Friday, 19 March 2010

C.J. Spiller at #6? Really?

By Rob Staton
There's been some mixed feelings towards my latest mock draft that had, somewhat surprisingly, the Seahawks drafting a running back with the 6th overall pick. I appreciate and acknowledge the counter reasons for why this won't happen. Teams that have Alex Gibbs organising the running attack haven't tended to need such an investment at the position. There are cheaper options later on in the draft, particularly since the Seahawks acquired an extra fourth round pick in the Darryl Tapp trade. Regardless of what people think about them as a duo, Julius Jones and Justin Forsett are not the weakest part of this team.

A lot of fans also believe that building the offensive line is a priority and it almost certainly will be going forward - that's why Alex Gibbs is here. There's no obvious answer at left tackle, other than Sean Locklear, currently on the roster - and the Seahawks will surely consider taking one of the many offensive tackles available in the top half of round one.

However - afford me the opportunity to expand a little further on why I think C.J. Spiller (RB, Clemson) might be an option at #6. For starters, this Seahawks offense currently doesn't own anyone with Spiller's dynamic ability to just put points on the board. Rather than simply believe that a good, rookie left tackle will suddenly create enough holes for Julius Jones to become the back he hasn't been the last two years - I think the Seahawks need to find an X-factor. Spiller is capable of finding an edge and making a good gain a long touchdown run. He can run deep routes and is an effective pass catcher. He pass protects better than most rookie running backs. Spiller's also a brilliant return guy who racked up the yards and scores on punt and kick off returns. Simply put - if you're coming up against C.J. Spiller, you need a game plan. There aren't enough guys like that on Seattle's roster right now.

Pete Carroll has talked about getting guys who can score points. That is what Spiller will do. He might not always come up with the 233 yard performance we saw in the ACC Championship game, but he's equally capable on a quieter day to find a way to get into the end zone. He scored 51 touchdowns for Clemson - not including two TD passes he threw. Individually he scored 308 points.

It might be an expensive investment on a guy who realistically will work in a committee - but who doesn't these days? Needless to say, he'd still be the focal point of the rushing attack and Pete Carroll often had a speedy playmaker in his USC teams. Will Spiller have better luck behind a superior offensive line? Sure - but I'm also a firm believer that until Seattle forces teams to respect their playmakers, a rookie lineman will have the same problems blocking two guys off the edge that Sean Locklear has. It may actually be easier for a young left tackle to come onto a team already owning a couple of guys like Spiller than it will be to throw him into the deep end without any difference makers on the roster. If teams don't have to respect your offense, they'll blitz. They'll stack the box. Minnesota had an elite offensive line, but until they added Adrian Peterson, Bernard Berrian, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin and Brett Favre - they were a 6-10 team.

I want to stress this isn't necessarily what I would do at #6 given the choice. But I want to cover all bases and whilst I do believe there's a possibility Spiller will go 6th overall - I wanted to express that in a mock draft.


Griffey Mays and Largent said...

First off Rob, I love this site and I love your articles. But just like you, I'm diehard, so here's my two cents.

Spiller is, in my opinion, the best playmaker in the draft. The only stat I need to hear to confirm that is 21 out of 50some career touchdowns have been 50+ yards. That is amazing! The Seahawks would most certainly be instantly upgraded with a player like that. However:), I don't think we can ask C.J. to do what he does without some kind of offensive line help. Rest assured, Spiller will be a force of some kind in this league, but there are so many other NEEDS right now. Drafting is a very risky business. There is no such thing as a sure thing. But drafting an offensive linemen could potentially HELP solve several problems. A left tackle would be ideal so we could move Locklear back where he shines at right tackle and then start working on our interior. An improved line means an improved running game, less pressure on whoever is at QB, and it allows us to move on and focus on getting those playmakers we also desperately need. I've said it before, but I want staying power. I want us to return to 5 straight years of NFC West championship banners.

Dont get me wrong, a Spiller/Forsett attak definately tickles my fancy, but I say one need at a time.


Anonymous said...

For what its worth, John Clayton, when asked if the Seahawks were now out of the QB sweepstakes at #6, replied that Seattle would take a LT or a safety, and sounded confident. I think that a RB does not make sense for a team that is obviously beginning a total rebuild. I think that they will look for players who will create the long-term core of this roster. With the average shelf life of a RB being so short, I think they will wait until other important pieces are in place.

