Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Updated two-round mock draft: 17th February

By Rob Staton
For the first time I have included a full second round projection. The scouting combine is a week away so it'll be interesting to see how projections shift following events in Indianapolis. Perhaps equally important though is the beginning of free agency and the trade window re-opening on March 5th. Free agency itself will be stagnated and largely uneventful, but we could see some trades with teams trying to make moves to compensate for a lack of options outside of the draft. The one issue that could affect things more than anything else is what St. Louis do at the quarterback position. Are they serious about Michael Vick? Some reports suggest they are. However, if they enter draft week without a legitimate option at quarterback - they almost certainly have to explore that position with the #1 pick.

When compiling a mock draft - the question is whether you assume they'll find a quaterback before April 22nd and give them Ndamukong Suh or Gerald McCoy? Until the Rams can find a legitimate option at quarterback, they'll continue to struggle. They've gone down the 'safer' lineman option in the last three drafts and struggled. It's time to find a quarterback. Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen aren't the top two prospects in this draft, but then Matt Stafford wasn't necessarily the best player available last year either. The question perhaps shouldn't be whether Suh or McCoy go first overall - but Bradford or Clausen.

I have the Seahawks taking an offensive prospect at #6, #14 and #40 in this draft. Could it happen? There's no doubt a lot of strength on defense in the 2010 class, but each of the selections made on offense offer value here. Despite the needs on the defensive line and secondary, most of the repair work for Pete Carroll and co rests on offense. In this latest projection I wanted to represent the possibility of the Seahawks investing in the future of their offense. Don't forget to leave your thoughts in the comments section at the bottom of the article.


Round One



#1 St. Louis: Sam Bradford (QB, Oklahoma)
The Rams could trade for Michael Vick. They might trade for someone else. Either way - they don't enter 2010 without a new quarterback. Suh and McCoy might be BPA - but this is a quarterback's league.




#2 Detroit: Gerald McCoy (DT, Oklahoma)
The Lions would salivate over the prospect of having to choose between Suh and McCoy. McCoy gets the nod here simply because he's quicker and more disruptive up the middle.




#3 Tampa Bay: Ndamukong Suh (DT, Nebraska)
If the top two defensive tackles leave the board before this pick, projecting which direction the Buccs go will be a complete lottery. If the Rams take a quarterback, it appears likely the top two defensive tackles will go #2 and #3.




#4 Washington: Anthony Davis (OT, Rutgers)
Consensus opinion appears to be that this pick will be a quarterback or an offensive tackle. Jason Campbell might get a year to prove himself on a high tender. There are some character and attitude question marks surrounding Davis - he needs to interview well in Indianapolis.




#5 Kansas City: Rolando McClain (LB, Alabama)
The Chiefs are committed to creating a strong 3-4 defense but lack that presence at inside linebacker. McClain can be an impact player for Kansas City.




#6 Seattle: Jimmy Clausen (QB, Notre Dame)
I've voiced concerns about Clausen and they still remain. However, it'd be ignorant to only look at the negative possibilities such as a dramatic fall down the board. The Seahawks need a long term answer at the position with Matt Hasselbeck in a contract year.




#7 Cleveland: C.J. Spiller (RB, Clemson)
In a draft with only a handful of pure offensive playmakers, Spiller's name could get called early. The Browns needs someone like this.




#8 Oakland: Jason Pierre-Paul (DE, USF)
We know how Al Davis' drafts. The three prospects to keep an eye on - JPP, Bruce Campbell and Taylor Mays. All expected to run fast time at the combine and flash the physical qualities Davis looks for.




#9 Buffalo: Bryan Bulaga (OT, Iowa)
The Bills need to improve their offensive line. Bulaga will interest teams as a left tackle, but like Jake Long he could be an all-pro on the right hand side.




#10 Jacksonville: Joe Haden (CB, Florida)
The Jaguars are rebuilding their secondary and keeping Haden in Florida would be a popular move.




#11 Denver: Carlos Dunlap (DE, Florida)
Dunalp's size makes him a perfect option at five technique end in the Broncos 3-4.




#12 Miami: Dan Williams (DT, Tennessee)
Williams' ability to play the coveted 3-4 nose tackle position will make him a desirable pick for teams using the scheme.




#13 San Francisco: Eric Berry (S, Tennessee)
The 49ers will explore the possibility of adding a playmaker to their secondary. If Berry is available here, he's the obvious choice.




#14 Seattle: Dez Bryant (WR, Oklahoma State)
Brian Price and Derrick Morgan make sense, but so does Dez Bryant. There's no guarantee Nate Burleson and Deion Branch return in 2010 and the Seahawks need a playmaker. I have Russell Okung falling.




#15 New York Giants: Derrick Morgan (DE, Georgia Tech)
Morgan has great potential, but amongst the cluster of 3-4 teams and alternative picks - he might suffer a slight fall on draft day. This would be a perfect fit for both prospect and team.




#16 San Francisco: Trent Williams (OT, Oklahoma)
Williams' unconvincing displays at left tackle in 2009 will stop him going much earlier than this. The 49ers - looking for a book end for Joe Staley - could see value in the Sooners lineman here.




#17 Tennessee: Brian Price (DT, UCLA)
The Titans are another team who will likely look to upgrade their defensive line. Price is a penetrative interior force.




#18 Pittsburgh: Taylor Mays (S, USC)
This is one of the few places Mays could go and have a real impact. Playing behind a good pass rushing defense, Mays and fellow Trojan Troy Polamalu could create the most intimidating secondary combo in the NFL.




#19 Atlanta: Kareem Jackson (CB, Alabama)
What price a trade with Jacksonville to take Joe Haden? Jackson's stock will rise after the combine and he could go higher than this.




#20 Houston: Earl Thomas (S, Texas)
The Texans' would like one of the top ranked right tackles to fall here, but they also need a playmaker in the secondary. Thomas could convert to cornerback and would be a popular choice in Houston.




#21 Cincinnati: Arrelious Benn (WR, Illinois)
Bad quarterback play and inconsistent hands has hurt Benn's stock, but this is still a guy touted as a top 15 pick at the start of the year. A tight end like Jermaine Gresham is also a possibility.




#22 New England: Jared Odrick (DT, Penn State)
The Patriots are in the process of major changes on their defensive line. Drafting the versatile Odrick gives New England some options long term.




#23 Green Bay: Russell Okung (OT, Oklahoma State)
Kyle Rota's scouting report on Okung is an absolute must read and highlights some of the reasons why Okung might not be a top ten lock. He would've been a late first round pick as an underclassmen, nothing this year has proved otherwise in my opinion.




#24 Philadelphia: Everson Griffen (DE, USC)
The Eagles need a better pass rush, that was evident in their playoff defeat at Dallas. Griffen's stock is difficult to project, he could rise up the boards with an impressive combine.




#25 Baltimore: Jermaine Gresham (TE, Oklahoma)
The Ravens always find value in the draft. Gresham, as a quality pass-catching tight end, offers greater value than the receivers on offer this late in round one.




#26 Arizona: Ricky Sapp (LB, Clemson)
Arizona are still piecing together their 3-4 scheme and Sapp could be a stand out OLB.




#27 Dallas: Kyle Wilson (CB, Boise State)
The Cowboys would like to add a playmaker to their secondary. Wilson would also double up as a return specialist.




#28 San Diego: Brandon Graham (DE, Michigan)
Graham is flexible enough to play in either the 4-3 or the 3-4. San Diego could use another pass rusher off the edge and Graham is par value here.




#29 New York Jets: Devin McCourty (CB, Rutgers)
Rex Ryan loves to draft for his secondary. The Jets own one lockdown corner, shutting down the other side and combining it with the team's pass rush will make the Jets very difficult to beat.




#30 Minnesota: Dominique Franks (CB, Oklahoma)
We could see a run on cornerbacks in the late first round. The Vikings could use an upgrade in the secondary. Lamarr Houston (DT, Texas) is an alternative option.




#31 Indianapolis: Sean Weatherspoon (LB, Missouri)
Watching tape of Missouri, I was never blown away by Weatherspoon. He put in an eye catching display at the Senior Bowl, however, and some teams will appreciate his athleticism and ability to start as a rookie.




