The scouting combine is complete and it's time for an updated mock draft. A lot of people refer to Pete Carroll being a defensive minded coach and suggest that this will have an influence on the way he drafts. I don't buy that. Rex Ryan is the definitive defensive coach in the NFL and his team last year made a major splash to draft a quarterback (Mark Sanchez) and a running back (Shonn Greene). They later traded for Braylon Edwards. The Jets felt that a few choice additions in free agency and Ryan's coaching would be enough to significantly improve the defense - that came true by the end of the year. However, New York also knew they wouldn't be able to coast along on offense and needed to act.
The Seahawks find themselves in a similar situation today. Of course, the Jets already owned an above average offensive line - a luxury not afforded to Seattle. However, I believe the new regime will accept that they can't put their faith in ageing veterans for the long term. Matt Hasselbeck is in a contract year and has missed significant game time in recent years. With all due respect to Matt, the team simply must find a long term solution at the most important position in football. The Seahawks need to find a left tackle too, despite a lack of confirmation as to Walter Jones' future plans. The team also must find some playmakers that can put points on the board - they cannot rely solely upon T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Julius Jones.
Yes - a greater presence at defensive end is needed. Could the Seahawks use an addition to the secondary? Sure. Are there prospects that would fit at #6 and #14 at those positions? Absolutely. But I firmly believe Pete Carroll will back himself to rectify some of those problems with the current staff and roster and with later picks. He'll put Aaron Curry in more pass rushing situations; he'll move Darryl Tapp around too. He'll find ways to be creative with his defensive backs. Not being able to fill every need, he'll have to determine what gets priority. Seattle's slumping offense needs a serious shot in the arm. For those reasons, it wouldn't surprise me if that side of the ball got the most attention in this year's draft, something I've exampled in my latest projection.
Round One
#1 St. Louis: Sam Bradford (QB, Oklahoma)
The early talk of the combine was all about the likelihood St. Louis will select Sam Bradford first overall. The Rams can't wait until later to get a quarterback. Even if they bring in a veteran, they must find a long term solution at the position.
#2 Detroit: Ndamukong Suh (DT, Nebraska)
Suh and McCoy are very closely matched and personal preference will likely decide which order they are drafted. However, if polled I expect most teams would go with Suh and this is an obvious landing spot for one of the top defensive tackles.
#3 Tampa Bay: Gerald McCoy (DT, Oklahoma)
The Buccs will settle for McCoy if Suh's off the board. This fills a huge need in Tampa Bay, but don't be surprised if they pull off a surprise and draft a weapon for their quarterback.
#4 Washington: Anthony Davis (OT, Rutgers)
Last year, teams voiced serious concerns about Andre Smith's attitude and work ethic - yet he never really fell out of top ten consideration. I see a similar situation with Davis, who has massive upside and ability in pass protection.
#5 Kansas City: Rolando McClain (LB, Alabama)
Don't be swayed by recent negative reviews of McClain in some quarters. It's not like Tyson Jackson was getting a top five grade this time last year. The Chiefs are committed to creating a strong 3-4 defense but lack that presence at inside linebacker.
#6 Seattle: Jimmy Clausen (QB, Notre Dame)
If the Seahawks believe Clausen can make their offense tick one day, they have to take him at #6. Seattle's long term situation at quarterback needs to be addressed with Hasselbeck in a contract year and having missed significant playing time in recent years.
#7 Cleveland: Dez Bryant (WR, Oklahoma State)
The Browns need a greater threat at receiver and Bryant offers a solution. Missing the combine and character concerns doesn't help, but the talent on offer will almost certainly keep Bryant near the top of team's draft boards.
#8 Oakland: Taylor Mays (S, USC)
Al Davis loves to draft defensive backs. He also loves to draft athletic freaks with lightning speed. Safety isn't amongst Oakland's greatest needs, but Mays' athletic qualities make him a very likely option here.
#9 Buffalo: Bryan Bulaga (OT, Iowa)
The Bills need to improve their offensive line. Bulaga will interest teams as a left tackle despite his short arms.
#10 Jacksonville: Eric Berry (S, Tennessee)
I expect the Jaguars to explore every trade avenue possible to move down. If they can't move away from this spot - Berry makes sense as Jacksonville are looking to rebuild their secondary.
#11 Denver: Dan Williams (DT, Tennessee)
The Broncos need that presence at the front of their defense. Williams is the best prospect on the board to cope with NT duties in the 3-4.
#12 Miami: Earl Thomas (S, Texas)
Despite investing two high picks on defensive backs last year, the Dolphins could show interest in a playmaker like Thomas who can line up anywhere in the secondary.
#13 San Francisco: Joe Haden (CB, Florida)
Haden's poor runs in the forty yard dash will send teams back to the tape for further study. He is an exceptional athlete and football player, who should maintain a position on draft day in this range.
#14 Seattle: Charles Brown (OT, USC)
The Seahawks need to draft a left tackle. This isn't too high for the under rated Brown, who is a perfect fit for the Alex Gibbs zone blocking scheme. Seattle could trade down a few spots and still make this selection.
#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 Tennessee: Jason Pierre-Paul (DE, USF)
Pierre-Paul is raw but he has unlimited upside and teams will look at him as someone they can coach into greatness. His lack of experience might keep him out of the top ten, but he owns top ten talent.
#17 San Francisco: Trent Williams (OT, Oklahoma)
The 49ers will consider drafting a right tackle to compliment Joe Staley on the left hand side.
#18 Pittsburgh: C.J. Spiller (RB, Clemson)
The Steelers will take whoever is top of their board when they're on the clock. They're also good enough to justify another high pick at running back, as they look to replace Willie Parker's reduction in speed with Spiller.
#19 Atlanta: Brandon Graham (DE, Michigan)
The Falcons could look at cornerback here, but Graham's stock has suitably risen to justify placing him here. The only area of concern is height (6'1") which could lead to an Everette Brown-style fall.
#20 Houston: Devin McCourty (CB, Rutgers)
This selection could lead to a run on cornerbacks. McCourty ran in the 4.3's in Indianapolis this week and made sure he'll hear his name called in round one.
#21 Cincinnati: Arrelious Benn (WR, Illinois)
Benn showed what he's all about at the combine - big target, strong build and no slouch as a runner. He has to warrant consideration in round one, even after a disappointing final season with Illinois.
#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 performed well at the combine before his injury, but if any of the tackle class is facing an unexpected fall - I think it could be Okung.
#24 Philadelphia: Everson Griffen (DE, USC)
The Eagles need a better pass rush, that was evident in their playoff defeat at Dallas. Griffen boosted his stock at the combine with a very solid overall performance.
#25 Baltimore: Kareem Jackson (CB, Alabama)
Jackson ran very well at the combine and could go earlier than this. Quietly had a very good 2009 season for the Crimson Tide.
#26 Arizona: Carlos Dunlap (DE, Florida)
The Cardinals are about accumulating talent. Calais Campbell had similar question marks but Ken Wisenhunt's staff turned him into a contributor. Dunlap isn't a huge need, but Arizona could be getting a steal.
#27 Dallas: Demaryius Thomas (WR, Georgia Tech)
Jerry Jones could target a big target at receiver. He's traditionally avoided drafting offensive lineman and he likes a flashy pick.
#28 San Diego: Jahvid Best (RB, California)
The Chargers will address the running back position early after cutting LT and likely losing Darren Sproles. Best offers a home run threat and could be paired with a more experienced back.
#29 New York Jets: Kyle Wilson (CB, Boise State)
Wilson didn't work out at the combine, but Rex Ryan loves adding to his secondary. Finding another cornerback appears to be a priority for the Jets despite already owning one of the best in the league.
#30 Minnesota: Brian Price (DT, UCLA)
Price is a disruptive force, but he gets nicked up easily and will have to be used in a rotation. This is great value, but a fall into the latter reaches of round one wouldn't be a total shock.
#31 Indianapolis: Maurkice Pouncey (C, Florida)
The Colts like their lineman to fit the scheme, they don't mind smaller guys. That's good news for Pouncey, who arrived at the combine smaller than advertised. He could play some guard from day one and eventually move to center.
#32 New Orleans: Sean Weatherspoon (LB, Missouri)
I was never blown away watching tape of Weatherspoon from 2009. He should warrant consideration here though and offers an instant impact as a rookie.
Round Two
#33 St. Louis: Jermaine Gresham (TE, Oklahoma)
Getting Sam Bradford a safety net - especially one he's worked with in college - makes sense. Injuries are the only reason Gresham is still available here.
#34 Detroit: Brandon Ghee (CB, Wake Forest)
Ghee's excellent combine could put him in round one. Detroit continue to build their defense.
#35 Tampa Bay: Brandon LaFell (WR, LSU)
LaFell didn't run particularly well at the combine, but he's a big target for Josh Freeman who can get on the field in week one.
#36 Kansas City: Sergio Kindle (DE, Texas)
The Chiefs will be very happy if Kindle is still on the board to offer a solid outside rush.
#37 Washington: Mike Iupati (G, Idaho)
Re-building the offensive like could be a priority with Washington's two early picks.
#38 Cleveland: Dominique Franks (CB, Oklahoma)
Having taken a receiver in round one, Cleveland turn their attentions to the secondary.
#39 Oakland: Bruce Campbell (OT, Maryland)
The Raiders could trade up to secure Campbell, who still has major issues despite an impressive combine.
#40 Seattle: Lamarr Houston (DT, Texas)
Houston only falls because of needs elsewhere.
#41 Buffalo: Rob Gronkowski (TE, Arizona)
Chan Gailey needs a good blocking tight end for his offense.