Donald Duck said...

Thanks Rob for your thoughtful suggestions.

What do you think of the idea that Seattle will take Gerald McCoy at #6. I think he will be there because Detroit will take Russell Okung (OT, Oklahoma State) at #2 because they have to protect their QB so that he can throw to their receivers. Tampa will take Ndamukong Suh (DT, Nebraska) at #3 because they prefer him to McCoy. Washington will take Jimmy Clausen because they need a QB. Kansas City will take Rolando McClain at #5 because they have to have a LB to make the 3-4-work.

Rob Staton said...

GM&L - I certainly see the benefit of taking a left tackle early. I'm a big fan of Charles Brown - great scheme fit for Seattle. They could still take Spiller at #6 realistically and get Brown at #14. However - I think it's a double edged sword. How much will rookie offensive lineman truly help the Seahawks if the defense their facing just doesn't respect what Seattle has in terms of playmakers. I love Charles Brown - but he isn't going to buy a QB a load more time against an all out blitz because the defense isn't scared of getting burned. Right now - Seattle has Forsett, Julius Jones and T.J Houshmandzadeh. I think that's amongst the least potent offenses in the NFL - if not the worst. A left tackle is all well and good - but it needs to coincide with greater threat at RB, WR and yes - QB.

Annonymous - I have a huge amount of respect for John Clayton and always enjoy reading or listening to what he has to say. However, I'm pretty sure he spent most of last year suggesting Eugene Monroe was his tip for Seattle - a well known poor scheme fit who ultimately wasn't taken. I just can't see the Seahawks spending the #6 on a safety whilst the offense and the team's pass rush is as redundant as it is.

Donald Duck - I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I think there's absolutely no way Detroit will take Russell Okung second overall. The Lions had the leagues worst defense last year and rest assured it's that what held them back last year - not the offense. Aside from which - I do not believe Okung is worth a pick that high. I know some scouts love him - but I would give him a late first round grade. Jim Schwartz knows the benefit of having a truly great defensive tackle (Haynesworth) and he knows it only works with a supporting cast. They signed the supporting cast in free agency, so now it's time to draft the great DT. I expect Tampa Bay to take the other DT left. The only way in my opinion that McCoy falls is if TB trade down and whoever picks at #3 decides not to draft him. It's a major long shot.

Pool Ninja said...

Rob -

I can definitely see your reasons for Spiller at #6, reminds me of the Reggie Bush debate at #2 for the Saints. Whether he is as effective as his draft slot warrants him, teams DO game plan for him. He's as versatile and vital to that New Orleans team that their offense/special team isn't as potent without him. (Kinda why they chose to keep his $8mil salary) Had the Saints let Bush go, the connections to Seattle would have been loud due to Carroll. Also, had that happened, the talk to Spiller to SEA would have ended.

I think I'll reference a little baseball strategy here: the Red Sox would trade for a guy that the Yankees would target, so that the Yankees wouldn't have that certain player, and vice versa. I see a lot of mocks indicating that the 49ers would draft him at #13, if available. Do you see that sort of strategy taking place since both teams have a need at RB and that both teams have two picks in the top of the 1st round??? I would be in favor of drafting Spiller so that the 49ers couldn't. Imagine a one-two punch of Gore & Spiller? I'd be for taking Spiller at #6 if it means he doesn't go to San Francisco.

Love the site also!

Charles said...

Here are my issues with drafting a running back at #6. First you can find good rotational backs later in the draft, especially when the position is deep like it is this year. There are several teams that have good running backs and still finished with horrible records, so just having a nice shiney running back in itself doesn't do much. Look at the top of the draft this year... Rams have Steven Jackson, people have to game plan for him but without anything else, it doesnt matter. Cheifs had Jamaal Charles who broke out, and still they're picking 5th, the Browns had Jerome Harrison who broke out later on, but still are picking early. The Raiders drafted Darren McFadden, and he hasn't done much for them, the Bills have Marshawn Lynch, Fred Jackson and couldnt get it done, and the last one I'll do is Jacksonville who has MJD and is still picking in the top 10. Having a good running back that you have to game plan for is a nice PART of the puzzle for a team but is usually one you want to get once you have most of your other pieces to the already in place.

