If I'm understanding Kiper, he's saying Clausen's a possibility for Seattle at 6 but a near certainty to go to Seattle if he falls as far as 14. That sounds about right by me. I know Seattle wants Clausen, the question is how badly. Picked at 14, Clausen essentially replaces Seneca Wallace on the depth chart, which is almost a no-brainer. For those who are voting in the poll against taking a first-round QB, check out Scott Wright's classic So You Want a QB in the 2nd or 3rd Round? http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/23qb/23qbs.php. Take a looksy at that list of infamy. The only QB worth a damn that's been drafted in picks 33 to 96 in the past 15 years is Matt Schaub. (A special case: Drew Brees was picked at 32 overall, a nominal 2nd-rounder at the time but a 1st-rounder today, and he still didn't really pan out for the team that drafted him).Cheers
I think you've been pretty spot on with most of the comments you've made on this issue, Steve. Once again, thanks for that link because it does make a compelling case - and I'm not sure what QB you'd take in round 2-3 anyway this year, there really is a derth at the position again.I think if Clausen is there at #6 it will test Seattle's resolve in a big way. Let's say Mel's mock rings true - do you risk missing out on a QB you want to invest in to take the best DE in the draft? Or do you just take Clausen - not have to worry and instead of Morgan settle for that Everson Griffen/Jason Pierre-Paul/Brian Price who's possibly waiting for you at #14?If Seattle like Clausen enough to take him at all - for me - it has to be at #6.
Yeah, Rob, I agree. Kiper's position is a little hard to make out. On the one hand, Kiper seems to think Carroll will run a calculated risk drafting Morgan at 6 in the hopes that Clausen will still be there at 14. On the other, Kiper admits the foolishness of such an endeavor by pointing out that the Bills would take advantage and nab Clausen at 9. Kiper's own mock would suggest that, if Carroll wants Clausen and needs Clausen, he's got to take him at 6.The great thing about taking Clausen at 6 is that it solves our one most pressing need right off the bat and frees us up to take BPA at 14 and 40. I'm really excited about the talent in the mid-1st and top of the 2nd of this draft.
Exactly, and it would surprise me if the Seahawks went in this direction if they do indeed like Clausen enough. I'm a big Derrick Morgan fan, but you don't gamble on a quarterback. It's a deep draft at defensive end too, I think you'd be more likely to 'gamble' on Morgan sticking around until #14 or then settling on that Pierre-Paul (who has amazing potential), Everson Griffen or taking an interior guy like Brian Price. These are all things I'll look at in tomorrow's updated mock draft.
I can't help but be inclined to think that the discussion is moot, because the chances that both the Rams and the Redskins pass on Clausen seem slim. Yeah, yeah, Shanahan said he supports Campbell, but he also drafted Cutler while Plummer was on his roster, too. I think if Cutler falls to 6, we have to take him. The notion of letting him go and gamble on getting him at 14 is patently ridiculous. About the only team picking between 6 and 14 that might not jump out of their seats to draft Clausen would be the Raiders (lol Raiders).I think the more interesting question is if the Seahawks should trade up to #3 if the Rams take Suh and the Lions take McCoy, leaving the Bucs without the ability to fill the huge hole they have at DT without a huge reach.
Isn't Colt McCoy predicted to go from rounds 2-4? I would be 100% behind drafting him, I know there are concerns but how can you look past his leadership skills and the results of the games? I've never liked Texas so I don't feel like I'm that biased in saying this, but watch the game film and I find it really hard to believe Colt wont find success in the NFL
It could well be a moot point Matthew. I know there is an assumption right now that Suh goes #1 - and he is the best player in the draft - but St. Louis have an absolutely massive need at QB. Forget that Spagnuolo is a defensive minded guy for a second - he will only have so much say on this. The Rams are in a black hole right now and will never get out of it until they get a legitimate quarterback. Yes it would be nice to take Suh and have him on the roster - but they've consistently drafted for the line over the last few years and got absolutely nowhere. If they don't sign a quarterback before the draft, I would be prepared for them to go QB. Keith Null will not start for the Rams next year and Bulger appears done.With Clausen or Bradford gone at #1, it shifts the dynamic. But for now, I'm going to stick with Suh at #1 because I do think the Rams will address the quarterback position before April. With the #1 pick though - they don't 'have' to, and if they don't - it's an almost sure fire sign they'll be taking a QB.