#42 Tampa Bay: Damian Williams (WR, USC)
Williams is a difficult one to project. A YAC and return threat who runs good routes, but doesn't own blazing speed and body catches too much. He could go in round one, or he could go later than this even.
#43 Miami: Jerry Hughes (OLB, TCU)
Hughes looked smooth in drills this week. The Dolphins need a pass rusher off the edge.
#44 New England: Ricky Sapp (OLB, Clemson)
I'm a fan of Sapp's. I think he could go earlier than this, potentially late first round.
#45 Denver: Golden Tate (WR, Notre Dame)
Tate's impressive 4.3 speed was unexpected. However, I still don't think he'll go in round one.
#46 New York: Chad Jones (S, LSU)
I expected Jones to flash greater speed at the combine and he was smaller than I thought. However, this is a need area and Jones has big potential.
#47 New England: Chris Cook (CB, Virginia)
Cook's work out in Indianapolis will have scouts returning to consult tape - he was impressive.
#48 Carolina: Mardy Gilyard (WR, Cincinnati)
Some teams are really high on Gilyard and others just don't like him. He makes sense for the Panthers.
#49 San Francisco: Mike Williams (WR, Syracuse)
High risk, big reward for the team who drafts Williams. Singletary will thrive on the challenge of coaching this particular wide out.
#50 Kansas City: Cam Thomas (DT, North Carolina)
The Chiefs complete their 3-4 rebuild with a nose tackle.
#51 Houston: Ryan Mathews (RB, Fresno State)
I'm not as high on Mathews as some, but Houston appear ready to draft a new running back.
#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: Alex Carrington (DE, Arkansas State)
The Patriots continue to accumulate picks and add talent that fits their scheme.
#54 Cincinnati: Major Wright (S, Florida)
I'm a big fan of Wright's and he performed well enough in Indianapolis to potentially shoot up many draft boards.
#55 Philadelphia: Nate Allen (S, USF)
The Eagles need a safety, although this might be half a round too early for Allen.
#56 Green Bay: Patrick Robinson (CB, Florida State)
Some people think Robinson will go a lot higher than this.
#57 Baltimore: Jacoby Ford (WR, Clemson)
Running a 4.28 at the combine will interest teams that own a quarterback with a huge arm.
#58 Arizona: Jason Worilds (DE, Virginia Tech)
Arizona can get instant benefit from putting Worilds in space and letting him rush the passer.
#59 Dallas: Brandon Spikes (LB, Florida)
Spikes' stock is difficult to judge. However, he's a big name leader at a position of need for Jerry Jones' team.
#60 San Diego: Corey Wootton (DE, Northwestern)
Wootton wasn't as big as I expected at the combine, but if he adds bulk he can be used as a much needed five technique for the Chargers.
#61 New York Jets: Linval Joseph (DT, East Carolina)
One to watch - Joseph is a potential nose tackle who ran a 5.09 and benched 39 reps - whilst weighing 328lbs. Strong and fast guys who play this position go early.
#62 Minnesota: Joe McKnight (RB, USC)
I like McKnight and his fumbling issues were dealt with in 2009. He would compliment AP very nicely.
#63 Indianapolis: Geno Atkins (DT, Georgia)
The Colts like smaller, faster lineman on both sides of the ball. Atkins ran well at the combine and weight in under 300lbs.
#64 New Orleans: A.J. Jefferson (CB, Fresno State)
Raw prospect with a high ceiling at a position of need.
104 comments:
Just to explain some moves - I continue to leave out Terrance Cody because I genuinly believe teams won't be interested in the baggage that comes with trying to keep his weight under control. He's also only a one-or-two down player, so for me his stock is in rounds 3-4.
I want to include Tim Tebow because I do think he'll go in rounds 1-2. However, I don't include trades in my mocks. I think there's a very good chance Jacksonville will move down to either accumulate a second round pick or take Tebow out-right in the first round.
Jonathan Dwyer's exclusion is self explanatory - I never believed he was a first round pick and am not surprised it's come out that he struggled to keep his weight under control.
I wanted to put Ben Tate in round two, but feel he offers a very solid early third round option.
Eric Decker drops out of round two and into the early third simply because of injuries.
Also no Dexter McCluster - not sure why he's such a hot tip for round two. I had him as a mid/late round pick throughout 2009. Could offer a burst of explosion, but still too small and didn't flash his obvious speed at the combine.
Thanks Rob,
Your mock draft makes more sense to me than does Rob Rang’s and Chad Reuter’s http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/mock. They have Seattle taking Eric Berry (RR)/ Jason Pierre-Paul (CR) and Jason Pierre-Paul (RR)/ C.J. Spiller (CR). RR has Jimmy Clausen going to Denver at #11 and CR has him going to San Francisco at 13. RR does not have Charles Brown going in the first round and CR has him going to Indianapolis at 31.
I know that you do not take into account trades in your mock draft. Given all the other variables, that makes sense to me. However, what do you think about Seattle trading #6 to the Giants who think they only need a few great players for either the Giants #15 & 46 or 15 & 76, 112 (1600/1490 or 1600/ 1389 according to the old draft value table)?
Peace,
Donald Duck
I think trading #14 is more likely, and the Seahawks need more picks. I have to believe they'd love to pick up another 2nd/3rd rounder, particularly with Nate Burleson potentially departing. That would make receiver a huge need.
An idea that I had while shooting the breeze with my uncle over the weekend. Wanted to see your thoughts. We trade our 14 and Seneca Wallace to Cleveland for Brady Quinn and the 38.
This does several things. One, it solves the starter problem for Cleveland, and gives Holmgren back his beloved hybrid who does provide a solid backup to Derek Anderson.
On the Seahawks side, you get Brady Quinn as your heir apparent to Hasselbeck, and pick up a second rounder.
We both thought it'd be a win-win scenario.
As always, love your work Rob
I actaully like the Quinn idea but not over taking Clausen at #6.
Yes, Clausen might not be a good NFL QB but if he's there I would hope the Hawks pull the trigger because I do not expect them to pick that high again... ever :)...
Anyway Rob, solid mock. It makes way more sense to me than most mocks out there.
I tend to agree with the mock draft. However, it just kills me to see Seattle not upgrading their overall team speed. With that in mind, are there any 'speed guys' (RB, DB & WR) that make sense for Seattle AND can be found later in the draft?
Seahawk picks are decent, though if they pass on Matthews with there second round pick they are crazy. I know you don't like him, but they need a big upgrade at RB, and that would be Matthews.
Outside of that, the rest of your mock is horrible.
"...the team simply must find a long term solution at the most important position in football."
People keep saying this, even people who don't really believe in Clausen, as if the Seahawks desperately need a high draft pick QB to start sitting on the bench *right now.*
Then they try to justify it by saying the Seahawks can patch together their truly desperate Oline situation thanks to Alex Gibbs, and patch together the truly terrible Dline with some speculative method, and make due with mediocre RBs this way or that way.
And it's funny because of the four positions, the Seahawks QB position is the only one right now where the Seahawks have a real chance of playing at a Pro Bowl level for the next few years as is. And it's the only position of the four where adequate backups are already on the team.
NFL teams have proven they can win Super Bowls with mediocrity at the QB position, just like they can with mediocrity at every other position *if the rest of the team is strong enough.*
And do teams who want greatness at the QB position really have to draft one high and have him sit on the bench for a year or more? Well, the Saints and plenty of other teams have proven that that just isn't so.
What NFL teams *have to* do is get impact players in the draft, especially with your higher picks. If you have an impact Dlineman or two your team will have a much easier time winning Super Bowls. If you have an impact O lineman or two, your team will have a much easier time winning the Super Bowl. Same with running back, and same with QB, or LB, or DB.
So the Seahawks should definitely not act as if they have to get a QB right now. They should act as if they have to get impact players for their Dline, or Oline, or backfield, or defensive backfield, *or quarterback,* if that's what falls to them at the right pick. This is what will get them to the Super Bowl.
Uhmmm ok
1.- I dont think miami is going to draft Earl Thomas
2.- Spiller idk wont make it that far.
3.-Rolando Mclain is awesome but top 5? idk i dont think so.
4.-Bruce Campbell is a risky pick BUT Al davis is going to draft him.
5.-Jags are trading down, they need tebow.
6.- I think Russell Okung is overrated but he is a top 10 pick.
I find this draft to be underwhelming. As a fan I would be disappointed. I am still on the mind set that we wait until next year for our QB. We could chose between Locker or Luck next year. I also feel if there is going to one USC player that Pete takes it will be Mays. Everyone forgets about how great a staff we have this year. Jerry Gray can do wonders in the secondary. I also Think that now that we have Gibbs that we should really look at Iupati to help out at OG. If we traded down with 14 and get a 2nd/3rd we could get him and either Gerhart or Hardesty. I know that there has to more of the 12th man that agrees with me on Clausen . Wait for next year and hope for the best.
Great draft Rob. I've been set on:
6. Clausen
14. Charles Brown (with a possible trade down to nab him at 20)
40. Lamarr Houston
for a week or two now. Anything else would probably disappoint. Of course if McCoy or Suh somehow drop to #6, the story changes. Or if the team decides Clausen isn't the one and we trade down, netting us a 1st rounder next year, and something like Brown, Houston, and Haden/Morgan/Thomas this year, I'd be more than ok with that as well.