Running backs that are used by commitee make even less sense to draft that early. At most they get 10-15 touches a game, which can still be helpful but worth the 6th? Even if you bring up the arguement that he would be a boon on special teams as a returner. You have to then worry about the possibility of increasing his risk of injury on a player drafted with the 6th pick! It's not smart to use one of your starters (even as a commitee he'd basically be a starter because without him youd have to use another RB for half the touches) as you main PR/KR specialist.

My last issue is that with all the moves we've made recently there are just so many better selections that could have been made there. As it's been stated before you can RARELY go wrong with a premier LT pick, because even if they don't work out at LT, they can often slide to the RT position, and if they dont work out there, they can become a OG. It takes alot of the risk of a top 10 pick becoming a bust even though he'd still be a Bust by the fact he wasnt able to be a LT, but at least you still get a starter out of the pick. Also any FULL time starting defensive player (not a player that would be rotational like a situational pass rusher) like a quality Safety, or a Corner that could start on the right or left side for several years to come, a every play DT or DE. All of these players/positions would be in for at least what 30-40 snaps a game minimum? How would that NOT be worth getting over someone who touches the ball as many times as discussed earlier?

Please if I'm wrong with my line of thought or logic, please let me know where I went wrong. Or better yet, name a Rotational (by commitee) RB drafted in the top 15 in recent drafts that made a huge impact on their team and made them signifigantly better?

Anonymous said...

In the last 15 years, a staff with Gibbs on it has not taken a rb before pick 51. Track records are usually pretty accurate.

Matthew Baldwin said...

We need playmakers (plural) on offense, desperately. We averaged 17 points a game and only 10 over the last 5 games or so. Our time of posession ranked dead last in the league (killing our defense).

I could see an arguement for Spiller or Dez at 6, but one of the two should be available at 14. Either is a major upgrade and either satisfies the playmaker need, so why not take whichever is on the board at 14?

Personally, I think we are better with Housh/Dez and Forsett/Ben Tate than with Housh/insert 3rd round reciever and Forsett/Spiller.

ChavaC said...

I'm with you Donald, I think McCoy falling to us is very possible, all it takes is Detroit taking a LT. They just dumped a ton of money on their DL, and Backus looked horrible last season... I think it would be a very ballsy move ignore LT and watch your QB get put back into a wheelchair. It was painful seeing Stafford going out there last season and getting blindsided play after play. I've got to think the Lions will do something to protect him, and even if they trade back it will probably with someone wanting Clausen.

As for playmakers, I think you improve your line and your average skill players start "making plays". WCO's don't rely on big playmakers, and the ZBS is designed to let smart "inferior" backs put up huge numbers. The opposite just isn't a practical way to address the problem, and as stated we've seen it time and again. The Rams are picking first despite owning a top-3 RB, the Lions are picking second with the second best WR in the league, Washington has spent several high picks on their receivers, KC has Bowe and Charles, Cleveland has Cribbs, Oakland McFadden and DHB, Jags have MJD. Hell the Broncos had Moreno, Royal, and Marshall (the playmaker we were targeting). There are playmakers at the other end of the first round too, but they all play on teams with good to great lines or QB's that can work behind mediocre ones. So does that mean we draft a rookie LT and call it good? No, but it puts us on track to build a solid foundation to launch the offense from. It also helps keep Matt on his feet, who believe it or not is the only real hope we have to legitimize our offense next year. Lets not forget he was throwing to guys named Jackson and Engram and going to pro bowls before he became a walking punching bag.

Matthew Baldwin said...

With respect, I don't buy the "build from the trenches" cliche. Yes, you have to protect your QB and open holes for the run game. But if you have no vertical threat at WR and no game breaking RB, the defense just loads the box. And I don't care if you have the Jets o-line, they will be overwhelmed if the defense can load the box. Why do you think they traded for Braylon Edwards?

We need o-line help, but we also need a playmaker or two that keeps the defense honest and prevents them from loading the box.

(All of the playmakers on other losing teams cited on the last post don't have a viable QB.)

Charles said...

