Who does Seattle pick at #5? (Poll)

[massari]

If Anderson or Carter aren't there at 5, I think we trade down a couple spots and draft Wilson, Bresee or Murphy.

Would be surprising if they traded down with Stroud and Young still on the board too. It's not every year they're in a spot to draft quality QB prospects.

With only one quarterback selected in eight years, Schneider doesn’t feel he’s done a good enough job of bringing quarterbacks to Seattle.

“I don’t feel like we have — and me, personally — have done a good enough job of continuing to acquire quarterbacks all the way through,” Schneider said

And ever since the Packers had to scramble in search of reason why Aaron Rodgers was dropping in the 2005 NFL Draft, Schneider has vowed to make sure he knew everything he could about the quarterbacks in the draft. Even if his team already had a starter set in stone.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Haven't been this stoked for a draft in a long time. So many options and possibilities for this front office.

 

[Jerhawk]

Would be surprising if they traded down with Stroud and Young still on the board too. It's not every year they're in a spot to draft quality QB prospects.

I completely agree, but what if going into the draft they already gave Geno and Lock signed? I would much rather have Stroud or Young over Geno as starter, but if he's under contract that would be a tough call

 

[Vesuve]

I voted Will Levis

But am throwing darts....

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Would be surprising if they traded down with Stroud and Young still on the board too. It's not every year they're in a spot to draft quality QB prospects.

Teams will be trading into the Bears and Cardinals spots ahead of us if there's even a whiff of the Colts and Texans not taking Young and Stroud.

But if a miracle happens and either is available at 5? Even then I'm not sure John pulls the trigger on using that pick on the QB. Not when he can get a king's ransom for trading it with another team who wants a QB.

QB's carry the most leverage in drafts for trading down. Because everyone wants them.

 

[WarHawks]

Teams will be trading into the Bears and Cardinals spots ahead of us if there's even a whiff of the Colts and Texans not taking Young and Stroud.

But if a miracle happens and either is available at 5? Even then I'm not sure John pulls the trigger on using that pick on the QB. Not when he can get a king's ransom for trading it with another team who wants a QB.

QB's carry the most leverage in drafts for trading down. Because everyone wants them.

I'm curious about this. So if this happens, and say we get a '24 1st. Ok, great. And when we get bounced in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs again, that means we're picking in the middle to bottom of the 1st again. What then? Will two 1st's and some others get us the top pick in the draft? If not, then why bother? Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.

 

[JPatera76]

The one reason I dislike trading out of the 1st (thankfully we have a 2nd 1st pick as well)... is when you wait all that time for it to come to your team and you hear it come in that they've traded Lol kind becomes a bummer because you've waited like all evening and your left thinking... I waited most the day for them to trade out??!?! lol

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If there's a beast DE available at 5, would much rather they swoop him up. MASSIVE need for this team.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm curious about this. So if this happens, and say we get a '24 1st. Ok, great. And when we get bounced in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs again, that means we're picking in the middle to bottom of the 1st again. What then? Will two 1st's and some others get us the top pick in the draft? If not, then why bother? Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely curious.

I don't think Schneider sees the draft this way.

I think he sees the drafts and our picks as currency. Currency he can leverage to get more picks, and more picks means a higher hit rate on players.

A LOT of GM's do this, in fact most successful GM's are like this. They know it's not about where you are necessarily, but volume, especially early in rounds.

If it was all about high picks, then why are the same bad teams picking in the top 10 every year. The Jags and Texans should be SB champs with how many top 10 picks they've had and the hundreds of millions they've spent on free agents. I think the Jags just passed the 1 billion mark in free agent contract dollars.

So I know we all are salivating at #5, but IMO all I think Schneider is thinking is "more leverage to get more great athletes at positions of need to raise our hit rate on this draft."

 

[OKHawksfan]

I see DL and Edge with the first two picks (probably with a small trade down from 5 to the 8-10 range) Perhaps a Tyree Wilson or Bresee there and Lukas Van Ness/Nolan Smith at 20. DB Christian Gonzalez Oregon as an outside pick at 20. I see a potential pick of QB Tanner McKee of Standord in the 2nd round. However, if his stock rises at all, he could be a reasonable pick at 20 while going DI (Kancey/Mazi Smith) or ED (Ojulari/McDonald/Carter) in the first 2nd round pick. C Schmitz at 51 may be a good selection.

 

[WarHawks]

I don't think Schneider sees the draft this way.

I think he sees the drafts and our picks as currency. Currency he can leverage to get more picks, and more picks means a higher hit rate on players.

A LOT of GM's do this, in fact most successful GM's are like this. They know it's not about where you are necessarily, but volume, especially early in rounds.

If it was all about high picks, then why are the same bad teams picking in the top 10 every year. The Jags and Texans should be SB champs with how many top 10 picks they've had and the hundreds of millions they've spent on free agents. I think the Jags just passed the 1 billion mark in free agent contract dollars.

So I know we all are salivating at #5, but IMO all I think Schneider is thinking is "more leverage to get more great athletes at positions of need to raise our hit rate on this draft."

Thanks. That's a great explanation.

 

[Chawker]

Well, its time for a professional opinion here.


Who does Seattle take at #5 ?

Nosdahawkus: The 5th best player.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Good call

 

[BASF]

Well, its time for a professional opinion here.


Who does Seattle take at #5 ?

Nosdahawkus: The 5th best player.

So many draftniks will disagree with you.

 

[GemCity]

Well, its time for a professional opinion here.


Who does Seattle take at #5 ?

Nosdahawkus: The 5th best player.

Dallas did that with Cee Dee Lamb.

I think it worked out ok.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

So many draftniks will disagree with you.

With me it's more to do with how Schneider drafts, rather than just taking the 5th best player.

No one in here, or in the sports media knows. But John's track record says unless there's a generational game changing player at 5? He's trading down.

Which is what he should do if he thinks the next tier of players isn't worthy of staying at 5.

 

[Chawker]

I was going to the horse races, all day long the number 5 kept comming up, 5 people stand on the cornner, a cat with 5 kittens ect... So I went to the horse races, walk up to the number 5 both and bet 500 dollars on the number 5 horse... And sure enough

He came in 5th

 

[Chawker]

My most humble apologizes to Jerhawk for getting off topic.

 

[BASF]

With me it's more to do with how Schneider drafts, rather than just taking the 5th best player.

No one in here, or in the sports media knows. But John's track record says unless there's a generational game changing player at 5? He's trading down.

Which is what he should do if he thinks the next tier of players isn't worthy of staying at 5.

Agreed. However, the draftniks here 99% of the time will tell you that there was a better player to be taken where we picked. Some of them ad nauseum for the better part of a decade.

 

[AROS]

I don't think Schneider sees the draft this way.

I think he sees the drafts and our picks as currency. Currency he can leverage to get more picks, and more picks means a higher hit rate on players.

A LOT of GM's do this, in fact most successful GM's are like this. They know it's not about where you are necessarily, but volume, especially early in rounds.

If it was all about high picks, then why are the same bad teams picking in the top 10 every year. The Jags and Texans should be SB champs with how many top 10 picks they've had and the hundreds of millions they've spent on free agents. I think the Jags just passed the 1 billion mark in free agent contract dollars.

So I know we all are salivating at #5, but IMO all I think Schneider is thinking is "more leverage to get more great athletes at positions of need to raise our hit rate on this draft."

^ What he said.