#53 is Arkansas State, unless you were thinking Dexter Davis (De, Arizona State)
JoeG - I would be very surprised if Seattle made that trade. Losing the 14th to move down 24 spots just to swap Quinn and Wallace makes little sense to me. I don't rate Quinn that highly and he was a guy taken in the 20's as a rookie. His stock is clearly down since then, so such a dramatic fall wouldn't represent good value anyway.
da34shadow - I completely agree. The offense and defense needs some speedy playmakers. It was actually difficult not to give Seattle a wide out in the first few picks because I think that will become a huge need if Burleson doesn't re-sign. At #40, they could draft Golden Tate I guess, but I'm not his biggest fan. It might make sense though if you draft Clausen. Something to consider for future projections.
Annonymous - I'm not a fan of Mathews as you rightly say. I just urge people to look beyond the hype and try and watch a full game of his. I just don't see anything remotely special. My first instics were - mid round pick. Matt McGuire wrote a report on Mathews earlier in the season and gave him a fourth round grade - but spent the weekend telling everyone on twitter that Mathews was now a first round lock. I think hype has caught up with Mathews. That can push a guy up boards, but I'm trying to temper expectations here. You can find backs like Mathews in the middle rounds every year. As for the mock being horrible - please feel free to explain why you think that.
Johnny B - you make some valid points. However, this is why I think Seattle need a long term solution at QB: Matt Hasselbeck has missed as many games in the last two years as the notoriously injury prone Deion Branch. He's 35 at the start of the 2010 season and in a contract year. If he gets injured again, which isn't unlikely, and misses 5-6 games whilst posting similar numbers to 2009 - do you really extend his contract? I'm not sure you do. Hasselbeck hasn't been helped the last two years with a lack of playmakers, switching or tired schemes and a bad offensive line. However, this team can't kid itself that if they solve every other issue, Hasselbeck at this age is suddenly going to be playing at a pro-bowl level again for the next few years. Although you quote the Saints and the way they acquired Drew Brees, who can Seattle realistically target in 2011? And whilst you seem to suggest sitting a rookie and letting him learn the playbook isn't that crucial - do you really want to go into the 2011 draft knowing you have to take a QB at all costs and then start him if things don't work with Hasselbeck?
I don't believe you can ever guarantee 'impact' players in a draft because Seattle took Curry expecting an 'impact' and it never really happened. Joe Flacco was a major project and actually almost took his team to the Super Bowl in year one. There's no exact science there.
However, the best teams in the NFL have good quarterback play. It would be to Seattle's credit if they plan ahead at QB rather than wait to act when it's only truly needed.
Annonymous - Parcells likes to draft linebackers and DB's. Don't be surprised if they target a playmaking safety that can line up in the slot, especially considering this is a team that plays New England twice a year. Teams dont like to take RB's early. Spiller could easily go top ten, but he could also fall a little bit. That's still a good spot for him. The McClain pick - KC are drafting by scheme. Was Tyson Jackson really worth the third overall pick last year?
Seth - Seattle will only be able to choose between Locker and Luck is they're in position to do so and there's no guarantee as a RSS that Luck will even declare. If Locker really is a potential #1 pick, it makes it almost impossible to trade up if there's a rookie salary cap.
Annonymous - thank you. Typo error on my behalf.
I'm really perplexed how someone can think we can wait another season to draft a QB. The belief that we can "wait until next year and pick between Locker and Luck" assumes the following:
1. The Seahawks are going to be even worse than they were this season. That is the only way we are going to move up even higher than #6 next season to have the luxury of picking whatever QB we want. If Locker is "all that" he'll go top-3 next season.
2. Hass has two more seasons in the tank. If you draft a QB next season, you have to (well should) let your rookie QB sit behind a veteran for a year to learn. This means you Have Hass this year as well as next year.
3. Hass even wants to come back after next season. Hass is only under contract for this coming season. There is no way he's going to sign a one year deal with seattle to teach their QB for one season in 2011.
4. Next year's QB class will be better than this years. There is no telling how good/bad next year's class will be. Last year everyone was saying how much better this year's class was.
Those are some pretty lofty assumptions to be making IMO. If Clausen is believed to be a potential solid starting QB in the league, then the team has to take him if he's at #6. The Hawks don't have the luxury of waiting.
-=cysco
I tend to agree with cysco. I think with regard to Luck it's also important to remember he's a red shirt sophomore and actually has two years of eligibility left after 2010. There's no guarantee he'll declare for the 2011 draft and if a rookie pay scale is put in place, I think he may be more likely to declare for the 2012 draft after his junior campaign. We'll see how his stock is after a year with Stanford when they'll have lost their work horse running back.
Also, if Locker is truly the prize QB of 2011, he'll go first overall. It'll be very difficult to move up to take him under a pay scale. It could be a situation where you have to trade multiple first rounders. That's a heavy investment and one which you can't necessarily plan ahead for. If Clausen is a guy this franchise feels can be a productive starter - they have to take him at #6 if he's there.
I understand that what I said would not make some people happy and neither will this but I sadly do think that we are going to be in the top 3 next year in the draft. I feel that we have too many holes and I think we are only going to win four games next year. I feel that the year after that is when things will start to turn around when the team has a complete understanding of the system. We are going to beat the soon to be improved Rams and maybe the Chiefs and the Bucs. It pains me in saying this but I see nothing as of today to change my mind that we will be on the bottom again. So why not look at the positives from that which would be a better QB than Clausen.
The thing is though Seth, you can spend the rest of time waiting for that perfect quarterback. Is Locker necessarily a better option that Clausen? I'm not sure. The Seahawks have to ignore what might be available next year and just ask simply - can Clausen be a servicable quarterback for this franchise and secure that position long term? If the answer is yes, you take him and don't worry about what might be available the year after. If the answer is no - you don't draft him. But such is the nature of the draft you can never guarantee you'll be better off 12 months down the line or be in position to draft one particular prospect. A lot of people said this year's crop of QB's would be better than Stafford and Sanchez and I'm not sure that is the case.
If Claussen is availible at #6, I am 95%. Carroll has followed, recruited and coached against Claussen since 9th grade. He fits the system as good as any QB availible, new regimes like to have "their" guy at QB and the Hawks have no legit options at QB past 2010.
Personally, I am torn on Claussen. I have a feeling he may be maxed out in his potential physically. However, he is a very smart QB, he is tough as nails and is a great competitor. He does however have some personality questions marks. I don't mind the cocky attitude as long as it gives the rest of the team confidence and doesn't rub them the wrong way.
As far as the #14 is concerned, I like the Brown pick, but I think the Hawks have to trade down here. They've got to recover the 3rd rounder or gain another 2nd rounder. What about the Eagles trading the 24 and 55 to move up and take Morgan or JPP? Hopefully then you'd get Brown/Okung at 24 and add a RB/WR at 55.
I think that if Quinn had any chance to be the player he was drafted to be, Holmgren would know this and he wouldn't be leaving Cleveland. Also, QB is one of those positions you don't want to mess around with. Look at places like Detroit (pre-Stafford), Minnesota (pre-Favre), Washington, TB, Chicago, etc. They all have spent the majority of the last five years going from one QB experiment to the next. I say drop the early pick on a QB when you have it, and get a direction on offense. Locker will be gone by the second pick next year, and playing the Rams twice puts us out of contention. Now is the perfect time to pull the trigger... and I do not want on that Kitna/Culpepper/Grossman merry-go-round.
As for the mock... I like it, and it's almost exactly how I'm hoping things fall on draft day (barring trades or falling DTs). It doesn't make us contenders (will anything?), but it sets us up next year to get back on that path. I know a lot of people are hoping we take a RB (Spiller, Best) or WR (Bryant, Williams) in the first, but I hope it doesn't happen. It's a very weak draft in terms of offensive playmakers, with no clear #1 WRs and no every-down RBs in the first.
The only reservation I would have is not taking advantage of a very strong DB class. But oh well.
Also, I don't believe the Hawks will be in a posistion to draft Locker, Mallet or Luck next year. Everyone thought Denver would finish no better than 4-12 this year, but they got hot early and that went out the window and it takes a terrible finish to get to #14.
Luck and Mallet also might stay in school. Locker could get hurt or regress. They've also to this point not shown as much as Claussen or Brandford have. There are no certanties that the Hawks would be able to get a QB in 2011.
If the opportunity is there to take a QB that you think could lead the team for 8 to 10 years, then you have to take it considering the current situation.
Savage & Chavac - you make some excellent points. As you rightly say Chavac, the Seahawks don't want to be one of those teams that's perennially trying to find a stop gap from somewhere. Drew Brees is being talked about as one of the greatest free agent pick ups of all time. How many guys like that are available every ten years?
I also agree with you on Clausen. Physically, we're not talking steady immediate starter and huge upside. He isn't Matt Stafford. Jake Locker will enter the league with a greater ceiling in all likelihood. However, you're getting a guy who is familiar with the pro-system, who is accurate on a short/medium range, he doesn't make many mistakes and bad decisions which is why he only thew four interceptions last year playing on a losing team. He's not going to wow the fans and make spectacular mind numbing plays every week, but he'll put up numbers and show good ball security. I've voiced concerns about Clausen, he isn't going to be that superstar in the physical sense. Can he get a team to the playoffs regularly? Can he win games in the post season? Can he be the face of a franchise? I think he can.
Locker IS a better option than Clausen. I am sure. How many GMs, right now, would take Clausen over Locker, straight up?
But that doesn't mean you can wait on Locker, or not take Clausen at 6this year.
Rob's draft would be fine, except I would hope we could drop down from 14, pick up a third, and still get Brown or equivalent LT.