Matthew, your right. A viable QB is needed, and its alot easier to have a viable QB when he has explosive playmakers, but look at some of the teams that have turned it around well lately. I remember not long ago the Jets were horrible. I dont think its purely that they got Rex Ryan as a coach alot I do think that helped their defense out alot. I seem to remember when the started making a turn around was the year that they drafted D'Brickashaw Ferguson, and Nick Mangold in the first round. It was controversial at the time, but with that foundation they've become one of the best running teams in the league. The Ravens have always been good at getting good OL players in the draft as well and they really havent had as big of a low recently as other teams. The Browns look to have a quality base setup as well, although they're still looking for a QB to finally stick. If you don't have a perennial Pro Bowl QB like a Manning, Brady, Brees, you need quality Linemen to turn around a team.

Pool Ninja said...

I'm all for keeping our offense on the field as long as possible and for the eventual score. Whatever accomplishes that, be it drafting OL help, Spiller, Dez Bryant, trading for B. Marshall, whatever... I recall during our '05 run that we had an offense that would start deep in our territory and would methodically convert 1st downs after 1st downs, eating TOP, which allowed our defense to rest and be more opportunistic. Grant it, that team boasted the top offensive line and the best running back that year, so go figure...

Anonymous said...

Here we go.
Everyone is right, how crazy of me to say something like that.
We need a playmaker (probably a WR and RB), We need O-line, we need D-line, and we need Secondary.
The way I look at the ZBS is that you draft a guy that can pass block but more important is his intelligence in the Run game system. The coaches know who is best for this and I believe they will do everything the can to get the guy they want.
We may draft DL or S at #6 or #14
Preferably Mccoy at 6 if he is there. Preferably Thomas at 14 as he is the one worthy of that pick that will still be there.
We could have a very good D if we draft a DT and a S in the first two rounds, but we would be lacking just like last year on Offense.
If the O lineman that Gibbs wants is a 4th rounder we can get that 2 times. If it is a first rounder we have 2 great chances to get whoever we want. We need a WR more than a RB right now because we lost Burly. If we can pick up Lafell, Golden Tate, Damien Williams, Arelious Benn at 60 I think that we have a better player than Burleson and he will not be injured every year.

We need 4 new Starters next year (WR, OT competition will create a better line as Willis could move inside were he was originally drafted for, DT to free up Jackson Mebane and Kerney, A safety there may be a starting quality in the 4th round) and a RB that is younger and more aggressive than Jones.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that every time an offensive QB, RB or WR is brought up as a draft choice at least half of the posters on this site get so upset that anyone would dare suggest a draft pick other than an OL? Are they not aware that there are 7 rounds in the draft? I believe with good scouting a very good OL or two can be found in draft rounds other than the first.

Matthew Baldwin said...

Yeah, with a ton of needs everyone is right to an extent.

We gave up 286 yards to Boller and 303 to Alex Smith. Anyone who lays out an an arguement for Berry/Morgan or Haden/Paul-Pierre has merits. I could even see a plausible arguement for Berry at 6 and Haden (if avail) at 14. Wouldn't be my choice, but a solid arguement could be made.

As for the offense, I am a firm believer that a decent o-line and elite playmakers beats decent playmakers and an elite o-line everytime.

Anonymous said...

So we have 5 big needs
and 5 picks in the first 4 rounds of a deep draft

#6 Gerald Mccoy, Russel Okung or favorite LT, Eric Berry, Dez Bryant, CJ Spiller. I would not be upset by any of these picks at 6

14# CJ Spiller, Dez Bryant, Best LT for ZBS, Earl Thomas, Derrick Morgan.

#60 Chad Jones, Morgan Burnett, Hardesty, Best LT, Damien Williams, Lamar Houston, Tyson Alualu

#101 Major Wright or other S, Best ZBS O line, Best RB

124 Best S, Best OL, Best RB

It seems that this draft is deep enough in RB to take one in the 4th that would impact our team this year.
We need someone that came make an impact soon at WR as they will be in every play so I limited that position to the first 2 rounds.
OL is deep and Gibbs likes later round picks so I extended that all the way to our second fourth rounder.
S is deep and I could see a couple of starting quality picks there at 101. Major Wright maybe maybe not depends on who you ask.
DT the best options to secure a quality DT that is worth the pick seem to be at 6 or sixty as Mccoy will be gone before 14 and everyone else will be gone before the 4th round.
The only DE that I would like at our positions is Derrick Morgan at 14 because unless we can get the best at DE, DT is more important IMO

Those first three picks are amazing, we can definitely fill the majority of our most pressing needs in the first two rounds

Anonymous said...