#32 New Orleans: Sergio Kindle (LB, Texas)
The Saints could use Kindle creatively, as a linebacker most of the time but an edge rush on passing third downs.


Round Two



#33 St. Louis - Brandon LaFell (WR, LSU)
Having found their franchise quarterback in round one, the Rams find a potential #1 receiver.




#34 Detroit - Jahvid Best (RB, California)
The Lions need more explosion at running back. Concerns about his durability push Best into round two.




#35 Tampa Bay - Damian Williams (WR, USC)
The Buccs need to get some weapons for Josh Freeman. Williams is already a very smooth receiver, but he needs to make less catches with his body.




#36 Kansas City - Cam Thomas (DT, North Carolina)
The Chiefs continue their commitment towards building a strong 3-4 defense by finding a nose tackle.




#37 Washington - Mike Iupati (OG, Idaho)
The Redskins complete the new left side of their offensive line with the talented Iupati.




#38 Cleveland - Eric Decker (WR, Minnesota)
Browns GM Tom Heckert watched Decker personally on a few occasions in 2009. Coming from Philly, he understands the true value of having playmakers on offense.




#39 Oakland - Bruce Campbell (OT, Maryland)
Campbell's injury concerns push him into round two here. Oakland could trade up to secure him earlier.




#40 Seattle - Charles Brown (OT, USC)
The perfect fit for Alex Gibbs' scheme and someone Pete Carroll is very familiar with.




#41 Buffalo - Rob Gronkowski (TE, Arizona)
Chan Gailey needs a good blocking tight end for his offense.




#42 Tampa Bay - Demaryius Thomas (WR, Georgia Tech)
The Buccs spend back-to-back picks on weapons for Josh Freeman.




#43 Miami - Brandon Spikes (LB, Florida)
The Dolphins need an inside presence.




#44 New England - Alex Carrington (DE, Arkansas State)
Having accumulated second round picks, the Pats continue to add to their defensive line.




#45 Denver - Maurkice Pouncey (C, Florida)
The Broncos need a center and Pouncey is par value.




#46 New York Giants - Chad Jones (S, LSU)
Regardless of concerns for Kenny Phillips' return, the Giants could use Jones' size in their secondary.




#47 New England - Aaron Hernandez (TE, Florida)
Tom Brady would love throwing to Hernandez.




#48 Carolina - Lamarr Houston (DT, Texas)
Houston could go in round one if there's an early rush on defensive tackles.




#49 San Francisco - Jerry Hughes (DE, TCU)
Hughes did a great job for TCU in 2009, but opinion is mixed on his pro-prospects.




#50 Kansas City - Vladimir Ducasse (OT, UMass)
The UMass lineman might end up as a guard.




#51 Houston - Anthony Dixon (RB, Miss State)
I rank Jonathan Dwyer and Ryan Matthews in the 3-4 round range. Dixon is a pure power back, Dwyer is not.




#52 Pittsburgh - Perrish Cox (CB, Oklahoma State)
The Steelers might look to add a cornerback and Cox is worth the 52nd overall pick.




#53 New England - Sean Lee (LB, Penn State)
The Pats will look to bring in a linebacker to play alongside Mayo.




#54 Cincinnati - Corey Wooten (DE, Northwestern)
Wooten is flexible enough to play the five technique due to his size, so could go earlier.




#55 Philadelphia - Nate Allen (S, Georgia Tech)
The Eagles need a safety, although this might be half a round too early for Allen.




#56 Green Bay - Donovan Warren (CB, Michigan)
Warren's stock is mixed. Some rank him as a first round pick.




#57 Baltimore - Brandon Ghee (CB, Wake Forest)
Ghee would fit in very nicely to Baltimore's defense.




#58 Arizona - Jared Veldheer (OT, Hillsdale)
Veldheer's stock is rising after performing well in the Texas vs the nation game.




#59 Dallas - Jordan Shipley (WR, Texas)
Pure Jerry Jones style pick.




#60 San Diego - Joe McKnight (RB, USC)
McKnight is my third favorite running back in this class. Again, I have a team passing on Dwyer and Matthews.




#61 New York - Jason Worilds (DE, Virginia Tech)
Another excellent pass rusher for the Jets defense.




#62 Minnesota - Tsyon Alualu (DE, California)
The Vikings will consider adding a defensive lineman.




#63 Indianapolis - Mike Neal (DT, Purdue)
Not the biggest guy, but that's how Indy like them.




#64 New Orleans - Golden Tate (WR, Notre Dame)
I don't buy talk of Tate going in round one or even the early second round.

107 comments:

CLanterman said...

Wow, so much good stuff. As I was scrolling down on this mock draft, I was noticing that Bryant and Morgan were both available and I was hoping that we would take one of the two as I neared #14, and lo and behold, I see Bryant at #14. This is a clear cut case where BPA is the correct decision.
Things I love about your draft:
1. Eric Berry at 13. Safeties are rarely top 10 picks. I think a team in the top 10 will pick him, but I definitely see him going at 13 as a possibility.
2. Kareem Jackson, Kyle Wilson, Devin McCourtny, and Dominique Franks in the first round. there are a lot of good CBs in the late 1st early 2nd range of talent, and I don't think most mocks realize it yet.
3. Russell Okung in the mid 20's. I think some players suffer when they are under the microscope. I'm not sure if Okung will drop to the 20s, but it's definitely a possibility.
4. I'm not sure if Campbell and Brown will be there at 39 and 40, but most of your picks before that make sense, and people are clumping tackles together but someone has to drop. Campbell perhaps due to injury concern, and Brown if he's only 290. Even if he's 295 or 300, he wasn't that weight when he played so it's hard to tell if he'll be able to play at 300.
5. Golden Tate. His stats are great, but his measurables (height, weight, 40 time) will cause his stock to drop I think.

CLanterman said...

Oh, one question Rob.
I see Cam Thomas at 36, but I don't see Terrance Cody anywhere. Mistake, or do you see him falling out of the 2nd round? I know he has weight concerns, but he apparently played really well in the Senior Bowl.

Phil said...

I like this mock because it takes care of the offense for the future. I just don't like the fact that we would be missing out on a derelle revis or ed reed type talent in joe haden and eric berry. More so san fran would be getting eriv berry?!! If sf gets berry they will have a top dominate defensive unit for years to come which will mean seattle will be missing the playoffs for years to come. I love the mock but this mock would be an indication that we will be in a full rebuild mode. I ont think we should be in a full rebuild mode when the nfc west will be wide open next year

Ralphy said...

Love this draft! We have spent a lot of early picks on defense so seeing the offensive needs addressed would be awesome! Dez Bryant is going to be a top WR in the NFL for a lot of years.

Rob Staton said...

I don't think Cody warrants a pick in the first two rounds. Conditioning is a huge concern for me. Not sure what kind of work load he'll manage - he's no good to a team on the sidelines. His size made him a unique story, but I'm not even sure he was that dominant for Alabama. Teams will have to spend forever making sure he's at the right weight.

Let me qualify the absence of Tim Tebow too - there's a chance the Jags trade down and find a way to take him later in round one or by picking up another second rounder. My mocks don't include trades though, so on that basis I couldn't find a spot for him in round two.

Rob Staton said...

Phil - I think you could get both Brown and Bryant on the field in 2009. Obviously Clausen wouldn't be unless the season was gone late in the year and Hasselbeck was injured.

I'm not sure the Seahawks would be any more competitive with Berry on their roster instead. SF would still have question marks at QB - something Seattle would've addressed here. You could go into 2011 feeling much better about the passing offense, and it's become a passing league.

myjackrebel said...

this is a draft i would be happy with, although i think all three picks you gave the hawks have big question marks left to be answered at the combine/pro day.

Brendan said...

I hate to be the pessimist here (I am actually an optimistic person but attempting to be realistic here) I think that this draft for the seahawks would put them into years of mediocrity and patch working. The Seahawks are not good. Granted we upgraded the coaches and we have options in this draft but still last year cannot be denied that we are miles away from the Super Bowl and I also believe that Arizona (even with leinart at Q) and San Fran are very far ahead of the Seahawks in talent. I believe that this draft sends us into a Lions type decade of play or it is in my opinion the most likely outcome. And I have no enjoyment in writing this it is simply what I see.