Chris - I would disagree regarding Colt McCoy. In fact, having studied a lot of Texas tape over the last two years, I'd give him a grade in the 5-6 round range.For starters, his entire game in college won't translate to the pro's. Everything was 5-6 short slants and bubble screens. As soon as he threw deep, he'd lose any accuracy or velocity on his throws. He'll be the easiest QB to game plan. Aside from that, he makes one read - where's Jordan Shipley - and that's usually it. If Shipley isn't open, he'll either a.) throw it anyway or b.) try to run the ball. He's nowhere near the required athlete or size to take the pounding he'll get running all those QB draws that he ran at Texas. In a year when Texas had the most vanilla schedule you could find - McCoy even struggled against basic opposition. Against good defenses - he was truly miserable. His performance against Nebraska was a farce. He wasn't any better against Oklahoma. There's no justification for Seattle drafting McCoy at all in fairness because of the system Pete Carroll and Jeremy Bates will run. The only teams that will be interested in him are ones that run a Denver/New England style with a lot of short, shotgun style passing. Even then, I doubt McCoy could even do a 'Kyle Orton' type job. Unfortunately, he's destined to be known as a productive college QB and nothing more. I wouldn't anticipate him being on a NFL roster in three years time. Harsh, but an honest assesment.
Indeed. I'm sure you and I both would love it if the Seahawks would be facing Keith Null twice a year for the next ten years, but sadly, the Rams don't operate to make Seahawks fans happy. It's perfectly reasonable to leave Suh going first overall if you think the Rams will acquire one of the Philly QBs (who knows who) or Campbell. Most mocks I read that put Suh first overall, though, don't give much verbiage to the Rams' overall plan should they not draft a QB first overall, because they definitely need one. If they don't nab one of the big name guys who could be on the market, then the Seahawks' chances of getting a QB in the first round go way, way down.
Agreed completely Matthew. A lot of mocks just assume Suh and make a reference to Spagnuolo and his defensive roots. Who makes the pick in St. Louis? I'm sure Spagnuolo will be involved, but essentially it won't be his call. Their need for a QB outweighs anything else and as I said - they've been drafting lineman for a few years now in R1 and it's got them nowhere. Funnily enough - and it sounds strange - it wouldn't be a terrible situation for a rookie either. They have a very good running back, just drafted a LT, signed an expensive center. They need wide outs, but there's a base to work with. In my last full mock I had the Rams taking Sam Bradford - something I don't think I've seen in any mock for a long time. If they don't acquire a QB pre-draft, I'm absolutely positive they'll draft one at #1. But then, I think Michael Vick is going to end up in St. Louis, Buffalo or Philly on a restructured deal.
Yeah, virtually everyone (else) I've seen has Clausen > Bradford.I've read your Clausen articles and your reasons to be hesitant, and they are noted, but I haven't read much about a specific case for Bradford over Clausen. I'd certainly be interested in hearing your reasoning for this, whether in a new post or one of yours that I've missed.
Claussen is an interesting prospect to consider. There are a lot of positive attributes to like about him. He has been successful in a pro style, west coast offense. He has had that success with a great deal of pressure and scrutiny placed upon him, some by his own doing. He protects the ball and makes quick and accurate throws. He has had good coaching, even though Weis was bad college coach, he still knows offenses very well, ask Tom Brady. He has adequate arm strength for the WCO. He will need to measure at least a solid 6'2" and 215 lbs.To me the most important aspect in evaluating Claussen is with out question his personality. It is very important that a QB is supported by all players on the team. I am not going to say that Claussen is a jerk or not a good teammate, because really none of us have a good insight to it, but he does come of as very cocky and slightly abrasive. People always say that Philip Rivers is an example of this type of personality working, but I just question it. I do like a little attitude in a player and love the confidence, but just worry in the NFL it rub some guys the wrong way. This is gonna take some background work by the front office team.All in all, I would consider Claussen at 6. Bradford I'd wait til 14. The main reason I'd support taking a QB this year that next year your looking at Locker and Mallett and you'll most likely need at top 5 pick. Its no sure thing that you'll have that opportunity. When you have this type of opportunity and it is also a need, it just makes too much sense.
Savage,Yep, I agree, based on what I've read. I'm not even necessarily sold on Locker or Mallet over Clausen, but who knows where they'll fall even if I were. It's hard to expect they'll make it all the way to #32 ;)
Hey Rob, I appreciate your honest assessment. After what you say I guess I can see how you are right about him not being the right fit for this team. However I still feel that given the right surroundings he could succeed in the NFLYou do a great job on this site and I'm really glad that Seahawkaddicts sent me to it,keep up the good workChris (In Boise)
I dunno,I only saw Clausen when he was playing against the Huskies, but to me he looked flat out... overhyped.I didn't see a guy who had a sense of how to maneuver in the pocket. He was giving up where he had two seconds to gain by routing towards 10 o'clock, and so on. He didn't have fantastic accuracy to my eyes. I don't know - maybe it was just a scary day for him.Someone, convince me that the guy wouldn't be terrible.