If CLausen is available at #6 the Seahawks will take him. Period. Pro Football Weekly mentioned in their draft guide that Locker is being compared to John Elway (Jeesh) so if that is even remotly true every team in the league w/out a franchise QB will try to get him.
If the draft pans out as Rob stated, I believe the Hawks would have a great opportunity to move down to 20 or 21 so teams can get Morgan/JPP and we would still have our pick of Okung or Brown and an extra pick.
It seems that over the years mock drafts peg the top 5 players almost exactly but after that things get crazy. Cannot wait to see how it turns out. So much fun>!!!
Mike Kelly
Rob, I have not heard anything about the compensatory picks yet. Any idea when they will be announced? Also I think it is possible somebody snatches one of our RFAs (likely Spencer or Tapp) and we will have at least an extra 2nd rounder. Just spectulation but project Tapp as an OLB in a 3-4 defense and I think he would make some noise. Although i hope we keep him persoanlly.
Mike Kelly
If I had to put money on the picks in front of Seattle at 6, I would go with Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Davis, Okung/Berry in that order. I have a good feeling about the top 4 and I think the Chiefs will decide between drafting Okung for tackle or Berry for Safety, both needs for them.
I understand Rob and the other contributors on this blog don't think too highly of Berry and especially Okung but they've had solid college careers and others including the scouts at ESPN's Scouts Inc. rank Berry 3rd and Okung 7th on their overall board. I think the consensus is that Berry and Okung will must likely be top 10 picks while McClain, even though he is a very solid player, probably won't be.
So, with that I think Seattle chooses between who KC leaves them (either Berry or Okung) or they go for Clausen.
Hi Mike, the compensatory picks were announced on March 27th last year. Expect a similar announcement this time round. The Seahawks will be awarded picks based on who they lost last year - so basically Leonard Weaver and ROcky Bernard. I think they'll be lucky to get a couple of 7th rounders at best. Any free agents they lose this year won't impact until the 2011 draft.
Mase - it's not that I'm not high on Berry because clearly he's an excellent prospect. However, I think he has some issues that have been lost amongst the hype. I have him going 10th overall which isn't exactly a drop. Okung doesn't dominate like he should, I know some rankings have him near the top, but then some of those so called experts had Colt McCoy near the top of their lists at the start of the year. Where's he now?
Clausen is the right pick at #6 if he's available. His numbers don't lie and if the only question is his cocky attitude then Pete Carroll should know by now after recruiting him for 8 years whether or not that will be a problem. If he's not there I hope we take Berry. I do think that he's going to be a perennial Pro Bowler. I think that these are very realistic and good picks for the Hawks.
We would be in need of some skill position players with these picks but it looks like there may be some options in FA. How about Brian Westbrook? Sure he's hurt a lot but I don't think he's lost it just yet. Add him or one of the other options (Sproles, T. Jones, LT, Chester Taylor, Mike Bell, etc) and a later round big RB (Blount hopefully) and we're okay there.
WR becomes the next question which is a bit tougher. We do need to draft someone and we also will need to add one in FA or through a trade. I will say that I'm not going to judge any of our receivers based on last year. I think Butler will play a much bigger role along with Carlson and TJ will be going over the middle way more often.
The rest of this mock is interesting. Pittsburgh with Spiller and Mendenhall would be scary!
Rob, it's a difference of opinion, which is fine. Eugene Monroe didn't dominate in college but teams saw the skill set to play LT and he had a solid combine and went 8 overall last year. I see the same thing with Okung since there is a premium on tackles and even though he doesn't look like the next Anthony Munoz, teams like Washington, KC, Seattle, Oakland, and Buffalo who are all in the top and all of whom have needs at tackle will tend to overvalue a player like Okung. You may be underwhelmed by a player based on your evaluation of him but when you objectively mock for the draft you have to admit that based on the consensus opinion out there now, even after the combine, is that Okung at least goes in the top half of the first round.
If I'm wrong, I'll be first to admit this and eat my words.
JohnnyB here,
cysco,
None of your assumptions need to be true about the Seahawks QB situation in order to pass on Clausen at #6. Also, your same questions can be asked about offensive line, defensive line, RB, DB, even WR. If the Seahawks take Clausen and leave a player on the board who is more likely to be an impact player, they are taking a 60% chance that they will bust with him (the first round QB bust rate) and an even higher chance they will miss their chance to get an impact player at another crucial position.
You have to draft better than that to succeed in the NFL, as I explained in my last post. It really doesn't matter where you get the impact players, you just have to get them. The best QBs in the history of the NFL failed to win Superbowl without enough impact players around them.
Football is enough of a team game that strengths at one position can make up for weaknesses at other positions, even QB. This is why you have to get impact players when you get the chance. This is why you don't reach to take the higher risk of getting greatness at any one position. You take the more likely greatness that is there on the board. Now might also be the last golden opportunity for the Seahawks to pick up a great pass rush, or a solid offensive line, or a unstoppable running game.
The Seahawks don't need to be worse than last season to solve their long term QB problem. Among numerous other possibilities, it will probably be easy to get Hass to resign for a reasonable amount (just like the Cardinals did when they signed Warner). And the Seahawks could very likely be ready for a Super Bowl run next season or the season after *if they can acquire an impact player or two.*
Who do you see Seattle taking if both QBs are off the board? Would they go for Davis instead of Brown (assuming that Washington have gone QB at 4), and a DE or best available backfield player with 14, or do you think Brown is the best fit tackle?
Johnny,
Most people believe that QB is the most important position on a team. I assume you agree with that. Traditionally speaking, the best QBs are taken at the top of the draft.(sure there are edge cases, but the odds are against it) It is far more common to find quality linemen, WRs and RBs in later rounds.
Given Hasselbeck's age and injury history, I believe his days are numbered. To build a team where you are assuming a 36-38 year old matt hasselbeck is going to lead your "superbowl run" I think is a bit far fetched.
My belief is that this is Hass's last year as Seattle's starting QB. the person who starts in 2011 needs to be brought in this year to learn the system.
I also believe that we've hit rock bottom as far as losing seasons go. We're going to get better from here on out. We're going to be drafting lower and lower each year from here on out. Our best opportunity to get Hasselbeck's replacement is now. Our best chance to get a "top of the draft" type QB is now.
I would feel much more confident targeting a second round DE or RB than a second round QB.
-=cysco
Al the Kiwi - I think Davis would be a strong possibility, with the team obviously then going in a different direction at #14 but there's options there.
JohnnyB ...that was good.
If Clausen was smart he would hire a PR agency to work the media in the last week before the draft. Danny Snider will not be able to resist that bright shiny new thing.
I love the Clausen pick at #6 but I don't think Bruce Campbell slips that far. He's raw but his ceiling should at least equal Davis and surpass Brown. I would have the 'Hawks take Campbell at #14. I think he could be an All Pro with the right coaching.
I would also have to jump on the Ryan Matthews hype machine wagon. He's fast, explosive, and easily an upgrade over Julius Jones. A backfield of J Force and Matthews would help me justify this second round pick.
An offensive scenario but #6 Clausen, #14 Campbell, and #40 Matthews sounds like a decent start in the draft.
Barring any activity in Round 3 I would hope we target Secondary help, pass-rushers, and WR's in Rounds 4 through 7.
Pickles & Peanuts in '10! Yummers!
I thoroughly endorse this mock from a Seahawks perspective and I like a lot of the other teams' picks. Great work, Rob.
cysco,
Most of the QBs in the NFL were not taken in the first round. There are plenty of other ways to get them besides reaching down in the draft and then paying the guy an arm and a leg to sit on the bench. Look at the current NFL champs for one of many examples.
The QB is the most important position on the team, but not by much, and not always. The Dilfer lead champs and the Sanchez lead Jets are two examples off the top of my head. Carroll is trying to create exactly the type of team (strong defense and running game) which makes the QB less important. You only have to look at Marino, or Elway, or plenty of other MVP QBs to see what happens to teams without enough of the other pieces in place.
Dline and Oline and CB are also positions where it is difficult to find impact makers lower in the draft. QB is not special in that regard.
Bottom line, the Seahawks are certainly not any more desperate for a first round QB right now than other positions on the team
And furthermore,
Another fallacy from the draft Clausen folks is the one recommending the rookie QB sit on the bench for a year or two. Matt Hasselbeck sat on the bench for three years with the two best mentors in the history of football and then still stunk it up when he started playing, for two years, until he got it together.
Real playing time is required for QBs probably more than any other position. If the Seahawks have a strong offensive line, strong running game, and a strong defense, there is no reason at all not to put a rookie QB in, especially if he's played a similar offense in college. Does anyone here really think Sanchez would have a better chance of being good next season if he had been sitting on the bench all last season instead of playing?
Oh man - lot to talk about here good post.
Fist off, I think that Johnny has a great point and is pretty close to being spot on. Qbs are over rated in the football world. They get the glory for what the guys do in the trenches. Granted you can't win without a good qb but I would bet you that it is far more unlikely to win with a bad O-line. I.E. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. I think that Manning is far more of an aberration than a norm. Most first round drafted QBS on bad football teams don;t make it (Couch).
This gets to my next point. The seahawks winning division title after division title is a thing of the past for now - forget about it, that was a different team. I think that we need to face the facts and realize that we are just not very good. If you look at the NFL - who are we better than? Are we really that much better if at all than the rams? We are surely not better than 49ers or Zona. Nor are we really that close.
The NFL drafts are riddled with QBs taken too early on bad football teams. Would Jimmy Clausen be a good QB in Minnesota - maybe so. But I think that it is more likely that he will be thrust into a Tim Couch like situation in Seattle, even if you sit him a year or two.