CLanterman said...

I don't get the pessimism. How would this draft send us into 'years of mediocrity'? We draft a #1 type WR and a very capable LT, as well as a QB of the future. If we don't draft a QB of the future, and Hasselbeck is as bad this upcoming season as he was last season, then we're back at square one with a top 10 pick yet again.

Rob Staton said...

What is it about this draft that makes you think that, Brendan?

Brendan said...

I believe that the difference in talent between the Hawks and the rest is vast. I also believe that you build a football team from the inside out. Starts with the lines. A good d-line makes the corners and the safeties better, run D etc better. A good O-line makes the running game qb then wide recievers better. It all starts with the trenches. Also, I think that we have seen that a Qb can very effectively be acquired last (Mine, NO, Arizona). Of course if you have a special player like a Peyton Manning in the draft you have to get him. Same with Bryant - he is no Fitzgerald and even if he was look at Johnson for Detroit.

Brendan said...

I think that the Seahawks need to face reality - we aren't very talented. Compare position by position to Arizona - How many positions are we better than them at?

CLanterman said...

So it's not so much the draft as it is with the actual team that you feel is mediocre. I agree with you there. But 2 of the 3 picks that Rob has are QB and LT. You've said that you felt that o-line is important, and obviously QB is the most important position on a team, so how does this draft not bode well for us (unless you're not a Clausen fan)?

Brendan said...

I think that Clausen is not a special player. I think that this site agrees with me there. Therefore - trade the pick down or get a d-end. The question you have to ask yourself is how much better is Clausen than a 4th round qb and/or how much better is he than next year's 1rst round qb? In my opinion not very much. Or if you look to three years down the road - how much better is he than a potential FA in three years. In my opinion I think that Clausen in 3 years on a bad football team is substantially worse than a FA. Obviously there are risks to waiting but build a core first then get a qb. I think that it would be good to look at a model of how successful teams go from being bad to good. Manning is I believe the exception

Anonymous said...

I think if you look at Carrol's track record with QB's, I would trust his decision. If he picks a QB with #6 you know he believes he can become a star.

Nano said...

That would be superb. Future QB, Playmaker and OT.

I still doubt Brown lasts that long. If he weighs in over 300 at the combine I'd be surprised if he gets past Green Bay and Indy in the first round (both ZBS teams).

Brendan said...

Good point - however I think that his track record also might give him false confidence... When was the last time USC had a poor O-line? Does anyone know what type of options we have to trade the 6th pick? Could we get two second round picks?

Rob Staton said...

I think you are building the foundation though, Brendan. You find that left tackle that fits your scheme. You get a franchise QB and a legitimate playmaker on offense. I'm not sure you could do much more to help the offense than that. You don't find that defensive lineman which is unfortunate - but the Seahawks can't fill every need early in rounds 1-2. You would get the instant benefit of the OT and WR, a long term solution at QB (I've voiced concerns with Clausen, so understand your P.O.V. there). I think that would be a logical start for the new regime, certainly a possibility.

CLanterman said...

Two second round picks? I believe we could get a middle 1st round and a 2nd round pick.
Pete Carroll was supposedly enamored with Clausen when he was recruiting him to go to USC. To me, this seems to be a strong indication that he likes Clausen. Add to that that USC and ND play each other regularly, and that ND has a pro style system, and it seems like Clausen would be Carroll's #1 pick.
In their first matchup, his sophomore year, Clausen was 11 for 22 for 41 total yards with 2 picks and a QB rating of 18.4. Keep in mind that his O-line is/was horrible and USC had about 5 1st round picks on that defense and more than 11 pro players on the defense. In his junior year, Clausen was better at 24 for 43 for 260 yards, 2 TDs and 0 INTs.
I'm not sure how those two games will affect PC's view of him, just thought I'd point it out.

Brendan said...

First off let me say that I am saying what I think the Seahawks should do and not what I think that they will actually do. I think that this site did a good job of showing the ties between Carrol and Clausen and yes I agree that it is likely that Carrol will pick him. I strongly dislike that pick.
Rob - why not trade the 6th and get a second round and a first rounder!? I think that is a great deal. If we can't get a game changer (and last year I did believe that Curry was a game changer and correct to take at 4 but this year I don't see Clausen as being that guy) then we get two talented players later. I actually believe that while Bryant does make sense I would even trade that pick down and get two later picks or picks in next years draft.
A couple of good examples why would be the OT position and Rb position. Look at the depth! What is the difference in talent between the 3 ot and the 8th? look at picking up a guy like Gebhart or Davis in a later round. Seems to me that there are at least 6 good backs in the draft. Any thoughts?

Phil said...

Yea brown and byrant definitely can be on the field. Id love this draft no question. Sf getting berry is very scary though. He would be their missing piece to the defense. They have talent @ every position except safety. But yea our offense needs an upgrade. Our d isn't as bad as it performed last year. I think we are one playmaking d linemen and one playmaking safety away from being a top 10 d. Great mock nontheless rob!

Anonymous said...

Personally I prefer your last mock: Bryant WR, Price DT, Brown OT. It helps both sides of the ball and sets the future qb up with a better chance of success.

I don't know what it is about Clausen, but I just hope he is not the "face" of the franchise and this city. I look at him and he just rubs me the wrong way. I appreciate his talent, but so far I just don't care to get to know him. Especially following a guy like Hasselbeck who has so much charisma.
Adding a solid DT (next to Mebane)WILL help the D, and a #1WR and OT WILL help the O in a year or two.

Brendan said...

Hold on a second. If we can get a first and second rounder for Clausen (the 6th pick) then I would ask the question would you rather have Clausen and two picks or something like Iupati and Brown and two picks? Clausen or Iupati/ Brown (for example)

Anonymous said...

Hey Rob,
Thanks for the post, I was wondering what you think of Maurkice pouncey personally?

Rob Staton said...

You'd need to find a trade partner. I don't do trades in the mocks because they are so hard to project. If the right offer was on the table, of course you'd consider it. However - I'd be surprised if Seattle are showing any interest in Iupati - he's too big for the prototype Gibbs lineman and his main issue is leverage - something that is absolutely #1 for Gibbs lineman.

Rob Staton said...

Hey annonymous,

Pouncey never blew me away if I'm honest. I've seen a lot of Florida and I always thought he had pro-potential - but very much a 2-3 round grade.

Anonymous said...

I am reading this article second time today, you have to be more careful with content leakers. If I will fount it again I will send you a link

ChavaC said...

I think this would be a best case scenario at this point. I would probably opt for Morgan or Price, but Bryant is definitely a value at 14. Brown still there at 40 seems unlikely, but if he comes in underweight at the combine I suppose it makes sense. Even if he was gone, though, Houston is still on the board and would be a nice pickup.

Rob Staton said...

Annonymous - I don't understand when you say you're reading this 'for the second time today'? Could you explain a little further what you mean?

Anonymous said...

Rob..I think he means that someone somewhere is probably hot linking your post..

Brendan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

How much better is Clausen than Teel?

germpod said...

The Clausen vs Teel debate is a big one in my mind. Or just how good is Teel has me wondering if we have to get another QB for the future, or if Teel is that guy? I guess I should look for scouting reports on him from last season, since he did not play at all this year despite being blown out quite a bit.

Mr Fish said...

According to most draftniks, Clausen is several rounds better than Teel.

Remind me again. What exactly has Teel done to challenge that perception?

Rob Staton said...

The problem Teel has is that he has no opportunity between now and the draft to show what he can do to the new staff. Even then, his position now is to maintain a spot on the 2010 roster. Unfortunately for him, he's joining a team that probably can't afford to wait on a late round project to develop - especially one drafted by the old regime.

Jon said...

So would we call this the "obvious needs" draft? All these mocks are taking a peek down a possible avenue the hawks might take, seems to be how the consensus among fans and media would see things going.

LT, QB and WR is definitely setting the stage for the next generation of Seahawk offense. I'm not a huge Clausen fan but I always like young QB's and WR's coming to a team at the same time so they can grow together.

I think I'd rather have Morgan at #14 but hey, we got RICKY FOLEY now so we got the pass rush covered =)

Tarren said...

It's nice to dream...