I dont see Spiller being an every down back seems to be more of a Dave Megget than Chris Johnson plus his combine time was good but Javeed Best had a better time. All we were hearing was sub 4.3 and his best was 4.38 still super fast but speed alone does not warrant the 6 pick plus Pete carrol brought in a RB from Washington so I think we will platoon RBs between the two. With Deon Grant released last week I think it is clear that Berry is at 7. I wouldnt mind taken Haden 14 if he is there. Pete got his start in coaching as a secondary coach and has coached some really good Safety's at USC I would think he is real good at evauluating Safetys hence Berry at 7.

Anonymous said...

Rob, I love checking in daily to see your various draft options, clearly many created for discussion. It's fun. Keep it up.

My dream draft would be McCoy, Spiller, Saffold with our first 3 picks. I like Charles Brown, but unless we trade down from 14, I don't see the value. I like Morgan at 14 and if we weren't barren of playmakers, that would be my choice. However, given that we have no home run threats as you have so succinctly stated, I'd take Spiller over Morgan.

I think we will be running more 2 tight end sets, and Baker will assist the O-line with blocking. That also means we'll be running less 3 and 4 WR sets, so while a talent like Marshall is worth drooling over, I don't think he would have the impact that Spiller can. I love Forsett's grit, but Spiller releasing out of the backfield would present a much more appealing target for our QB, and a much more difficult guy to cover for the opposing D. I can see numerous TD's on the same play that last year produced very little. And a couple kickoff returns for TD would be gamechanging. I can't see taking Spiller at 6, but if still there at 14, don't look back. If not, try to trade down and if we can't, take Morgan. If Spiller is gone, Morgan should still be there. There are only so many guys who can go in the top 13. If we can trade down, take Morgan later, or if not available, Charles Brown. A guy who's not getting any press at all that I like in the 4th round is Mitch Petrus, OG from Arkansas. Excellent zone blocking guard prospect.

JohnnyB said...

As much as I would love for McCoy or Suh to fall to us, I don't think it will happen for one reason. Both of those guys are about as guaranteed to be great as it gets in the NFL draft. There is no such OT like that in the draft. If there were a dominant OT equivalent to the dominance Suh and McCoy show, Detroit would take him, but there isn't. Better to have the guy who is going to actually be great, than the guy who *might* fill a bigger need. If OT even is a bigger need for the Lions.

As far as Spiller is concerned, same situation. The guy has every tool of a HOF running back. Say he has a 30% chance of going HOF. Is there any other player available at #6 at any position with that good of a chance? No, unless Suh or McCoy fall.

Anonymous said...

Here is a thought. I know everyone is talking about moving back, but if the 49rs are the ones we are worried about taking Spiller trade up from 14 to 12 and take him. It would only take our 2nd 4th rounder.
If Mccoy is there at 6 take him, if not and Berry is there and Spiller is there move back 3 spaces and pick the one that is left at 9 and add on a 3rd rounder.
my favorite first round is would be Mccoy or Berry and Spiller or Marshal Trade

Matthew Baldwin said...

Dave Meggett is 5' 7". He reminds me more of McCluster or maybe Jacoby Ford than Spiller.

Meggett was a 5th rounder and made a couple pro-bowls as a return guy (IIRC) and that has serious value, but he's not comparable to Spiller.

On the topic of KR/PR, anyone have thoughts on burning a 6th rounder on a guy like Trindon Holiday? The 5' 7" KR/PR specialist from LSU. Kid is a dynamite on returns and ran a 4.34 at the combine.

I like Forsett but he lacks the explosivness on returns; very pedsetrian.

micah said...

I think the big thing with Carroll is he likes competition at every position. On the Seahawks, it looks like they are trying to build depth to increase positional competition. With that in mind, I think we just need to get the best player available in the first round. Are the OTs elite this year? Most people don't think so. So getting Spiller isn't too far fetched. We do need olinemen, but let's not reach for picks.

Rob Staton said...