You ask - Who will play QB after Hasslebeck? This question in my mind doesn't really matter since we aren't good enough to win the Super Bowl anyways. Try to develop Teel or take a qb you like later in the draft and develop him. If that doesn't work take a look at Qbs in 2011 or 2012. By that point the team should be starting to gel with non-skill players. If we think the team is close to being good enough to compete for a Super Bowl - look at FA.
Rob you said Brees is a "lucky" FA pick up. I think that this option is far more likely than everyone thinks - Brees, Warner, Hasslebeck, Schaub, Farve, a QB from Philly this year. Getting a good QB in FA is a legitimate option. So going forward we have three options for success - a Qb in a future draft that gets to come onto a good team, FA or develop a lower pick from within (Teel).
I think that a Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch type outcome are more likely than everyone wants to think. Because in the end when they don't work people can say "Well we needed a Qb". Ten years later the Browns are still looking for a Qb. The Chargers ended up finding two in future drafts.
Anyways, no Clausen the Seahawks are probably one of the 4 worst teams in the NFL and we need a lot of help. Lucky for us - this is a very deep draft and I think that the "draft values" are gonna be off this year.
Hope this post makes sense
Brendan
Fabulous - I've seen no evidence from Campbell to suggest he owns that upside. Being able to run and bench won't mean anything at the next level. Aside from the fact he has a lack of starting experience and a terrible injury record - I'd say Campbell's blocking in both areas are suspect and he has never really used his extreme athleticism and power to his advantage.
As for Mathews - I didn't see an 'explosive' back when I scouted him this year. There's a lot of hype around Campbell and Mathews right now - coinciding with the combine - that never happened when both prospects were performing during the 2009 season.
Johnny B - of the NFL teams in the playoffs this year, seven out of the 12 had first round picks at QB starting. One of the other teams has a first rounder, but was starting a veteran in his final NFL season. So two thirds of the playoff teams had a first round pick at QB and the team you reference - people are describing Brees as the best FA signing in the history of the game today. Moves like that happen and work out to this extent once in a generation.
Johnny B - very very good posts. I wrote mine as you were posting yours. I couldn't agree more with your assessment. One of the other problems most people have is they think about what has worked lately. They look at the Super bowl and say - see that is what you need Peyton Manning! But they forget about Dilfer in Baltimore and the Tampa Bay teams.
Anyways brilliant post go Hawks please no QB
Brendan
Brendan... it is "e.g." not "i.e." you meant.
Rob - yes that is true that 7 out of 12 have first round Qbs - but the chances are obviously skewed! How many NFL teams have a first round pick starting at qb? 25? I am not sure but what is it 26? so 7 out of 26 teams with first round qbs make the playoffs. How many qbs selected in a later round or through FA are in the playoffs compared to the total? what 5 out of 6? 5 out of 7?
Obviously there is more 1rst round qbs in the playoffs cause they have a far greater number of teams with that chance.
" people are describing Brees as the best FA signing in the history of the game today. Moves like that happen and work out to this extent once in a generation."
Totally false! It is much more common. You're forgetting the guy right in our face, Matt Hasselbeck! You're forgetting Brett Favre was a FA. And Warner. Three of the four best. And you have axed out all the non-playoff teams who missed the playoffs, not because they were lacking at QB, but who were lacking at other positions instead. All those team support my position too.
You are making QB way way too important of a piece. Football is more of a team game than that.
I vote JohnnyB for GM
I don't really understand that point, Brendan. Surely the point is, the majority of playoff teams have at some point had to invest a high pick in a QB.
In the AFC East, Tom Brady (a clear rarity) and a first round QB made the playoffs. The two teams with a joke situation at QB and a second round pick missed out.
In the AFC North, all four teams have a first round QB.
In the AFC South, a team with a top pick at QB made the playoffs. Two teams without that missed out, as did the Titans with a first rounder at the position.
In the AFC West, the team with a first round QB made the playoffs. The other three didnt, with only Oakland's owner's hand picked QB the other first rounder.
In the NFC East, there are two teams with a first round QB. One made the playoffs, the other didn't but won a SB recently with that QB. Dallas made the playoffs with Romo, a UDFA. Washington have a first round QB and missed out.
NFC North - Lions breaking in Stafford but felt the need to take a QB first overall. Bears traded for Cutler - didn't work out in year one. Green Bay made playoffs with a first round QB who was given time to prepare and has a similar skill set to Clausen. Minnesota had Favre.
NFC South - Brees won SB - free agent/2nd rounder. Falcons just missed playoffs but clearly better team with Ryan. Panthers missed out - awful QB situation. TB breaking in Freeman.
West - SF have high QB pick, not worked out to date. Arizona - have a first rounder but chose to start Warner. Seattle and St Louis - ageing late round veterans.
Overall - I have to say looking at that situation, it's the teams who invest in the QB position and don't leave things to chance that have success. But hoping there's an option next year is only relevant if you don't think Clausen is a potential franchise QB. If you do, you take him. You don't pass on the guy hoping that something else works out. Any way we look at it, it'll come down to Seattle's judgement on Clausen. If they think he's a franchise QB - and in this projection I'm predicting they do - they take him.
Hasselbeck was a trade. Suggest to me a QB Seattle should trade for next year?
And Brees and Favre is two names. Rivers, Manning, Manning, Ryan, Rodgers, McNabb, Roethlisberger, Cutler, Palmer, Ryan...etc. The likelihood of having a free agent fall into your lap are considerably less than drafting a good starter. If you think Clausen can be a franchise QB, you draft him. If you don't - then you pass. But you don't grade him as a potential franchise QB and then pass on the basis that maybe a free agent will be available in 2011.
Great job Rob on the Mock. This site has definitely been an everyday visit for a while now.
You've got my interests up on Lamarr Houston. Any chance of doing a POTD on the guy?
Kip might have a POTD planned for Houston, I'm sure he'll read this and bare that in mind.
Just to throw this out there too - I think one of the most difficult teams to judge are Cleveland. Does Mike Holmgren just go ahead and take a guy like Eric Berry, or will he invest in the offense and take a guy like Bryant as projected here? It's something I'll explore in future mocks, but if Berry did go #7, how would that change things around in the early teens?
In your opinion, how likely is it that Buffalo take Clausen if we pass on him at the 6th spot?
Annonymous - I'm not convinced Buffalo would take him. Chan Gailey actually used a lot of spread stuff when at KC with Thigpen. Part of that was to make it easier for Thigpen starting, but I also think he might be more prepared to consider it in the pro's. I actually think, aside from Jacksonville, Buffalo might be the most likely landing spot for Tebow. Essentially though, I just don't see Clausen (who lets be honest, is chirpy with a certain swagger - some would say cocky) fitting in with Chan Gailey's thinking. I expect they'll draft a left tackle and potentially draft Tebow in round two - or even make a deal to get Thigpen in for 2010.
I think you guys are skewing things a bit much about the quarterback position. For starters, please don't point to guys like Dilfer as the shining example of how a mediocre QB can win you a superbowl. They are BY FAR the exceptions to the rule. In the past 10 years there have been about 3 mediocre QBs to hit the superbowl (Grossman, Dilfer, Johnson). Not surprisingly they were on probably the 3 greatest defensive teams in the last decade. So that's 3/20... that should give you an idea of how incredibly hard it is to get to the big game without a pro-bowler behind center.
As for drafting one in the latter rounds... it's a big stretch. The 1st round busts obviously stand out big time, but don't forget that several Qbs go in every round of every draft. In a given draft there will be 15ish QBs taken. The vast majority will never be starters, and guys like Hass or Brady are by far the exceptions. I'd say there's less than a 10% chance you will find a borderline starter after round 2, and it's probably closer to about 2% for will a pro bowler. I'm not ready to drop 10 picks trying to find a starter in the back half of the draft.
As for free agency... then you're either waiting for a one in a hundred steal for a Brees type player (he was basically a 1st rounder in the first place), or more likely trading away first round picks (see: Cutler). Or you're picking up 1-year fix players like Favre. Those are both not going to help you long term.
Brendan.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ipaAZiBeFr4/S3199iN2ECI/AAAAAAAAAGg/F1Lv4lwDpmc/s1600-h/Offense+Graph.JPG
Here is a chart of QBs (and offense in general) by round of QBs who have been successes or wild successes. I charted success as 1 pro bowl, 3 seasons started, or 64 games played and wild success as 2 pro bowls, 7 seasons started, 125 games played (I'm not sure how a backup QB holding the ball for XPs count). Numbers are from 1993-2002.
It seems like QB, more than any other position is skewed more towards 1st or 2nd round success. Sure there are Hasselbecks, Bradys and Romos, but there are roughly 5-7 times as many QBs selected in rounds 2-7 as there are rounds 1.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ipaAZiBeFr4/ScQNork3NCI/AAAAAAAAAC8/p5u1JHsFBTQ/s1600-h/Offense+Chart.JPG
Rob, as always, nice work. I'm not a Clausen fan. I know his numbers were very good, pro-style, blah blah blah, but like many others think he has bust written all over him. If we took him at 14, I'd understand the logic, but no way at 6.
What do you think of offering our #40 to Jacksonville for their 1st rounder in 2011, much like we did with Denver? That allows them to nab Tebow and gives us more ammo for a QB next year, rather than forcing the issue this year.
