Brad Biggs from the Chicago Sun-Times is naming the Seahawks amongst a list of teams looking at Western Illinois linebacker Jason Williams. As a junior he had 105 tackles, 16.5 for a loss with eight sacks. He's been given a grade around the 4-5 range whilst NFL Draft Scout ranks him 9th amongst outside linebackers. His stock may rise after running impressive 40 times at recent pro-days (Biggs reports he clocked between 4.42 and 4.48 on March 12th). If the Seahawks don't take Aaron Curry in the first round, expect them to look at the linebacker position at some stage.Thankyou to Michael Steffes for bringing this article to my attention.
3 comments:
Hey Rob, just wanted to get your opinion on the Curry situation. I think a lot of Seattle fans don't realize that by drafting Aaron Curry, we are guaranteed to lose Hill. Plain and simple. There will not be money comparable to what other teams will give him. So in essence, we are replacing a great 26 year old OLB with an unproven 23 year old OLB. How does this make sense? Sure, year 1 we will have an amazing LB corps, but what happens in year 2? Is Aaron Curry going to magically become a pass rusher? Then we are looking at replacing Hill. Why do that?
With guys like Jason Williams, Gerald McRath, and Marcus Freeman looking to be available at #68, and all look like great fits into the coverage role and we all know Ruskell's ability to land great LBs in the middle rounds. For example, you draft Freeman at #68 (arguably is a top 50 talent that had a rough senior year due to injuries) and you still have money to resign Hill. Now you are looking at a great compliment of LBs with money tied up that makes sense and doesn't force musical chairs.
I firmly believe we traded Peterson for 2 reasons, we got an upgrade at DT/DE and we just got rid of a huge burden of money. I find it funny that the average fan says we will traded Peterson so we can draft Curry. Who in their right mind, trades a Pro bowler to draft an unproven rookie?
Sorry for the long post, but I just can't make any sense of the Curry appeal at #4. Yes, he is a great player, but you have to take into account where the roster is at. With an injured 34 year old QB, and injured 35 year old LT, and your best offensive weapon being a 32 year old possession WR, how can anyone justify passing on Sanchez, Monroe/Smith, or Crabtree? We will never be looking at talents on the level of the QBs, LTs, and WR we are staring at #4 in the late teens or early 20s. I think #4 and #37 have to be spent getting some young talent on the offensive side of the ball. The defense is plenty young, with plenty of talent.
Rob, can I get your thoughts?
I am completely stumped about what the Hawks are going to do with the #4 pick. Their needs appear to be: CB, S, OLB, QB, RB, LT, G, C. Of those positions, only OLB, QB, and LT seem worth choosing at #4. If true, the prospects on the Hawks radar would seem to be Stafford, Sanchez, Smith, Monroe, and Curry. I expect Stafford, Smith, and Curry to go 1, 2, 3, meaning that the Hawks would be left with their choice of Monroe or Sanchez. From what I've read about Monroe, he doesnt seem to be an ideal fit for a run-first ZBS team. Sanchez is then the only one left. If Ruskell likes what he sees in Sanchez, I would be happy with that choice. He could learn under Hass for a year or two and hopefully develop into a star.
Then again, the Hawks appear to have a win now mentality, and would conceivably like someone to contribute to the team right away. Therefore, I have no idea what direction Ruskell would go with at #4 unless he is planning on trading down, which seems like a risky thing to count on.
Annonymous - thanks for your comments. No need to apologise for the long post, feel free to say what you want.
I'm torn on the Curry situation. He's a Ruskell guy, he's considered the No1 prospect by many. On the other hand, I wonder what impact he could have for Seattle. He won't get the tackles through the middle which Lofa Tatupu soaks up, plus he hasn't been asked to pass rush much for Wake Forest. Can he be a difference maker for Seattle's defense? I have some reservations, even if I really like the guy as a prospect.
Mike - Like yourself, I'm struggling to settle on a choice that Tim Ruskell will make. Rob Rang believes Stafford, Smith, Monroe and Curry are the top four. Personally, I would be surprised if the Seahawks took Eugene Monroe.
If Stafford, Smith or Curry drop to four they could easily be the pick based on a value basis even if in some cases, they wouldn't be immediate starters. It gets interesting if all three are gone.
Having said that, my guess is as good as yours right now. I wish I could give a better answer than that!
Post a Comment