Charles - you're completely right in everything you say. I wouldn't begin to try and prove otherwise. However, I still think Spiller remains a possibility - rightly or wrongly. The one thing the Rams, Chiefs, Bills, Browns etc all have in common is poor quarterback play. The Browns, actually, own one of the best young offensive lines in the NFL, but still struggled badly on offense. I think the Seahawks appreciate that and it's why they've paid for Whitehurst. If Seattle can get something out of the QB position, a guy like Spiller will become a lot more dangerous. The same goes for Jackson, Charles and McFadden.

I don't agree however with the idea that drafting a LT is a safer pick. I don't think it's as easy as saying - well we can just move this guy inside or to RT. There's no guarantee they slot in at guard any better - some will and some won't. Can I see Anthony Davis at guard? No. Bryan Bulaga? Possibly. I accept all arguments for why the Seahawks won't take a RB at #6 - I don't necessarily think it should happen personally. But I don't think selecting an offensive lineman is any safer or more likely to make your team good quickly. The case in point being Cleveland - who have two high picks on their line and an expensive FA guard and still cannot produce without much better QB play and some better weapons on offense.

Rob Staton said...

Annonymous - again the Alex Gibbs point is one I've made myself and it's completely valid. However - a Gibbs team hadn't drafted a first round LT for X years until Duane Brown. At the end of the day, Carroll and Schneider make the pick and this offense is so redundant, I'm not sure they can put all their faith in a late round pick. But I can see both situations playing out.

Chavac - I think Backus performed better than most people think because he isn't a big name. Detroit fans I know say he isn't a big problem. They also have a lot of money tied up in him - as they do the D-line. You have to remember though, Detroit had the worst defense in the NFL last year. Schwartz is a defensive coach. They didn't paper over the cracks in free agency and expect results. They merely built the best situation for a a guy like Suh to walk in to. I'll be stunned if they go left tackle, I'm 100% confident on that one.

Austin said...

I didn't read through the posts but here are my thoughts. Everyone keeps screaming you you can't take Spiller because you have to fix the offensive line. Who says you can't fix the line after the 6th pick or even after the first round all together? Also a great running back can help make a line look better than they really are and vice versa, its not always a matter of a great line making a running back look better. Getting an explosize running back will actually make the line better and make their job easier. It will slow down pass rushes and blitzes. You can find a a couple of quality Gibbs type lineman in rounds 2-7 that fit the system. I think Best is just as explosive and if I could get him by trading down into the 30-40 range I would rather go that route but as it stands I think taking Spiller makes sense. We have NO ONE that is a playmaker and scares defenses....Literally.

austin said...

I will also add that I probably would go Berry,McCoy first if either is there but I would be happy if we took Spiller as well. Why is everyone assuming he can't be an every down back or at least 15 carry a game guy? The same thing was said about Chris Johnson, Barber, Dunn, Charles etc. Smaller backs who can still run between the tackles and avoid contact are actually less likely to get hurt than bigger backs who invite contact. I still hope we get Berry, trade down from 14 to get Best and acquire another pick. Can't wait!

c-hawker said...

With the Hawks taking a gamble on Whitehurst they need to give it every chance to work. I believe they will take Bryant at #6. He can get down field and go up for the ball. He is less of a head case than Marshal and can grow with Housh and Hurst. I also think there is a good chance Holmy takes Bryant at #7. They also need a #1 WR.
I would like to see them trade back at #14, unless there is someone there we just can't pass on. We need more picks in what is looking like a very deep draft. Especially at DT and DB.

c-hawker said...

We may also be able to get ahead of SF into Jacksonville's spot to get Spiller. They may covet our #2. More picks?

c-hawker said...

With the back's they are bringing in, I don't think they intend on taking Spiller.

Anonymous said...

Hi Guys,
I'm looking at our situation and this draft a little differently. My goal would be to get deep in the playoffs in 3 years. Short term fixes to win now are not as important to me as having a team that has "jelled" in critical areas in 3 years, so we can make that playoff run. What parts of the team need TIME to jell together? On "O" I would think the O-line guys need the most time to learn to work together and know what the guy next to him is going to do in a given situation, followed by the QB/Rec's and their timing and "reading" D's followed by the RB's and line, right? On D the secondary needs the most time together to figure each other out, followed by the linebackers and then D-line, right? So if I am building for a third year push, I want to have my O-line and Secondary together as a unit this year if possible to give them a couple years to learn to play as one, so to speak. So my focus would be to draft, trade, swap, whatever, for the players I need this year to secure, as best I could, those units. Winning a few extra games this year or next just wouldn't be my priority.
Would I still take the BPA? Sure, but success for me would be to have those two units together as long as possible so when the playoff runs begin they know each other inside and out and play as one.
Any short term fixing of this team will just extend our frustration I think. I also do not think we are in a total rebuilding situation. Yes we need some key parts, and yes coaching and scheming can help us big time, but we don't have to start from scratch like some suggest.