Also, I know Charles Brown is a very good ZBS tackle prospect. But lets not forget that ZBS's are designed to allow smart, athletic guys to work effectively together in lieu of finding the "rare franchise left tackle prospect" (RFLTP). It doesn't mean you pass on the RFLTP in order to take the lesser prospect. That's like a frugal guy stepping over a $20 bill because he he's frugal. I'd much rather see us spend the #6 pick on Bulaga and #14 on Trent Williams, move Locklear back to RG, re-sign Sims for LG and play Unger at Center, and let them play together for a season before bringing in the rookie to replace Hass, whoever that rookie turns out to be (Teel, Locker, whoever).
Sorry for the delayed response.
What I was trying to say is look at the number of teams that draft a "franchise" qb in the first round that started last year.
By my count there was 18. So those teams that made the playoffs through drafting a "franchise" qb were 7/18 while FA/ trades or late rounders were 5/14 in making the playoffs. Essentially even odds. Go deeper and you find that the 4 best teams 2 were through the draft and 2 were trade/ FA.
I think that proves my point - picking up a qb through FA/ trade/ late rounds - at least last year - gave you a 50/50 shot at making the playoffs.
Note: obviously I am including a guy like Cutler in the trade category and not the first round category
Look I am not doubting that the best qbs come from the top of the draft most of the time. But look at the facts. You can get very good qbs via trade/ FA/ late rounds.
Also, you have to realize that the Seahawks are NO WHERE near as talented a team as the Jets were last year or the Ravens were two years ago.
I have said this repeatedly and no one answers: HOW GOOD DO YOU THINK THE SEAHAWKS ARE TODAY?
If I thought that the Seahawks were as good as the Jets were last year or the Ravens were two years ago I would be with you guys on Clausen. He would complete the puzzle. Right now - we have no puzzle to complete. We are not good.
I believe that the Seahawks are bad and need to rebuild. And I believe that they way that you build a football team is inside out. Build the trenches! Look three years out at least. Build talent not patches. Trade down at least the number 6 pick. This draft has a ton of talent. Trade down the 14 pick too. Trade for another first round pick next year.
Taking a high profile first round pick is not the way to go. In my opinion.
Brendan
Hey annonymous - I think it'd be a trade that warrants serious consideration. Any time you can accumulate high picks and get greater value, it's worth it.
I think Brown is more than just a good ZBS fit. I genuinly believe he's a much under rated prospect. If I was ranking the tackles, I'd put him above Bulaga and Williams, who I believe will have greater success on the right hand side.
Trading for Jax's first round pick 2011 is a great idea. Jax is not good either and that could potentially give us another couple high picks in 2011.
Very good idea. ++++
Brandon - I think the Seahawks are on the verge of a major rebuild. Personally, I think the basis for that rebuild will be to draft at the premium positions and build a new core. That includes finding a quarterback and drafting him when you have the chance. If that guy is available and you believe him, he's the starting point. Having the chance to bring him into a starting role under your terms is a bonus. I wouldn't over draft and take a QB that didn't warrant the choice, but then this mock is projecting Seattle believes in Clausen. There's not an exact science to success, there's no blue print. You say build through the trenches - yet this mock has a pick on both the OL and the DL. Drafting a quarterback isn't just a high profile selection with today in mind - it IS with three-five years into the future in your thinking. I don't think you avoid taking a QB for the sake of it. You judge it on talent and in this mock the Seahawks think Clausen warrants the pick as a potential franchise QB.
Not only is our QB old but we also have 2 early 1st round picks. If there ever were a year to take a "chance" on a QB this is it because we'll still get a first rounder at another position.
Also, I'm not sure why everyone seems to be so down on Clausen and Bradford. Bradford would have been #1 last year if he had declared. The last time I remember anyone talking highly of a 1st round QB it was JaMarcus Russell. They always say that the "next year will be better for QB's" because no supposed expert wants to endorse the next JaRyan Leaf.
Everyone is so high on Locker right now but that guy was not even first team all Pac Ten. Next year they'll be saying that he is a "project". These guys are all rookies which makes them all projects.
Johnny and Brendan either are Clausen haters or they are waiting for Locker to fall in our lap which just is not going to happen. Locker will end up with the Bills next year. Get used to it boys, if Clausen is there he's a Seahawk.
The Seahawks have been investing late-round picks (and even a 3rd) in QBs for as long as Hasselbeck has been here with no franchise QB to show for it. Do we want to take another 10 years sifting through the trash heap of 6th-round QBs looking for a diamond? Today's NFL requires great QB play for teams to succeed (unless you have best running game and best defense and are lucky enough to get an opponent to pull their starters early in a crucial game) and it is still very rare to find a QB in the late rounds. Its not impossible to score big, but it is rare and the attempt to find a QB that way sacrifices years of competitiveness. If the QB is the most important position, why not invest in the guy with the best chance at succeeding (best tools, best skill, best intangibles)? You may not always find the right guy, but you're going to have a lot better chance than sifting through a bunch of used lottery tickets.
Okay we disagree on how to build a successful team. That is fine. I would think that if you look at the success rate of drafting a franchise qb into a poor team - I don't think that it is that good of odds. Also as I have already proved - people view the draft as the only route for a qb. That is just not the case. Not to mention drafting a qb into a good team in the first round is a good route (Sanchez, Flacco). Build a team, get a qb - it has the best probability of success.
I understand that you can't project trade downs - but there is no doubt that the seahawks have a lack of talent across the board and getting three picks is not going to plug all the leaks. Ideally we would want 4-5 picks in the top 40 and maybe another 1rst or second round pick next year.
Cheers
Brendan
I have one problem with Clausen and that he is from Norte Dame. Name the last good Norte Dame QB that did anything in the league... that would be Montana. Plus we went down this road once in the 90's with Meier. Remember how that one turned out. Just saying go with other positions to rebuild this team.
I really don't see where people are getting these so called odds from? Or they say passing on a qb is taking a "gamble".
I have already proven/ shown that last year the odds of making the playoffs were equal between "fanchise" qbs and trades/ FA/ late rounders. So they are equal.
When you strip it down - I think that you have to disregard teams like Jets and Ravens because their teams are substantially better than the Seahawks. When your team is already that good then you take a qb.
I believe with a #6 pick overall and an aging QB with no apparent heir-apparent... you draft a QB if you think he could be a franchise QB. If we believe Clausen is that guy then we draft that guy. If not, we don't. I think most people would agree you build a winning football team with a great QB. Although Hass has a year or two left in him (maybe) you can't wait until your last bulb burns out before buying another.
When in doubt I always ask myself "Is it likely?"
Is it likely Clausen is a franchise QB in our system at this time? Is it likely we will be more successful in the long run by drafting our Left Tackle and Pass Rusher of the future with our first 2 picks?
In 2005 we had a great QB, a great Left Tackle, and a Great Passrush. We don't anymore. It's time to rebuild starting with those things early in the draft.
On a side note though... Ryan Matthews would be an excellent pickup at #40. I would consider his games against New Mexico State, Wyoming, and especially Boise State as "Explosive." He has an eye for the hole, a good cutback move, and he's a fierce competitor. Those that focus on his faults may miss out on him.
Time will tell.
Well, there is a lot of discussion here and I probably won't touch on everything.
I'll probably do a commentary post tomorrow on this, but I would advise people (probably in vain) to be careful about buying into hype for a player. Hyped players are almost always over-rated. Hype has a way of dismissing flaws and overstating potential. I think the classic example of this was Aaron Curry vs. the 3 USC LB last year. Curry had an awful rookie season, while Cushing, Matthews, and Maualuga were fighting each other for DROY honors. Curry was hyped because of his physical tools, but he lacks instincts, temperament and skills. But everyone seemed to forget that even as more well rounded LBs failed to gain the same level of hype.
I strongly advise everyone to watch what the can of players and form their own opinions, even if its just the highlight reels like the ones I link from youtube. I have yet to hear one person intelligently explain in detail why Matthews is a great fit for Seattle, all I hear is people blindly parroting draft experts. Its not as simple as "good player + big need = problem solved!" The process is much more nuanced than that. In other words, Matthews may be a worthy pick at #40 for some teams, but that doesn't mean he's a good option at #40 for Seattle despite needing a RB.
On the issue of QB, 10 of the 12 playoff QBs were drafted in the first 32 picks. A quick google search of QB success rates will show that after the 1st round there is a big dropoff, with another big dropoff after the 2nd round. A 40% success rate seems low, but it beats the crap out of the 3-5% success rate in the mid rounds.
And the time is right for a QB. Hasselbeck clearly isn't himself anymore and I think that was painfully obvious last year, especially in his final three starts with a mostly healthy team surrounding him. This is a QB oriented league and there are few positions in any sport that can match the impact of a QB in the NFL. That is something that both old-school purists and new breed stat geeks agree on without hesitation.
As far as waiting a year, I'd rather not if Clausen is there. Since 2005, the Seahawks have only twice had a chance to draft a highly regarded QB prospect (Mark Sanchez, Aaron Rodgers). The future is uncertain. Its very possible that if the Seahawks stay healthy, they could win 7-9 games. Especially if Hasselbeck stays healthy and recovers. You can't on one hand say that Hasselbeck still has a few years left and in the same breath say you feel confident the Seahawks will own a top 3 pick in 2011.
Even if we did, there is no guarantee that the options in 2011 will be better than now. Locker's stock could plummet if he fails to meet the suddenly lofty NFL expectations on him. Luck probably won't declare and Ryan Mallett could go Jevan Snead on us. If you absolutely don't believe in Clausen, fine. But if you do, you simply can't pass on a franchise QB. I don't no if Jimmy Clausen has a bigger critic than Rob, but even Rob can see the wisdom in selecting him.