I love this mock for Seattle -- it's probably my favorite I've seen thus far. If Clausen or Bradford is available at 6, this may well be our best chance within the next couple years to lock down a quality prospect for a franchise QB.

Dez Bryant looks like a legit top-10 receiver. I think he's dropped some because of an unfortunate lunch with Neon Deion, but where would he be projected to go if he ended the season with a big performance in a bowl game? He fills a big need at WR that many overlook, and gives us the game-changing ability we need. I'm not really sold on the value of any of the DE's at 14, or even on Price. For me, Bryant would easily be BPA there.

Charles Brown may be the best prospect available for us this year at LT (aside from a healthy Bruce Campbell), and would be a great bargain at 40.

If Gibbs can do what Gibbs does best and make the most of a RB and maybe a G in later rounds, we'd be looking at a pretty complete offensive rebuild in 1 year. Our defense will suffer, but we shouldn't expect to fill all needs this offseason and these picks all offer great value. This draft gives us instant improvements and long-term potential.

If the Broncos lose Marshall, how likely is it that they'd reach for a red-flagged guy like Dunlap at 11 over Bryant? Dan Williams also seems like a reach, although it's very possible McClain could still be on the board for the Dolphins if the Chiefs go OT. I'd be pretty nervous waiting to pick an LT at 40, as Brown could easily go to GB or Indi -- or to teams in the early 2nd that have needs at that position. If we miss Brown, can we expect guys like Fox, Capers, Wang, and Saffold to be upgrades at LT? If things played out this way I'd be upset with anything but these picks, but I'd be a little surprised to have each of these 3 drop to us.

Anonymous said...

Here's just a shot in the dark. And no, I'd never expect this to happen, but it'd be kind of fun considering boring Hawks drafts...

#6: OT Anthony Davis
#14: WR Dez Bryant
#40: WR Demariyus Thomas
4th round: S Major Wright
5th round: RB Montario Hardesty

Trade Deion Branch for Adalius Thomas who becomes the Elephant. Sign Dunta Robinson in FA. Both seem like realistic options unless Dunta is RFA which I'm not sure of. I'm not talking about signing Seymour, Wilfork, etc.

Then in 2011, you do what you have to do to get Jake Locker. Yes, I'm a homer, but the guy single handedly wins games for UW with piss poor protection and inconsistent offensive weapons.

By 2011, you have your future QB (Locker), 3 good young WRs who compliment each other very well (Bryant, Butler, Thomas), 2 good RBs who compliment each other (Forsett, Hardesty), and you have 2 very good O-lineman to build around (Davis, Unger). Your defense is not dominant, but you have a good young S (Wright), 2 good CBs (Wilson, Robinson), your LB corps is set, and hope that Carroll can get creative with the scheme to get a pass rush with a pretty young D-line (Tapp, Jackson, Reed, Mebane).

I'd never expect this to happen, but it sure would be fun to see the Hawks take a chance on some guys who could really turn one side of the ball into a dominant force.

And like others have said, I'd love to get these units to "grow" up together where there is familiarity early on between the QB and WRs and O-line for that matter.

Rip away but I thought I'd throw out a very un-Tim Ruskell crazy idea.

Rob Staton said...

Not sure about Robinson's status, although he was given the franchise tag last year. That's probably likely again unless they agree a long term deal.

A Branch for Thomas deal sounds a bit 'NBA' to be true, but we don't know how the stagnated free agency will affect teams. We might see some surprise trades. However - I think everyone knows Branch is going to get cut soon (despite the best attempts to suggest that isn't going to be the case) and therefore will be available for a much cheaper price.

I like Hardesty - I think he'll go in rounds 3-4.

Demaryius Thomas has broken his foot according to reports today. This could really impact his stock.

Pete Carroll appears to be a big fan of Locker's. There's certainly a certain buzz around the potential of keeping Locker in Seattle. However - the team cannot afford to plan like that. For starters - if Locker has a huge year and is the bona fide #1 - it'll be very difficult to trade into the top spot especially if a rookie salary cap is in place for 2011. If he drops like a stone next year and has a bad year - do you even entertain taking him still? What if he has a serious injury?

I could certainly see a situation where Carroll would love to take Locker, so I can't rule that line of thinking out. It increases the chances with Sarkisian being in Washington of course. However - to even begin to imagine how that could play out is a stretch at this point. If the Seahawks pass on a QB this year though - it'll be an interesting story to monitor. Rest assured in that case it'd be a hot topic of discussion.

Anonymous said...

There seems to be a huge bias or assumption going on with Seattle blogs that Brown will be our pick with the 40th. It seems like with all the glowing write-ups he'd actually be a steal at 40 and may not be available if any of the other teams view him in this light. Is there any chance of giving us a few more options on who may be available at 40 if Brown is indeed gone? Just don't want to get hopes up or totally sold on one guy just to see him gone in the late first and then be depressed the rest of the draft because no one else could possibly live up to him, thanks. Great mock btw, love addressing the offense this year early!

Kip Earlywine said...

Brendan, to answer one of your questions, this QB class falls off a cliff once Bradford and Clausen are gone. All the remaining options after them look like NFL backups, and some of them don't even look like an NFL QB at all.

That's not too out of the norm either. I'm too lazy to find it again, but its been charted and documented. Since 1990, 1st round QBs have about a 40% chance of making a pro bowl. In the 4th, 5th, and 7th rounds, its about 3-5%. The 6th round is higher, but that's basically because of a statistical anomaly (Derek Anderson, Hasselbeck, Brady).

If you want a franchise QB, the evidence overwhelmingly points to drafting one in the 1st round. Of the 12 playoff teams this past year, 10 had QBs taken in the first 32 picks.

Kip Earlywine said...

I think if Brown is gone at #40 (and I agree- he probably will be), the best option will probably be Jason Fox, but in all honesty, #40 is probably reaching for him. If the Seahawks want Fox, they should trade down first.

Ralphy said...

Well anonymous it certainly will be interesting to see Paul Allens spending in an uncapped year. I would love to see Dunta in a Hawks uniform next year.

Here's an interesting article out of Houston on the University of Florida flops in the NFL since 2001.http://blogs.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2010/02/it_feels_great_to_draft_a_flor.html

Rob Staton said...

One thing to remember with Brown is his size - at 290lbs most teams won't be interested. Others - like Indy - who would be interested might go in different directions and fill other needs. The fact I have guys like Bruce Campbell and Russell Okung falling pushes the likes of Brown down a shade. He would be a possibility for GB if Okung doesn't fall like I predict.

I go through each pick one-by-one with no real intention to put anyone in a specific area until it happens. I've done two second round mocks and Brown has been there both times. If he wasn't available, and considering what direction Seattle has already gone, taking a guy like Lamarr Houston (DT, Texas) is possible. Corey Wooten (DE, Northwestern) is possible. You could even make a case for a pure pass rusher like Jason Worilds (DE, Virginia Tech) or one of the cornerbacks who are left. The Seahawks might see greater value in Nate Allen.

Anonymous said...

Kip, Kafka and Hall aren't bad QB's. I think the two can possibly turn into starters.

Josh Karl said...

First off, I love this blog and the die-hard seahawks fans...(they come few and far between here in Oklahoma)

I think we should trade our 6th pick for a later 1st and a 2nd. With that being said, this is what I think our draft should look like...

14th) Jason Pierre-Paul/Derrick Morgan/Brian Price...any of these would be sufficient. We must get a pass rush...

20's) Mike Iupati (i know your not hot on him, lol but i feel he could adapt to Gibb's scheme) or we could trade for Brandon Marshal.

40th) Charles Brown...period! He is the perfect selection here...

Late 2nd) Maybe Taylor Mays if he slips this far...but realistically, i think CB or S would be appropriate.

4th) DAN LeFEVOUR is my man crush haha!!! He is exactly what we need...he is very smart and has great work ethic. He is athletic and he throws a great ball.

All the other picks should be best available player...WR, DT, RB (Blout, Oregon)

It is key to our immediate success that we make a big move in the FA market....we need to bring in a big name guy in the trenches....OL/DL it doesn't matter.

Well...there is my 2 cents.

Go Hawks!

xan32 said...

Your mock is quite intersting and makes a lot of sense.

Jony-b said...