Donald Duck said...

I agree that we don't need short term fixes.

We should go for the BPA.

If McCoy were available at #6 should we take him?

Rob Staton said...

C-Hawker - I don't think the Seahawks will take Dez Bryant. The difference between Marshall and Bryant is that both have a character concern, but Marshall has a proven track record in the NFL. He's an elite wide out. You end up paying nearly as much for Bryant and not knowing if he's going to ever become that similar type of productive receiver. I think the Seahawks would sooner spend the #6 on Marshall than draft Bryant. I do think there's a good chance the #14 goes back to Denver for Marshall, or that the Seahawks move down a bit first before making that deal.

Annonymous - that's a fair point well made. However, I think the Seahawks believe that they don't need to wait three years. Not because they're in a 'win now' type mode or will take quick fixes - but they'll draft accordingly with both in mind with the aim of getting better asap. After all - this NFC West looks wide open to me.

Donald Duck - if McCoy is there it'd be almost impossible to pass. He's an exceptional talent. However - I think there's next to no chance he'll be there at #6.

Griffey Mays and Largent said...

Wow, I never thought a Seahawks draft would get more intriguing than last year, but guess I'm wrong again. McCoy at #6 seems like a good deal considering a few weeks ago he was almost guaranteed to go 2nd or 3rd overall. I love his motor and the fact that he's not qutie as hyped up as Suh so if gives you sort of a darkhorse feeling. Still a DT? It is one of our needs and I believe he will be a productive NFL player at least.So Donald, to answer yur question of SHOULD we take him? I have no idea ha ha. All I know is I'm putting my faith in our new leadership to make us successful once again.

But I'd like to play this out if you guys dont mind. Feedback is most welcomed.

#6- Bryah Baluga seems to be one of the safest picks for Oline. Just a solid guy who will get in the trenches and work wherever we put him. Versatility is his greatest asset, but at #6? I wonder where all the talk of Eric Berry went? We want playmekers right? Well how about our own version of Ed Reed? Atuomaitically, that would take some pressure off Tru and Wilson. As far as run support goes (and pass rush for that matter) I believe that our linebacking core is one of the best when healthy. And a good rotaion of dlinemen should be adequate enough FOR NOW.

#14-If there is no obvious choice here I say we trade down in the 1st. Stockpiling draft choices has seemed to work for the Patriots. AND maybe, just maybe, people would feel easier giving up a 20something pick for Marshall. That would possibly make 2 playmakers from one draft(marshall/berry.)

That is just me thinking out loud. I'm still not sure what I want exactly for this team when it comes to this draft. I was estatic about 2 first rounders, but am utterly dizzied from all of our options and glaring needs. My worst fear though, for this new regime, is to choose a bust with that #6 pick. I'm not sure if the 12th Man can handle that.


Anonymous said...

Although I agree the NFC West is wide open and winning now would be nice and not necessarily that hard, but that’s not what I mean by going deep in the playoffs. 1 and out for a few years wouldn't be so hot. Draft choices would suck and getting better would be more difficult. I still would be trying to improve this team by units and hoping that it all came together in three years. I'm not so sure that Mora wasn't letting the team lose the last few games just for the draft choices he was going to get this year. I wouldn't be trying to lose by the way, I would just be focused on getting those units as solid as I could right now and if that cost me a few wins, so be it. I remember Shawn A saying that he could tell how Mack Strong had made his block just by the SOUND of it and made his move based on it. Our new line needs the players and then they need the TIME to get it together. It will take a few years for that and then they will be together for 5 plus more hopefully
I don't know what that means regarding this draft, I just would want to have the O-line and Secondary intact after this year and not be playing musical chairs with them anymore.