Monday, 5 January 2009

Monday mocks

Just a quick message to let you know my computer was infected with a virus yesterday and has since decided to shut itself down in a way reminiscent of a Detroit Lions defensive scheme. My access to the internet is currently limited but I'll do my best to keep the updates flowing, I'm hoping to have the computer repaired or replaced by Wednesday.

In the meantime, here are some mocks to see you through in the aftermath of a Seahawks absent wildcard weekend.

Draft Tek have compiled a new mock using their sophisticated software. They have the Seahawks selecting Michael Crabtree with the fourth pick. The New NFL Draft agree with that selection, they also have Crabtree heading north west.

NFL Smackdown (which describes itself as the 'mecca' of smack talk) has the 'Hawks picking Sooners QB Sam Bradford. In their mock, Crabtree drops to the 10th selection and Matt Stafford falls all the way to 17th.

FFJungle goes in a different direction and has Seattle going defense. They select Ohio State corner back Malcolm Jenkins fourth overall. Tony Conty at NFL Draft Blitz also thinks the Seahawks will go defense and select Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry.

QI Sports always put up a good mock draft with clips of every prospect. They also have stoked a big talking point by putting Mark Sanchez as the first overall pick in 2009. He's yet to indicate whether he'll stay at USC or declare, but he's clearly a talented quarter back.

Joe Montgomery at Draft Connection
thinks Seattle will take left tackle Eugene Monroe.

Finally, the Scouts Notebook has the 'Hawks picking a running back - Chris 'Beanie' Wells from Ohio State.

Overall quite a lot of difference in who Seattle might take with the fourth pick. Over recent weeks nearly every mock has touted Michael Crabtree as a Seahawk in waiting. This is the first real evidence of a sway in opinion amongst mock draft pundits.


Anonymous said...

Hi Rob, I enjoy your site, nice work. What do you think about trading down, gulp, twice in the first round if the opportunity is there? By my estimation the 4th overall would net 10th position in the first and second rounds. Then the 10th would net us the 18th overall and 50th overall in the second. We end up with 18th, 36th, 42nd, and 50th picks instead of 4th and 36th? Yes, it is more fun to pick at 4, but the value of additional and more cost effective choices could also add to the FA budget. So, am I nuts for this idea or what?

Rob Staton said...

Thanks for the positive feedback, it's always appreciated. I don't think you can ever truly rule out a trade down, but this year more than most it is arguably unlikely. The reason being, the top five picks are so expensive these days teams do not see good value. The combination of having to give up a lot of picks plus invest so much cap room scares teams away. I read somewhere today that the Vikings would have to trade almost their entire draft to move into Seattle's position (I'm not sure if this is 100% legitimate). I think trade downs are always fun to consider because you can accumulate picks and essentially fill more holes. More realistically I think Seattle will struggle to sell the 4th pick.

I also believe they should keep hold of it. Mike Sando said this week that Seattle doesn't need another Kelly Jennings, Chris Spencer or Lawrence Jackson. It needs a franchise player at a key position. They simply will not find that picking in the mid 20's.

Tim Ruskell (correctly) values draft picks. He will almost certainly consider any trade offer. However, if Seattle are to accumulate picks, it might be after trading down in the second round. I also wouldn't rule out trading back into the first depending on cap room, as Ruskell has shown his aggressive approach when needing to make a move (most notably with Lofa Tatupu and John Carlson).

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your feedback Rob! I am one who thinks there should be a rookie pay scale and the whole first round is way out of line for the money part.

I was surprised to read one of the links expecting us to go QB with the 4th pick because Matt was getting too old and Seneca has not proved out as a starter QB. From what I saw, Seneca can be a starter and I even like Charlie Fry, but I think he is a UFA and will not be back next year.

Do you think we need to shop for a QB and if so who do you like?

Rob Staton said...

The QB issue really depends on one major factor - the health of Matt Hasselbeck. If he's good to go, I think it makes it less likely the Hawks take a QB. Hasselbeck is a veteran pro bowl calibre team leader. Seneca Wallace has proven that at the very least, he is a capable backup.

If Hasselbeck's medical report suggests his back is going to be a long term problem, then suddenly the franchise has a desicion to make. Matt will be 34 in 2009 and earning approximately $9.5M. That's a lot of investment for someone who may not be on the field.

Here's something else to consider. This is a new era for the franchise with a new head coach and possibly, an overhaul of the coaching staff. Will the new regime want 'their own man' at QB to go forward? A young face to lead the team from here on in, who they can mould into their new playbook? It's a possibility.

You also have to wonder about Seneca Wallace's future. There are teams who will be in the market for a QB this off season, perhaps Wallace's performances will tempt a team to make an offer to the Seahawks? It's perhaps not as unlikely as it sounds.

At this moment I would say taking a QB early is still unlikely, this could change heading into free agency, we will find out soon.

If the team were looking for a quarter back, the two obvious choices in the first round are Matt Stafford and Sam Bradford. I am higher on Stafford than others, I think he has the potential to be a star if coached correctly. Bradford is very accurate and has ideal size. He has the intelligence. The only question marks are based on his arm strength (he rarely throws deep for the Sooners) and his ability to play under pressure (he has a great O-Line in Oklahoma).

Other names who could enter the equation are Colt McCoy and Mark Sanchez. Both have suggested they will return to Texas and USC respectively, but you never know...

After that, it's a particularly weak class for QB's. The only other I would consider a flier on is Graham Harrell, but it'd be a late round pick and he'd be a project. I like Harrell, but he won't go on the first day.