I am a fan of trading down in the back to pick up more players. I did a study of trading draft picks and found a draft pick value chart that teams use for trading draft picks on draft day. I know that it is a huge stretch but I truly believe that if our hawks are not sold on anyone at the picks that they currently have, they could potentially trade back a few different times and end up with three or four second rounders and still have each of the first two picks around #20.
Just a thought but I think that this would be a very good and in my opinion aggressive draft as we could come up with 6 players in the first sixty picks.
Some of the combination's that I have come up with in this thought is something like what follows.
OT and DE/DT in the first round. Up to 4 seconds RB, S, WR, and (possibly another linemen on either side OG/DT/DE.
Obviously this is way far from a plan that you can go in with but I would like to see 5 or six potential starters drafted for next season. Amazing long term and short term strategy for building through the draft. This would be huge especially if we do want to focus on getting the very best qb next year if that is our direction.

Steve in Spain said...

Dunta Robinson will be a UFA this off-season, having accumulated six years playing in the NFL (drafted 2004), unless he's franchise tagged again. Given his injuries, I'm not sure he's worth the $10 million another franchising would command. He says he wants to sign a long-term deal with the Texans, which makes sense. Doesn't mean he won't test the market a bit.

Rob Staton said...

Thanks Steve.

It'll be interesting to see how teams use their tags with the stagnated free agency and whether we'll see an uprise in trades as teams try to fill needs.

Anonymous said...

Rob, do you think with both highly touted QBs backing out of the draft. Do you think that a QB will suddenly increase their draft stock similar to Mark Sanchez last year?

Rob Staton said...

Hi annonymous - I'm not sure we'll see a late riser outside of Clausen or Bradford. There aren't many alternatives - Tebow could go in round one or two because of the intangibles. I'm not a fan of Colt McCoy before round four - I think teams will do their homework there and make similar judgements. Tony Pike is too needle thin and people have raised concerns about his commitment to the game, but will probably go in rounds 3-4.

Certainly though the top two have benefitted from others pulling out. Essentially, there's two quarterback prospects in the draft now that can realistically go early. If you were throwing Locker and Mallett into the mix - then teams would have more alternative options if they just were that bit too concerned about Bradford's durability for example.

However, there would've been questions to be answered for both Mallet and Locker too - so you never know what would've happened. Mallet has since broken his foot this week - so it goes to show that anything can happen.

Will said...

Great mock! Just FYI.. The Florida TE you have going in the 2nd Round to the Patriots is not Anthony Gonzalez, but his name is Aaron Hernandez

c-hawker said...

Rob; Every team picking ahead of us in the second round need's an OT, including the Ram's.
Jason Smith has concussion issues,although they have many more need's.
Washington need's a lot of O-line help.
I just don't see Brown making it to #40.
Berry will never make it to #13, no way.

Jww said...

Rob - Love this mock. I would agree with a number of other posts, however, that Brown will not be available at 40. We have all grown to love the idea of getting him at 40 but I believe if he shows up at the combines at 300, and excels in drills as he will, he will be off the board by our pick. I would love to grab him, but I;m just not sure it is going to be realistic.

Anonymous said...

Keep it up the good work Rob!

Brendan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I would be fine with taking Brown at #14.

Brendan said...

Kip Earlywine
"this QB class falls off a cliff once Bradford and Clausen are gone"
I think this is fairly accurate although I really don't believe in Clausen and I kind of believe in Bradford. My issue with these guys is that a QB's most important attributes cannot be measured by stats. The most important is leadership, intelligence and work ethic. I just don't see Clausen as being a leader. Personal opinion.
Also, to clarify your point. I will agree with your assessment that good QBS generally come from the top of the draft so we will rule out the option for the Hawks getting a Qb in the late rounds (even though you could point to Romo, Hasslebeck, Brady, also Rodgers (at 23rd)). But that doesn't rule out the Hawks getting a QB through FA in a couple of years. Look at Brees, Farve, Warner and the possibility of getting a QB in a future draft? Compare Clausen to other Qbs in the top ten draft picks for the last couple of years or next year? You think Clausen is better than Locker or Mallet? Do you think that Clausen's intangibles will hold up on a bad Seahawks team? Do you think Clausen can lead a bad team? Can he take the hits the pressure and still maintain a long term outlook? Too many questions too much pressure - trade the pick down and keep expectations low in Seattle for now - this is not 5 years ago we do not own the division we are the third best team and still heading lower. Reality sucks but we can do something about it and it starts with this all important draft.

CLanterman said...

Kip, here is a chart I did last year looking at successes.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ipaAZiBeFr4/S3199iN2ECI/AAAAAAAAAGg/F1Lv4lwDpmc/s1600-h/Offense+Graph.JPG

The rounds are a bit inaccurate as round 1 = the first 30 picks, round 2 = picks 31-60, etc.
Success = 1 pro bowl, 3 starting seasons, or 64 games played.
Wild Success = 2 pro bowls, 7 starting seasons, or 125 games played.

As you can see, after the first round, drafting a QB is a bit of a crap shoot. One might even argue that if you don't draft one in the 1st, don't bother until the 6th or 7th.

Timshorts said...

Our problem at the moment is obviously that we have far more positions of need than we have draft slots to plug the gaps. Last year I seem to recall thinking that we had one too many slots to fill and then, of course, we managed to select a LB with pick 1 which wasn't on my list at all. Left tackle, safety and a tall corner were all on last years list and still remain, the first two rather more critically.

I figure we need Left tackle, a guard and a safety as priority need. A tall CB, RB, DE, DT are desireable. If we had fewer pressing needs a franchise QB would be great, but lets get the basics in order first and give next years franchise guy a bit of a chance.

I don't believe that our D is as bad as it looks on paper. It's getting killed almost every week as the O doesn't stay on the field long enough to give it a chance. No wonder our pass rush is rubbish, the guys are permanently knackered. Our QB isn't as bad as he looks on paper either - he's had a 2 year bout of David Carr syndrome. If he gets injured next year, then let's have a look at Mike Teel, but preferably in a context where he is not going to get killed/drilled to the floor if he doesn't get rid of the ball in next to no time. Look how long Manning and Breeze have to find a receiver. And Sanchez for that matter, behind a good Jets o-line. Our RB's are not good, but they are running through spaces that don't exist half the time.

Anyway, with that in mind, here is my fantasy draft:-

a) We trade our pick 6 and pick 40 with San Fran pick 13 and 16. That works out only 50 points adrift on the draft trade chart, so if there is someone San Fran wants, it will work (although they aren't really my fave. choice of trading partner)

b) That gives us 3 mid-first round picks. I'd love to have Berry, but needs must. I reckon we could land with those 3 picks
i) Bulaga - Left tackle
ii)Spiller - RB (a bit of a luxury pick, admittedly)
iii) Iupati - Guard. He moves people. If we are going to run the ball, at least one people-carrier is essential

That gives us an o-line of:-
Bulaga - Iupati - Unger - Sims - Lockyear
It provides a hole for Spiller to work in, time for the receivers to get open and downfield, an additional receiver outlet in Spiller, and a front line to allow a QB, whether that be Teel, Matt Moore, Jake Locker, or whoever to get experience behind over the next 2-3 years

Pick 4 and 5 must therefore go on Defence. I like the look of Nate Allen or Myron Rolle at S and D'Anthony Smith or Mike Neal at DT.

Subsequently, I suspect we could still get WR Freddie Barnes from Bowling Green and a Corner given that there seems to be a long CB class, a number of them that might still be available having a bit of height.

Does anybody have an idea as to whether we may receive a compensatory pick this year? Without having looked too hard, I think we may get one for the loss of Weaver who made it to the pro-bowl again, but probably not for any other losses - but that's just a hunch

Brendan said...

Look - I am not saying we don't need a qb - we do. But what I am saying is that a qb won't make a difference on a bad team. Compare position by position across the board with the niners or Cardinals. Is there a way that this draft will make us better than them? I don't think so. So we need to look down the road 3-5 years. I am not saying throw the season but if you rule out the possibility of winning the Super Bowl in the next three years then you have to ask what is the best route to winning the Super Bowl in 5 years? That is the problem with teams drafting qbs too early (alex Smith, Brady quiin) A qb should be one of the last pieces to the puzzle. You don't build a team around a qb - you build it around the trenches then D then offensive skill positions. Any thoughts?

