheme, and really fills a need, is worth it. In the past we traded UP to get guys like Cortez Kennedy and Walter Jones.

One of these days I'm going to make a list of all the guys we traded up for vs. all the guys we picked after trading down. I guarantee you the trade up list will be dramatically better than the trade down list.

 

[naholmes]

Trade up guys: Jarran Reed, Quentin Jefferson, Tyler Lockett, Jesse Williams

 

[hawknation2018]

The Washington Post did a nice analysis of this last year using Approximate Value. I hope they do an update this year.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics ... d1c0ff1072

The Seahawks 2010, 2011, and 2012 drafts were all excellent. The 2012 draft was the best since 1996, according to AV.

The 2013 and 2014 drafts were obviously bad; only Justin Britt remains from those years. However, the 2015 and 2016 drafts were slightly above average.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

I've heard that theory of Scot McCloughan (2010-2013) being the genius behind all the picks, and for the most part, it is a very reasonable assumption to believe he is the man behind those draft picks success. Once, McCloughan left, drafts after haven't produced.

McCloughan had also built the Niners during his time with them cause it damn sure was not Trent Baalke.

Schneider has been overrated by many Seahawks fans. Name a trade where the Seahawks benefited more than the other team? Schneider has been very quick to give the other team high rounds and the Seahawks don't get fair value on return.

Harvin? Gave away the first round pick.
Graham? First round.
Sheldon? Second round.
McDowell? Don't get me started.

Earl Thomas is definitely not gonna get traded for reports for a first and third rounder.

Please, Schneider isn't about receiving high rounds, he's about giving them away.

The last great pick I would give Schneider is Frank Clark.

 

[original poster]

I have a problem with how the Seahawks draft.

Instead of targeting the player they really like, and moving in the draft to a spot where value matches need, they seem to say to themselves "Well, there are 7 guys rated high enough to take ten spots down, so let's move down, pick up some additional picks, and most likely one of those seven guys will still be there, and we get great value."

Sometimes trading up for the guy you really like, who really fits your scheme, and really fills a need, is worth it. In the past we traded UP to get guys like Cortez Kennedy and Walter Jones.

One of these days I'm going to make a list of all the guys we traded up for vs. all the guys we picked after trading down. I guarantee you the trade up list will be dramatically better than the trade down list.

It's been proven that once you average it out, as a whole, no GM has any more or any less success than the next when it comes to drafting. Sure you have guys that go on good runs, but as I said, once averaged out, all teams have roughly the same success give or take.

It's also a proven fact that having more draft picks increases your chance of success.

They should absolutely continue to trade down to accumulate picks.

More picks = better chance of success.

 

[A-Dog]

I have a problem with how the Seahawks draft.

Instead of targeting the player they really like, and moving in the draft to a spot where value matches need, they seem to say to themselves "Well, there are 7 guys rated high enough to take ten spots down, so let's move down, pick up some additional picks, and most likely one of those seven guys will still be there, and we get great value."

Sometimes trading up for the guy you really like, who really fits your scheme, and really fills a need, is worth it. In the past we traded UP to get guys like Cortez Kennedy and Walter Jones.

One of these days I'm going to make a list of all the guys we traded up for vs. all the guys we picked after trading down. I guarantee you the trade up list will be dramatically better than the trade down list.

It's been proven that once you average it out, as a whole, no GM has any more or any less success than the next when it comes to drafting. Sure you have guys that go on good runs, but as I said, once averaged out, all teams have roughly the same success give or take.

It's also a proven fact that having more draft picks increases your chance of success.

They should absolutely continue to trade down to accumulate picks.

More picks = better chance of success.

Proven facts? Links?

Of course all things being equal more picks = better chance of success

But fewer high picks vs more low picks is the debate. Quality vs. Quantity.

And my point is not just about keeping higher picks - it's about targeting SPECIFIC PLAYERS and going to them, rather than targeting a range and taking whoever (hopefully) falls to you.