Brendan, please tell us who you believe should be the QB of the 2011 Seahawks. Please keep in mind that Hass will be pushing 37 years old and that it's not likely we'll be in the top three draft picks next year.
If you believe we can get a solid QB via free agency or trade, please let us know who you think we could realistically get.
-=cysco
Cysco - that is a good point.
Here is the thing.
One - I believe that we will not have a chance at winning the super bowl in 2011
So having said that - to me it really doesn't matter. I only care about Super Bowls and not 7-9 football teams.
So i think in 2011 you start Teel. Take a shot most likely he gets beat up and doesn't work out. But hey maybe he will surprise.
I am looking towards 2013. Imagine 2013 draft rolls around and you look at our offense. We trade down the 6th and get a gaurd and a tackle. The 14th pick we either trade down or get a d-end. If we trade down we get a d-end and a line man.
so for example
our o-line looks like
Charles brown/Iupati/Ungar/RG/ RT
That looks like a pretty good base for a line there.
You get that base and some other players and develop their skills.
Then when a Clausen like QB comes in the draft or a Matt Schaub like Qb comes available in 2013 we get the QB then. BAM! O-line getting close to their primes. First year QB comes in and helps the team win. 2014 playoffs 2015 Super Bowl run.
Build the line this year in the draft and next year. Build the defensive line this year in the trade. Trade down get two 0-line and 1-2 d-line. Then next year we still don't need a QB cause we aren't good enough for a QB to make a difference. I believe that QBs can come in ready to play and in three ready to make super bowl pushes. Flacco and Sanchez back that point up.
So to answer your question - 2011 doesn't matter.
Also to answer Kip's comment - why was it even odds in the 2010 NFL season for making the playoffs when you compare drafting a "franchise" QB or finding a qb in FA/ Trade/ or later rounds?
My answer - common misconception among fans.
"But hoping there's an option next year is only relevant if you don't think Clausen is a potential franchise QB."
But Rob, *you* don't think Clausen is a franchise QB. And, sure, if the Seahawks think he is, and he's there, and there's not an even better franchise Dlineman or Olineman or DB or RB, take Clausen! But only if he's the most impact guy available at that pick. But is he?
"Hasselbeck was a trade. Suggest to me a QB Seattle should trade for next year?"
Who knows? Who among us had any idea Hasselbeck was a good idea before Holmgren wanted him? Who knows who will come available then? Someone will though, you can bank on it. Maybe you have to pay through the nose, but do that sort of thing when you're desperate, not now when we're not desperate at all.
Not caring about being competitive each year and only caring about super bowls is a pretty unrealistic way to run a team. You can't just say "we're going to be really bad and throw Mike Teel out there, but come 2015 we're going to be in the Super Bowl!" The odds are just way to stacked against you. No NFL team works that way. This is a business and they make money by being competitive.
Do you think it was part of Arizona's or The Viking's master plan to roll some 40 yo QB out there? Don't you think the Cardinals would have preferred that Leinart had worked out? Do you really think that Dallas put Romo onto their practice squad thinking "This is our QB of the future!"
Really what this debate comes down to is one pick. #6 this year. Is there any other player available at #6 that can be more valuable to the franchise than the future starting QB? Who is that player who is such a play maker that the team should forgo drafting what most people believe is the most important position on a team?
-=cysco
"As for free agency... then you're either waiting for a one in a hundred steal for a Brees type player..."
This is just flat out wrong. 4 of the top 5 QBs in the playoffs this year were acquired via free agency.
"Do you think it was part of Arizona's or The Viking's master plan to roll some 40 yo QB out there?" - No I do not think that was part of their plan but they have stumbled upon the reality of the situation. The facts are that there are legitimate options at the QB position via FA that have a very high success rate.
As for the #6 pick - if you told me that we couldn't trade it down then I think the Clausen option is closer to being a good pick. I would still prefer the BPA and it seems to me (this is not my strength and other people would have a much better answer than me) but it seems to me that it would be JPP.
But like I said no question trade the pick down.
JohnnyB great comment about Clausen - this blog doesn't even think that he is great when doing the evaluation. However, to me, QB more than anything else is about the intangibles. And if the Hawks truly believe that he possesses that killer instinct, that work ethic, that leadership then I take him. But what I am talking about is a truly special player and if Clausen is just an average rookie QB - wait.
And cysco -
"Not caring about being competitive each year and only caring about super bowls is a pretty unrealistic way to run a team." ????????????????????
Isn't the goal to win the Super Bowl. I am not saying that the Seahawks should throw games or not be competitive. I am simply saying that that is the reality of the situation.
Man v Man how many teams are the seahawks better than? No matter what they do they will not be good. So lets look out to when we can be good and build talent.
Last comment came out a little harsher than I wanted it to. I am just saying that I think the seahawks should try and I hope they win. But I just think with the talent they have now and the change in the coaching staff. I just don't see them winning next year.
But there's a difference between not winning, and not putting yourself in a position to win. If you set up for failure, that's what you're going to get... and then you end up in a perpetual rebuilding stage because you have a losing culture, a losing record, and free agents aren't looking your way anymore. Then you end up mired in perpetual mediocrity like the Lions and the Browns and, until recently, the Cardinals.
Okay, dig this Rob. Starts with Texans, loops into Hawks/Gibbs:
Everyone(who writes a mock draft online) just seems to tag the Texans with a RB. I think this is because they had a weak year running the ball last year(I was a Steve Slaton and Ryan Moats owner in Fantasy last year I know all about it) but I think it's lazy thinking to assume it was because of the backs vs. the offensive line.
As I said I had Slaton and Moats(when Slaton got hurt) in Fantasy last year so I was keeping pretty decent tabs on the Houston Offense as a whole from week to week and the word I heard from beat reporters on the Texans or the gurus that cover the NFL nationally is that the offensive line was a liability.
So the offensive line is lagging, Slaton is fumbling the ball, Kubiak loses faith in Slaton a 2nd year player coming off an outstanding rookie year and is so-so coming off of being benched and then suffers a neck stinger sever enough to knock him out for the season because it required surgery. Ryan Moats had one surprise huge game in place of Slaton but other than that game nothing great otherwise. And Chris Brown? Please, Shaun Alexander could get off the couch and give you what Chris Brown is producing these days.
It's because of this disaster in the Houston running game that I wasn't quite as excited as my fellow Hawk brethren at the addition of Alex Gibbs. Granted this was one blemish in a pretty awesome track record for Gibbs but it was a case of his system not working. The no-name linemen weren't getting it done and the underrated undersized backs weren't up to snuff one year after a season where the running game had performed with the rookie Slaton pumping out 1280 yards on the ground with 50 catches for over 300 yards so I don't think it's a situation where the Texans should freak out. They could use a back for depth late maybe but they probably need line help first to help protect the fragile Matt Schaub and improve the running game. Plus it would be silly to give up on Slaton after a sophomore slump due to a fumble problem, it happens. Tiki Barber, Ahman Green, Shaun Alexander etc. all outgrew their fumble issues early in their careers. Slaton appears to be on track to participate in OTA's. Also they drafted Arian Foster last year who replaced Ryan Moats as starter the last couple weeks of the season. Averaged 4.8 yards, 3 TD's in 4 games played.
I think a 2 headed monster of Slaton/Foster(or vice versa) is pretty solid. Would be even better with a young Tackle or Guard to help blaze a trail for them.
Bringing it back to Gibbs, there's a chance he looks at the Houston experience as a situation where he should have pushed for a little higher caliber of linemen in the draft. I mean you can't make chicken salad out of chickenshit every single time. It helps to go out and purchase chicken salad straight up from time to time. Ya'mean?
Wow, a lot of comments here.
First, Rob stay strong. Okung, Mathews, and Dwyer are all overhyped. I'd start to consider Mathews in the fourth, and I'm not sure I'd take Dwyer until the sixth.
Second, from a Skins fan perspective, I think Davis at 4 is a totally reasonable pick. But I don't think we'd take Iupati for two reasons: the first is that we can probably get by for a year with the guards on the roster - tackle is a much bigger priority which you addressed - so I don't see us spending our two highest picks on O-linemen. And second, I'm not sure that Iupati fits the mold of a Shanahan lineman.
Finally, from an NFC East perspective, the Giants have put so many resources into their D-Line, I just can't see them spending a first rounder there. I'd look at linebackers and safeties. I think the Eagles and Cowboys made solid picks in the first round, but I question whether Jones is willing to admit he made a mistake in trading for Roy Williams. I think the second round picks were spot on.
Nick N.
"Then you end up mired in perpetual mediocrity like the Lions and the Browns and, until recently, the Cardinals."
Funny. You listed three teams who recently drafted first round QBs. Two of them are still mired in mediocrity with nothing on the horizon. The third team has their bust QB sitting on the bench and would still be mired in non stop mediocrity too if they had not signed an aging free agent QB who took them to the Super Bowl.
"This is just flat out wrong. 4 of the top 5 QBs in the playoffs this year were acquired via free agency."
Yes and I only consider one of them realistic examples of acquiring a good QB via free agency. This is just my own opinion, but bringing a 35 year old QB and praying he holds up long enough to get you through a season doesn't seem like a smart way to run an organization. Nor does hoping to find a pro bowler amongst the undrafted free agents that no one wants. Schaub and Brees are the only good starting free agent acquisitions in my mind, and one of them throws to the best receiver in the league. But in my opinion they are vastly offset by guys like Byron Leftwich, Chris Carr, Dante Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Kyle Boller, Jon Kitna, etc etc etc.