Phil said...

This team lacks PLAYMAKERS. I hate when people say trade down so we can get more picks. NO.. whatb this team needs is playmakers/pro bowlers because u kno what we had none last year. Why would u want to fill this roster up with more mediocore players?! Because that's what this team has. We need PLAYMAKERS. The 6th and 14th picks are perfect slots to find 2 potential PLAYMAKERS. Id rather get 2 PLAYMAKERS this draft then 6 potential starters.

Brendan said...

What we talkin' about Playmakers? We... we... we talkin' about playmakers? Lol just kidding. Phil the flaw is that you can't have an offensive playmaker without an o-line or I guess you can (detroit) but it doesn't matter cause your team is not good. I would rather have a super bowl team than a couple of playmakers that will be in Seattle for a bad team for 3-5 years and then be traded.

Brendan said...

Also, you can still get very good players in the second round that can turn into playmakers don't be fooled by the draft place - you may just have to give them a little more time

Morgan said...

If you need a QB and there is a franchise-type QB in the draft, you take him. We can't make up scenarios of how we might be able to get a QB years from now, we can only deal with what is available now.

Clausen is the best QB prospects to come out in years - I really have no idea what people are second-guessing. He lived up to immense hype, and he improved every year. He was voted captain and his teammates loved him. He never gave up on the team despite a pourous o-line and an long injury to one of his favorite wr targets.

Is he an egotistical jerk? Probably. Most of them are. That didn't stop certified douchebag Jay Cutler from being an allpro his second full season starting. We're spoiled by Hass's nice-guy demeanor, but by no means should that be a deciding factor on whether you draft somebody or not.

When Sanchez was available last year, there was a chorus of people urging patience - that next year was a much better year for quarterbacks. Well, it's next year, and people want to wait again? We need to draft a QB this year, let him learn for a year (and fill in when Hass inevitably gets injured), and hope he's ready to take the reins in 2011 when Hass's contract expires.

Morgan said...

Regarding Charles Johnson, and what to do should he not be there at #40.

He was very raw at the Texas vs. the Nation game, but I think Hillsdale OT Jared Veldheer is going to rock the combine. He's fast and strong, and just needs time playing against quality competition to get used to ends that actually use pass-rush moves - something he didn't have to face for most of his college career. #40 is too early for him, but I think he has the most upside out of any of the post-round one tackles.

He's bigger than a typical Gibbs lineman, but he looks to have more than enough athleticism to make up for it.

Brendan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Morgan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CLanterman said...

"A qb should be one of the last pieces to the puzzle. You don't build a team around a qb - you build it around the trenches then D then offensive skill positions. Any thoughts?"

Brendan, I mostly agree, however it takes 3 or so years for QB to hit his stride and maximize his skills. Also, most good QBs are taken in the top 10, so if we were to build a strong nucleus and then try to get a QB, we may not find one unless we get lucky with an Aaron Rodger / Drew Brees scenario.
I believe we can still build in the trenches if we go Clausen, Price, Brown, or Clausen, Brown (trade down to 25), Houston, and we can still get a playmaker in the 3rd or 4th round with a McKnight type.

Brendan said...

Definitely not a bad idea Clanterman. And I do agree with you that a qb takes a couple years to develop. However, I think that getting a good to very good qb via FA is more likely than you give it credit for. Drew Brees is one example, Hasslebeck, Farve, Warner are others. Conversely you have Roethlisberger, Manning, Rivers from top draft picks that come to mind. So definitely you could make the case for taking the qb. However, you also have to take the bad Leaf/ Quinn/ Russell etc. You also have a guy like Schaub taken in FA. So both ways can work definitely not disagreeing. I am saying A. I don't believe in Clausen and even if you do believe in Clausen - I think that the odds are substantially better for putting a veteran Qb on a good team rather than trying to build a team around a rookie that you think may become good with the team.

Also, Sanchez and E. Manning were taken as rookies true - but they were taken as rookie's on good team's. Build Seattle core team then take a rookie in the third year of rebuilding then by the 5th year from now we could compete for a Super Bowl or build a team and in the third year from now get a QB in FA (this option is alot more probable than you think).

What I am saying is that the odds are better to build then put a qb in. But I think you have a decent option Clanter.

cysco said...

History has shown that you can build "the trenches" in the later rounds, but it is extremely difficult to find a solid QB in the later rounds.

There are numerous stories out there of how Gibbs was able to build dominant lines in Denver without the need of first-round linemen.

We have the #6 pick this year and I hope the organization believes this will be the highest pick they have for a long time. If the assumption is that we are not going to draft this high for a long time, then you must draft Clausen if he's there.

You can't build for the future and assume you are going to be able to patchwork in some veteran QB every couple years. What does Minnesota do next season if Favre calls it quits again? What does Arizona do without Warner? Both those teams are left with solid football teams with no QB.

We can argue the merits of Clausen, but I'm confident that he is going to be the best QB option that the Hawks could realistically draft this year or the next few years. Could there be better QBs to come out in the next few years? Sure. Will the Hawks be in a position to draft them? I sure hope not. Again, the assumption has to be that the Hawks won't be drafting high enough to get a top-tier QB prospect.

For those that are against picking Clausen at #6, i'd like to hear the arguments for why you don't think he'll make a good pro. It can't be because of his stats, his fundamentals or his experience. I'm just curious what I'm missing.

-=cysco

CLanterman said...

Cysco, here are Rob's two articles on Clausen:
http://seahawksdraft.blogspot.com/2010/01/jimmy-clausen-debate.html

http://seahawksdraft.blogspot.com/2010/01/jimmy-clausen-debate-part-2.html

Anonymous said...

Rob, what are your thoughts on Dan LeFevour?

I think it's intriguing for the Hawks to consider a QB in rounds 2-4 this year for the sake of not putting all the eggs in one basket and not spending as high a pick on one and to consider all of our other needs. This is on the bases that Teel isn't given a chance (which I'm not too concerned about).

People in this conversation tend to forget that not all starting QB's are high first rounders (Tom Brady, a fluke 6th rounder; Tony Romo, undrafted). There are even the second rounders like Drew Brees and Chad Henne. So the "drop-off" after the first two is too precise a prediction of the future. I guess what I'm saying is there is just as good a chance that a no-name QB could emerge from this draft as one of the top two.

For the record, I like the Hawks' direction in your mock as I am on board with Dez Bryant to be our weapon in a division that is recently gathering their own and leaving us behind. Jimmy is also a good stretegy to give Hawks fans excitement about the future.

If this year is un-capped, I think we can expect PA to write some checks and spice of the D to give Carroll a better chance.

Sorry for the paragraph,

-Joe

Brendan said...

Good post cysco well said. I agree with your logic and process. And I would be more apt to agree with you about Clausen except for this, "If the assumption is that we are not going to draft this high for a long time, then you must draft Clausen if he's there." We disagree on the talent level of the Seahawks.

What does everyone here think about an unbiased comparison between Frisco and the hawks position by position? And what does everyone think about the Cardinals position by position? Am i too negative? Because to me it seems like those two teams are better than us in most positions? Am I wrong?

Mike said...

I have to agree whole heartedly with the concept that the QB should be one of the last pieces in the puzzle. If we can't trade down then go for best available. We probably have a whole whereever that best available is. I think that if you dumped Clausen or Bradford into next years QB class, they will end up being #3 or #4. With that in mind, I would much rather build the rest of the puzzle now, knowing that we can get someone next year who is at least as good as Clausen and at a mid round 1 price.

Jony-b said...

Morgan. I understand the topic of play makers. Now here is some info for you. When we chose hutch in the teens we also chose Koren Robinson at #9 and were is he. Not a play maker.
Who was the best drafted receiver this year Percy Harvin. Where was he drafted #22, which is one of the positions the hawks could trade back to.
Last year we picked Unger in the second round and he started every game. Curry is good but did not play to his elite status this year. I believe he will but he still needs growth, we picked him at #4.
Best Offensive tackle out of last years draft during the 09 season Michael Oher pick #23.
When is the best Safety generally taken, early second round. That would be another instant starter.
Nate Burleson was drafted in the third round and has started for the last 6, 7 years on teams, and if we do not resign him we need to draft a WR named Brandon Lafel, Damien Williams or others who are very good. Good enough to be drafted in the first but will likely make it to the second because of nfl teams needs this year.
Chris Johnson was the fifth RB picked in the 2008 draft. Darren McFadden was first, who is better.


