I'll be updating my own mock draft this weekend ahead of the Super Bowl. Until then here's some other mocks to take you into the weekend. We'll know a confirmed full draft order when either Pittsburgh or Arizona become world champions on Sunday. I wrote an article for Football Diner this week talking about the NFC West and it's recent Super Bowl appearances. Feel free to check it out.
Aaron Weinburg at Next Season Sports is putting together an inter-blog mock draft. There's an interesting pick first overall, but who do the Seahawks take? Andre Smith, offensive tackle from Alabama.
Walter Cherepinsky has the Seahawks taking Eugene Monroe (OT, Virginia). He's previously had Seattle taking Michael Crabtree but with the receiver going to the Rams second overall, it forces the 'Hawks to look elsewhere.
Total Pro Sports also has Crabtree going to St Louis, so the Seahawks turn their attentions to USC quarter back Mark Sanchez.
Q.I. Sports think the Rams will pick Aaron Curry, the first time I've seen someone suggest that. Is it a possibility with new defensive minded head coach Steve Spagnuolo at the helm? Seattle pick Crabtree.
I like to find mock drafts from fans of other teams. Cowboys Pride have recently published a mock draft with Seattle taking Michael Crabtree.
I also like to find mock drafts from blogs with dramatic names. Step forward Heaven has fallen and Become a Ninja. They both agree on who Seattle will pick fourth overall.
4 comments:
Rob, I have been thinking of alternatives to Crabtree assuming he is not available. This is a shot in the wind but hear me out. We trade #4 and next year's 2nd rounder to the vikings for #22 and next year's 1st rounder. The Vikes need a QB and I don't think they will be content assuming Stafford or Sanchez could possibly fall to them. Some may argue that if they make the playoffs next year, the value of their pick is not as high. I counter that with the fact that the Packers will be better, and the Bears and Lions will both be improved. A rookie QB is not going to make the Vikes elite and if Adrian Peterson gets hurt, next year's pick could be in the top 12. That being said...
At 22, you take the best OT, WR, or RB depending on who is graded out the highest (unless there is a standout who slips and is stupid to pass up). Any of those guys would help the Hawks. Whoever you do not take at 22, you address at 37 assuming the talent grades out.
My thinking is why spend the #4 pick on someone who is not deserving of it? This is a weak draft this year. I honestly am not sold on any of the OTs becoming dominant and if I am going to spend the #4 pick on a player, I want them to have the legit possibility of being a dominant player. No OT is being graded on par with Jake Long or Joe Thomas. The Hawks needing an OT, is no reason to dump the 4th pick on a player who is not worth it.
With two 1st rounders next year, you are given flexibility to package one of those with other picks to move up earlier in the 1st to grab a player you really want and are sold on. To me, this presents better value over just settling on someone at #4 because it is "safe" and assuming Crabtree is off the board. Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.
Hi there, thanks for reading,
I think it's a very interesting proposition. As you suggest, the Vikings might be in the market for a rookie QB next year. They've said they will stand by Tavaris Jackson, but eventually they're going to either have to make him their bonafide starter or move on. Another team picking later on who might be in the market for a big trade up are the New York Jets, who might be without Brett Favre if he retires.
So let's look at the situation. First of all, the trade up. The thing that stops the two teams trading with Seattle for this situation is the fact they will know that the Seahawks probably don't want to take Sanchez. Cleveland and Oakland, the next two picks, have recently taken first round QB's and won't be in the market for Sanchez. Taking that into account, I don't see any obvious reason why the Vikings or Jets would need to trade up as high as the fourth pick. After that, you have Jacksonville. Maybe they would think QB, but they recently signed David Garrard to a big deal and my instinct is they will target their offensive line in round one. Green Bay are next and are sorted at QB (1st rounder on Rogers, spent a 2nd rounder on Brohm last year).
The 49ers with the 10th pick is a possible home for Sanchez, but no guarantee. So my point here is that it would be a bit extreme to trade up as high as number four unless they thought there was a serious threat of Sanchez going very high in the draft. They would need to get ahead of teams to pick him, but I don't think they need to go as high as our pick to make the deal.
I think you raise a very interesting point regarding the value of all this. Carolina last year used their 2009 1st rounder to get Jeff Otah in 2008. This year they would have been selecting lower than where they got Otah so essentially it was a deal that paid off. The Seahawks would be banking on a team (Vikings for example) flopping so that they get the value of trading out of the top five this year but maintaining the high pick in 2010. It's a big gamble, especially for a team like the Vikings who have a very good defense especially against the run, and an elite O Line and Running back.
As much as I rate Crabtree, I also like a lot of prospects in this draft and I hope it's a rare chance for a Seattle team used to challenging in the post season to get a top young player. I think trading down from the top five is difficult with the money involved, but I wouldn't rule out trading with one of the other teams in the top 10. This is a very real possibility if the top three picks were Stafford, Crabtree and Curry. With all the offensive tackles on the board, a team might be tempted to give up a fair bit to move up a couple of picks to get ahead of a rival. The Seahawks can accumulate some picks and still get a top 10-15 prospect. To trade down and still get a Jason Smith, Andre Smith, Knowshon Moreno, Everette Brown... that would be a good deal in my opinion and is a possibility.
But you can never rule anything out with the Seahawks and thanks for raising an interesting topic for a debate.
What's the payoff of trading to someone else in the top 10? I just don't see it being an additional second rounder.
It's hard to tell, I guess whatever the other team is willing to pay to get a particular prospect. The only thing I can use as an example is the Saints last year traded their first and third round picks (10th and 78th overall) for New England's first and fifth round picks (7th and 164th overall).
Post a Comment