It'll be interesting to see the McNabb / Vick / Campbell situations play out. Now that Andy Reid's got his contract extension, the time is now to implement the Kolb era. If Philly moves McNabb, an interesting bidding war could develop here in the NFC West between San Francisco, St. Louis and Arizona (if Warner retires). I can see San Francisco perhaps "overpaying" both to get McNabb and to keep him away from their division rivals. After all, SF has "extra" picks. And SF might see itself in the same shoes as the Vikings of last offseason - just a QB away from pushing themselves over the edge. I think it makes sense for the Skins to deal Campbell to the Rams. Reason being that, if the Rams get Campbell, then no QB will be drafted in the top 3, meaning the Skins are guaranteed their choice of QB at #4. So it's a win-win for Washington.
I wonder if the possible impending sale of the team will affect the Rams decision. If the sale happens before April, then who knows... But if the sale has not happend yet, but the owners are still intent on selling, then maybe they'll try and save money and see who they can get to sign for cheaper. If Detroit and Tampa Bay both end up coveting Suh and McCoy, they wouldn't have much reason not to seek top money. But if Clausen or Bradford have a good chance of falling a bit more if not selected by the Rams, then maybe they'd have insentive to take a little less money, like Aaron Curry said he was willing to do to be the #1 pick last year.
I hope that St. Louis takes Clausen so that it's not an issue for us. I'm not against taking a QB early. If its the right guy, I'll take one at number one if I'm there, but none of these guys are. If you put Clausen and Bradford into most past years they are mid to end of the first round at best. Next year they would be the third and fourth QBs in the draft behind Locker and Mallet. They just don't justify the money.
Bleh! Never waste a good draft pick on a guy named Jimmy. He's got Rick Mirer's name stenceled on his jock strap.We need SeaHogs!
Hey Rob, I believe a while back you wrote a piece on Taylor Mays a while back. Would it be possible for you to exhume that for me? Mel got me hyped up on him again...
Hey annonymous,All articles are archived by prospect if you click the link below. Just scroll down to Taylor Mays.http://seahawksdraft.blogspot.com/2010/01/prospect-archives.html
What's your opinion on Jonathon Crompton, the quarterback from Tenessee?
I've seen Crompton have some good games, I like what he did against Florida. But in fairness, I always felt when watching him that when he did well - he was merely not holding the team back. When he did badly, the team failed. Based on his 2009 performance, he just doesn't do enough to justify serious consideration in the NFL. Someone may take him as a project, but I think his ceiling is career back up.
Same guy asking about CromptonWalter Cherpensky's latest mock draft has us taking Bill Stull from Pittsburgh in the fourth round. What are your thoughts on him. Is he the same as Crompton?
Personally, I don't see too much of a difference between Stull and Teel. Both struggled a lot until their senior years. I'm not particullarly impressed with Stull because he was a benificiary of an outstanding running game. It makes more sense to get someone who can contribute at another position that make a redundant pick when Teel is already in the fold.
Carroll just said today (1-22) on KJR they are going to "build the offense around Matt." No way they take either of the two shaky QB prospects in the first round. He specifically said he needs more of the right kind of players on the O line. He specifically said their focus right now is on improving the running game.
I would take clausen, I think he will be a good pro. However, I would prefer to get playmakers that will contribute next year. Maybe one OT, DE and S, and wait for qb next year. These would be good drafts:morgan/spiller/mcdaniel (de/rb/s)berry/bryant/graham (s/wr/de)We need a playmaking safety and de. If gibbs is a ol savior, see what he can do and get some d.E in F
PIcking a quarterback with a totally defunct offensive line in place is suicide! Get the offensive line fixed, or no matter how great the quarterback you have or draft that quarterback will fail after being constantly pasted."THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT"
So what you are saying is you feel that they intend to do nothing to improve the line, even tho the running game is going to have Gibbs in the drivers seat..Boy, you are REALLY paying attention there..They are making the line a CRITICAL part of the new offense and no matter WHO they draft at QB, Matt will be the one playing next year and I guarantee the line will be MUCH improved- Nuff said
Nice post. Great blog. Thanks for the share. It was very interesting and informative. Keep posting. I follow you. Super Bowl Commercials 2012| Money Talks| Money Talks News| Bot and me|
Post a Comment