I like play makers but if you can draft 5 or 6 players in the first two rounds versus 3 you will end up with a darn good draft. And by the way, at the positions that I listed in my first post about trading back are RB, S, WR, OT, OG DT. If our picks went to these positions we would just about instantly upgrade all 6 positions with the players that we would draft. Not 6 maybe starters, but six very likely first year starters.
right now on our team we have 4 defensive starters that were drafted in the first round, one is Patrick Kerney about to retire.
On the offense we have one first round pick and we all know his name very well. Walter Jones, also about to retire.

only 20-30 percent of our starters are from the first round. And that is the same for most NFL Teams.

Just some info to back up my thoughts

Go Hawks

Brendan said...

Also Cysco about the trenches. You are right Gibbs does great with later round picks - so I would suggest trading down our 6th pick and get two o line men.

After getting two line man this year think about our o-line moving forward. Ungar (will continue to improve) LT (maybe Brown) and a guard or RT. By trading the 6th pick down would really give us a great opportunity to build the core of our o-line. Then at 14th you get DE/Bryant(I guess Rob convinced me kind of) or trade down.

That potential o-line gets me all excited!

Rob Staton said...

Joe - I'm not as high on LeFevour as some. I just think he's a massive project. He played in a very pass-friendly offense in college not too dissimilar to what Texas Tech used under Mike Leach. He never made any kind of pro-style reads and took all his information from the sideline. He's not physically good enough to make up for that steep learning curve, or accurate enough. He ran a lot of QB draws he won't be able to do in the pro's.

In the right circumstance and with time he can maybe develop, but the learning curve is so huge for a guy that hasn't made reads in college I'm not sure he'll be able to pick it up immediately. My initial thoughts on scouting LeFevour were that he'd be a UDFA or a late round pick. I'm led to believe some teams are much higher on him than that. I suspect those teams will already have a QB on their books they are secure with. I could see LeFevour landing on a team that doesn't have a critical situation at QB who can develop him. Even still, I think his maximum range is rounds 3-4 and I wouldn't draft him for Seattle until later than that.

Mike said...

Rob, to ask my point more directly, if you moved Clausen into next years draft, where would he be? I have him as the #3 QB at best, which would put him at #20 or so in the picks.

Jony-b said...

Brendan,
O line, D-Line are the most important part of there respective side of the ball. Improvement is needed at all kinds of positions but we need (in our old coach moras words) to get all kinds of nasty in the Offensive and Defensive Line.

Brendan said...

Love it Jony-B! That's what I am talking about! Lets get this draft started. How long until football season starts?

Anonymous said...

Lafeuvor also never played against a defense below rank 40... unless you count the game versus U of A where he didn't perform too well.

cysco said...

My hope, and I'm sure it's the goal of the organization, is to try to improve on last year's performance. Obviously, the playoffs are out of the question unless lightning strikes. However, setting a goal of adding 2-3 wins onto last year's total should be realistic.

Achieving that goal means we are likely drafting around the 12-17 range depending on how things pan out. That makes us a legitimate middle of the pack kinda team.

In that range, any "stud" QB next year is already gone. In all likelihood we'd be looking at the #4 rated QB next year.

If Clausen is equal to next year's #4 QB, then why wouldn't we want that #4-rated QB this year to sit and learn from Hass so that the following year, he's ready to go?

Of course, if you believe that Clausen just isn't starting NFL QB material, then the decision is an easy one to make. However, if the organization believes Clausen can be a solid QB, I think it makes a lot of sense to get him this year in preparation of Hass leaving/retiring.

If the organization feels Clause is not the guy, I would be turning over every rock trying to trade down too. I agree with you there 100%. If there isn't a legit QB at #6 I don't see anyone else on the board is is worth that money.

Great thread everyone!

-=cysco

Mike said...

Cysco,
Because I don't want to pay #6 money to a guy who really should be drafted around #20. QB is not a strength of the draft class. I personnally think we should trade #6 and #14 if possible and stockpile 1-3 round picks even if they are next years picks. Turning our 3 picks in the 1-3 rounds into 5 or 6 picks is doable. You just have to find a buyer, thats the tricky part.

Anonymous said...

The assumption seems to be that the top two qb's are franchise quarterbacks and after that the talent falls off a cliff.

However it could very well be that this whole qb class resides at the bottom of the cliff. Or there might be a Tom Bradey type cliff dweller.

Just a hunch but the teams who pick these two might be in for a disapointment.

And the hype goes on.

Kudo's to all - good thread.

Lenny James said...

Hey Rob, I like the Bryant pick at 14. A few mocks ago I didnt like the idea of picking JPP at 6. However, I have since changed my postition. We absoultely need a better pass rush. We have to pick JPP at 6 because after the combine, no way he's there at 14. He is a far better athlete than Derrick Morgan. JPP is just as good as Morgan with less playing experience. I dont see Morgan getting to much better, where JPP is nowhere near his potential. JPP would be worth the #6 money.
With Kerney returning next season he would be his perfect successor. JPP could come and specialize in pass rushing situations while he learns from a great DE in P. Kerney. With the edge rush of Kerney, JPP, and Tapp rotating and the LB core of Curry, Tutupu, Hawthrone, Hill. The front seven possibilities could make any Corner look good. We could even add a corner or safety in the later rounds of the draft. I would be against trading down. We need Pro Bowlers not a bunch of average starters. I'm Officially a JPP fan. If we can somehow get back into the third round here would be the best draft scenario for the Hawks

6. JPP
14. Bryant/ Spiller
40 BPA O Line.
3rd BPA QB ( Maybe LeFevour or Tebow)or BPA DT
4th BPA RB
5th BPA DB
6th BPA O Line
7th BPA O line

Rob, What do you think?

Rob Staton said...

Mike - obviously it'd be tough to guess where Clausen would be in a years time. Had he enjoyed a stella year statistically in 2010 like he did this previous season - there's every chance people would be talking about him as the obvious choice to go #1. When I watch Ryan Mallet - I think he's physically what you want from a quarterback - great arm, great size and throws the ball from a tremendous height. I think he's more accurate than people give him credit for and should be better from a year's seasoning, but as with all QB's with a huge arm he needs to learn touch.

Locker I've seen very little of. Again very good physically and if he continues to develop he'll be a legitimate high pick. Really you're looking at two physical prospects with big upside but an element of risk against a guy who isn't 'special' in terms of potential, but could be better at getting the job done. Some teams will value that over potential.

So to answer your question, he may well be the #3 guy in 2011. But in this year's class, he might be the best option available. Seattle cant afford to wait forever for the perfect QB. That doesn't mean you settle for less, but it does mean you access Clausen and ask 'can he be a franchise QB who wins games for this team?'. If the answer is yes, he warrants very serious consideration at #6.

Lenny - I like JPP and believe he has huge upside. There's a big risk element because he's a one year wonder who has only recently committed to football. However, I watch him and see flashes of Demarcus Ware. Undoubtedly he needs the right kind of coach early in his NFL career to max out the talent. I doubt he'll respond to a Tom Coughlin type. I think with a team like Oakland he might drift into their culture of mediocrity and lose any kind of drive. Pete Carroll might be the perfect coach for JPP - someone who can put an arm round him, use what he does well now (pass rush off the edge) and work on the other stuff a stage at a time. I think Carroll likewise would love a challenge like that.

Brendan said...

First off - great thread I think that almost all these posts have great points. The funny thing about it is that everyone could be right but the most important thing to remember is that this is a game of probabilities and we have to go with the option that gives us the greatest chance at WINNING THE SUPER BOWL. Agreed that Clausen may make the team better now but I just don't see how the Seahawks can make the jump from mediocrity to the elite with this type of draft. Obviously, I could be wrong.

"However, setting a goal of adding 2-3 wins onto last year's total should be realistic" - cysco

Yeah maybe but does that ever get us to a super bowl?

Another thing that I think is important that I think alot of us differ on is how good the Seahawks are right now.

MAN v MAN how many teams do you think the Seahawks are better than? Across the board go position by position and compare the teams.

In my opinion we are not a qb or a player here a player there away from being good and especially not close to elite. We need youth, depth and potential.

I want a super bowl not a 8-8 football team (8 wins? who can the seahawks beat? Don't want to sound down and this is up for debate I really want to know who people think man v man we are better than? even add in the draft picks if u want)

Jony-b said...

Hey Lenny,
I want prow bowlers also. And again I just took a little time to look it up, I believe five rookies went to the pro bowl last year. Orakpo and Cushing from before pick #20. Matthews and Byrd between picks 20 and 50. And Of course you have Knox from the fifth round.
I realize that top picks are fun, and exciting, but If you have smart analysts and drafters, you can pick up big time players any time in the draft.
Our beloved Hawthorne was not even drafted two years ago. He was not a prow bowler but he played well enough to be if he had help and played the whole season as the starter. I like Lofa so don't think Im saying anything about him but Those who did not draft Hawthorne saw some things they wish they had seen before his entrance into the pros.
I don't agree with trading back if the guy you want is there, but if there are 6 guys that fit a need and none is completely dominant to the others why not trade back pick up an exptra pick and get one of them 6 or so picks latter.

Jony-b said...

OK I am going to give Brendan part of an answer to his question.

1)We are better than about six teams in my opinion.

2) I am going to give you the positions that do not need to be upgraded first.
Defense
Wherever Brandon Mebane is in the middle will be good.
Linebackers are strong all around.
I believe tru will return to form at Corner.
Kerney is good when Healthy but is getting old. Overall DE is pretty good (not great) with the current rotation but needs big help from the other DT not named Mebane.
I Like Wilson and think he can continue with help from the rest of the D
Deon Grant is good but getting old

Offense
Forsett needs help but should stay as a big part.
Center is going to be good with Unger.
Hass has a few years if he has good protection.
One Gaurd and One Tackle aquisition would allow for a battle for the other starting jobs on the right side which would be great.
WR 2 is set with Housh
WR 3 Has two Deon's that are adequate
TE is just were it should be with our incoming 3rd year Carlson

3)Big time needs and fast.
Defense
A DT that can push the pocket will free up our good but not great DEs to get after the QB
A Safety that can play football that will not retire in the next couple years.

Offense
OT
WR1
RB to help J Force
OG is the meat that would complete the process of competition that is needed to upgrade the entire line.


4)
Could be upgraded some or in the near future if all of the above needs are met this off season
Defense
CB opposite Tru
DE

Offense
QB



I agree we are not great and have a lot of needs that must be met this year or we will be looking at another 6 or less win season.

Brendan said...

Thanks for the reply - here are my thoughts.

Where as I do agree with alot of what you are saying - I kind of think that we should comapare for example across the board against say Arizona.

Offensively - I think that zona is better than us at every position except QB and TE. Am I wrong?

Cysco said...

Just to be clear, my comment about being 2-3 wins better next year was only to make my point that we will be drafting lower next season, thus not in the running for a elite qb option next draft.
By no means are any of us happy with 8-8, but it's a start in the right direction.

At some point down the road we are going to need a new QB. (that some day is likely the 2011 season) If you don't get your QB of the future this year, then you better prey for the strongest QB class ever next season or that we get lucky and someone falls to us next draft. Odds are, someone other than Hass will be this team's starting QB in two years. The team needs to be aware of this and have a plan.

Like I've said, I'm no expert, but if the front office thinks Clausen can run a pro team, they have to take a real serious look at him.

-=cysco

Morgan said...

Jony-B, i appreciate your post about where are all the playmakers...but I don't recall ever talking about playmakers. You may have been referring to another post, as I only spoke of quarterbacks.

Jony-b said...

Sorry Morgan, that was for Phil. I probably had just finished reading your post. My Bad.

Morgan said...

It's all good.

TERRY said...

Rob- I love your mock- If we really want a QB for the next ten years then we may not have this chance again (#6) for years.. (assuming improvement) I hear that the big QB Guru says Clausen is going to be to football what LeBron James is to basketball, so what's not to like ??
And a real big-play threat at wide receiver and a Decent LT to protect our QB- That would be great..And if what they say about Gibbs is true, he will get us great value in lower rounds for RB and OL guys..For me, this draft would be a home-run and (for once) really address our biggest needs with high picks-I love it-nice job

Rob Staton said...

Thanks for the kind words, Terry. It'd certainly tie up the offense long term and I think you could get some use out of Bryant and Brown in year one. Clausen may never be the superstar that James is to the NBA, but if he can make an offense tick - that's all that matters. I think he can offer that Romo/Rivers type of performance to a team.

CLanterman said...

Clausen can't be LeBron James. LeBron is possibly the most athletic player ever to play in the NBA. Clausen is not a physical marvel. If Clausen were an NBA player I'd compare him to Brandon Roy. Not jaw dropping athleticism, but good enough. Good knowledge and feel for the game, does most things pretty well, but nothing excellent.

Rob Staton said...

I think that's a very accurate review, CLanterman.

Brendan said...

Brandon Roy!!!!????? Man I hope you guys are right. Brandon Roy is by far one of the best players in basketball and consistently underrated. Wow brandon roy? really? Brandon Roy is a natural born leader who makes every single player on his team better. He is a pillar of the community in Seattle and Portland and an all around great guy. His character is through the roof, his basketball skills are some of the best in the league and his leadership skills are great. If Clausen is half the leader Brandon Roy or has half the balls that Brandon Roy has I would take him at 6 in a heart beat. Brandon Roy is a great, great all around player.

Brendan said...

Roy is a top ten player in the NBA no question. That is very high praise of Clausen - I am going to have to re-evaluate him due to this thread... Maybe I am wrong? (If we draft I really hope that I am wrong and u guys are right)

Cysco said...

There are no sure thing, 100% can't miss QB prospects in this draft. (same can be said for last year's draft or next year's) I've read a couple articles that consider Clausen a better prospect than Stafford or Sanchez were last year and that if the combo of Stafford/Clausen/Sanchez/Bradford were in the same draft class, that Clausen would be the first or second QB taken.

I think most writers believe that Clausen has a high probability of being an average-above average QB in this league and a small chance of being great-elite. Most believe he has a pretty low probability of being below average.

Personally, I'd welcome a Flaco/Ryan QB with a small chance of Brees/Rivers.

Is there a chance he's the next Rick Mirer? Sure. We'll have to leave it up to the FO to determine how big that chance is.

Seems like a lot of rumors out there that the Rams are going to get themselves some Mike Vick. That leave the Redskins to pick either Bradford or Clausen. Most mocks have them taking Bradford. If the Hawks want him, it's looking like Clausen could very well be there.

-=cysco

Rob Staton said...

Just to throw this out there though - if the Rams take Vick it might be to get a starter in year one so they don't have to throw a guy like Bradford to the Wolves. He could be a short term stop gap measure. It makes Suh/McCoy more likely, but it doesn't rule out Bradford/Clausen.

CLanterman said...

Sorry Brendan, I meant if Clausen were successful he'd be Brandon Roy. Obviously he could be not as talented, and it's always tough to tell if a player can make the leap from college to the professional level because it's not the same game, the guys are bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than before.

Christon Petersen said...

I really hope the Hawks don't take two skill position players like Clausen and Bryant with there first two picks. They would be much better off in the long run by building from the inside-out and taking the best OT and DE with their first two picks. We have seen over the last couple of seasons that young QB's can succeed in this league with a good foundation around them (ie Roslisburger, Flacco, Sanchez). The Hawks need a lot of help on their OL and need a pass rush desperately. We know Hass will be the starter this season and this team has so many wholes to fill that I think we need to put impact starters on the field this year. By letting the young, every-down lineman develop for a year and drafting a QB next year I think you give that QB (and the team) more of an opportunity to succeed this year and down the road. Drafting a QB with #6 (or #14) to ride the pine this year and WR to rotate in and out-I think this season would be another disappointing one because they would have minimal impact on the field this year. I wouldn't mind taking one skill position player and one lineman with the first two picks. Please, just not two.

Anonymous said...

You have really great taste on catch article titles, even when you are not interested in this topic you push to read it