I don't agree with Clausen at 6. I don't believe he's a franchise QB. The thing that disturbs me is Notre Dame's lack of wins under Clausen. Having a qb that is a winner is a huge attribute in my book. My thought is that he'll end up as a bust. But, I don't agree we should bank on waiting until next year. I wouldn't mind drafting Tebow in the 2nd or later rounds and having him be a project.
also, what happened to drafting an offensive playmaker? From the sounds of it, most people already think that the Hawks will suck next year.
"Yes and I only consider one of them realistic examples of acquiring a good QB via free agency."
Why is that? Those four QBs all performed fabulously and did everything you could ask to get their team a championship.
And I'm not advocating an aging QB as a long term solution, I'm saying that there are plenty of reasons the Seahawks are not desperate now for a QB right now. One of those reasons is the ability teams have to get older FAs as stop gap solutions. Another is teams' abilities to get younger QBs who have shown what they can do in the NFL (like Hass was when we got him). Another is the ability teams have to develop a few lower round QBs at the same time, providing a statistical advantage of success over one first round QB. Another is the potential of Hasselbeck to play for three or four more years.
what about a trade for qbs like:
colt brennan (very accurate)
troy smith (great leader)
john david booty (carroll knows him)
matt leinhart (carroll's boy)
the draft seems deeper in other positions, so I'd rather trade for a qb than risk it on Clausen. Also, if we have so many holes in tons of positions and aren't trying to be competitive this year, why don't we just select the best player available?
Rob- Quick question... why is it that we get the 6th pick in the first round, but the 8th pick in round two? Why do the browns and raiders suddenly get to leap frog us in the 2nd round? I thought if you were the worst team you get the first pick in every round until compensatory picks started to come into play or if you traded your pick at some point. But we didnt trade our 2nd round pick, so it's just a bit confusing to me. Please explain.
" But in my opinion they are vastly offset by guys like Byron Leftwich, Chris Carr, Dante Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Kyle Boller, Jon Kitna, etc etc etc."
I don't know what Chris Carr has to do with anything, but I do know that Leftwich, Culpepper, Pennington and Boller are all examples of first round QBs who failed to propel the teams who drafted them to championship level.
Charles - good question. I looked it up on Wikipedia because it made me curious. Apparently, when teams have the same record, the first round order is determined by strength of schedule. Therefore, because Seattle's SOS was weakest, it goes first. For the second round, the order is cycled so that Seattle goes to the back of the line of teams with a 5-11 record, and the Browns and Raiders move up one spot. Then in the third round, the Browns go to the back of the line, and the Raiders and Seahawks move up one spot (but the Hawks traded that pick). This cycling continues for the rest of the draft.
Nick N.
Lol I meant David Carr. My Bad. And I said I don't consider them realistic examples of free agent acquisitions, not that they weren't quality starters. By this I mean that based on sheer probability you can't expect to replicate those situations in Seattle.
I agree with Brendan for the most part. The only part I do not agree with is why you take Clausen with the 6th pick. I do not think that we should take Clausen as a Conselation prize if we can not trade down. If we want him take him, if not don't, end of story. I Do not like a lot of what I hear about Clausen, physicaly and attitude.
I think that trading back for extra picks is the way to go this year because we need to improve at 5 or so possitions in order to see great improvement in the standings.
Just wondering what people think about this possibility. I saw it somewhere. We trade pick six and Branch to Denver for number 11 and Marshal. Denver may or may not find any takers on the restricted tender but it seems like they really need to get something while they can.
I don't think that is very likely but I don't see why we would not try. In my mind this pick up via trade would be like getting a proven player who would be first round any day and we would still have 2 firsts and an early second.
I also like the idea of possibly picking up an extra 1st in next years draft with our 2nd. Only if we trade back or do something like the Marshal Trade that I just explained though, because we simply have to many holes to fill and can not only come away with 2 or three new starters and nothing else worth a pile of beans this off season, that would be unacceptable.
We will see what free agency brings, I know he is thirty but I would be excited if we added Peppers to the D-Line. Bodden in the Secondary. Maybe Arizona lets there Safety go. If they want to the Hawks could make a huge splash on the Defensive side of the Ball in FA. But not so much on the Offense, not much there.
Heres hoping that Carrol is smarter than all of us, because this rebuild will take perfection.
Fantastic discussion!
Great work guys. This blog i quickly becoming a daily place to go.
Jon, thanks for the well thought out comments regarding Gibbs. I wouldn't say it changed my expectations of him, but it was a fun, informative read.
Nick - thanks for the advice regarding the NFC East. Really appreciated.
Also to answer Kip's comment - why was it even odds in the 2010 NFL season for making the playoffs when you compare drafting a "franchise" QB or finding a qb in FA/ Trade/ or later rounds?
I was wrong about my 10/12 quote. Its actually 9/12 (I forgot Romo).
Anyway, of those 12 teams, there were only 5 QBs who weren't both 1st round picks drafted by the same team. Those 5 were Brees, Romo, Brady, Warner, and Favre.
Romo was a diamond in the rough. There have been hundreds of undrafted QBs in the last decade- only Romo became a franchise QB from that group.
Brady worked hard and was a product of the system, much like Hasselbeck. That same system struggled to replace Hasselbeck with mid-late round talents, and I expect the same for New England when Brady winds down. Guys like Hasselbeck and Brady are very special.
Brett Favre holds some NFL records and is maybe a top 5 QB all time. He was only available because of his, um, eccentric behavior regarding retirement.
Kurt Warner is probably the most unlikely of the bunch. Considered washed up when he joined the Cardinals, Warner only recently revived his career in 2008.
Drew Brees was foolishly run out of town by the biggest ego-maniac GM in sports. Its one of the few times a legit franchise QB has ever hit UFA. Brees is at least arguably the best free agent signing of all time.
Anyway, yes, you can make the post-season without a 1st round QB, but that route requires a ton of luck and with the exeception of Brees, each of those QBs were considered "long shots" when they joined their teams. For every Brady or Romo you will find 30 David Greene's. Kurt Warner and Favre were unusual cases and weren't long term solutions. Only Drew Brees was a good bet to succeed with long term upside- but QB's like Brees almost never hit UFA. Maybe once every other decade.
You could take a different route for QB than the 1st round, but it would be far, far, less likely to succeed.
Charles - Nick answered the question perfectly. Basically, when teams have the same record the order in round one is determined by strength of schedule, but the teams rotate that order in every round.
One more thought- I definitely don't expect much from the Seahawks the next 3 years, but that doesn't mean the team should just throw in the towel either. You may recall, people were calling for Holmgren's job and predicting a losing season months before the magical SB run in 2005. It seems like every year we see a "surprise" team or two emerge into the playoff picture. If the Seahawks do a good enough job and catch enough breaks, you just never know. So while its very unlikely, I wouldn't assume that the 2010 team is a lock for 3-13, or something like that.
Looking for feedback from everyone. Last year my hope was that we'd land Housh, and we did. This year my hope is that we land Aaron Kampman. Monster sack numbers in '07 and '08. Drop in '09 due to Green Bay move to 3-4, and suffered knee injury to boot. Provided he checks out medically, seems to me he could be a great replacement for Kerney. Not a long-term solution, but doesn't cost any draft picks, just cash. Having reviewed the UFA's available at every position, this is my favorite if we can only have one.
Regarding RFA's, I fully expect Seattle to tender Sims, Spencer and Tapp, all of them probably at the 1st or 2nd round level. Therefore, losing any would result in additional picks. I would hope we retain Sims. If we land Kampman then retaining Tapp is less important. Spencer is least important, and may not have a starting role if Unger stays at Center, so it would be hoping someone bites. If they don't, we're only stuck paying Spencer about $1.7M (2nd round tender)which isn't bad for a guy who could plug in to any of the 3 interior spots.
One RFA it might be worth going after is DT Barry Cofield of the Giants who is only tendered at 2nd round, and is only 26 so entering his prime. Started all but 1 game over 4 seasons, 6-4, 306. He would allow Bane to move back to 1-tech and significantly improve the D-line.
"Brady worked hard and was a product of the system, much like Hasselbeck."
Brady is a major talent with major skills and would succeed in pretty much any system. He is a product of the "keep trying to hit on QB talent with lower round picks" system though. 6th round, 199th pick.
The odds of finding a franchise QB aren't much much lower with this system. In fact, the odds are higher. How? Well, the odds of success with a first rounder are 40%. The first round pick will be taking up tons of cap space and development time, so your hands are then tied. You don't draft any more QBs for at least three or four years.
"For every Brady or Romo you will find 30 David Greene's."
The stats certainly don't bear this out. It's much much closer than you think. Here is an article addressing it and also referencing some other articles on the subject:
http://blogs.wsj.com/dailyfix/2009/12/30/the-count-the-art-and-science-of-drafting-qbs/tab/article/
Here is a quote:
"55 of 66 quarterbacks taken in the first 32 picks of the draft during the timespan of his study logged enough playing time. That’s 83%. Of 42 QBs taken in the next 32 picks, 69% made the cut. Another 55 quarterbacks were drafted between picks 65 and 100, and 47% of those cleared the minimum requirement. And of 209 QBs taken with pick No. 101 or later, just 28% were included."
So based upon this comparison, if you draft two or three lower round QBs (perhaps over the course of a few seasons) you have a better chance of finding the guy than drafting one first rounder. Even if you don't like these numbers, use anyone's numbers. The odds are still better with a few lower rounders, compared to one first rounder.
So again, no NFL team should consider themselves so desperate for a QB that they pass up better talent to get one in the first round.
Annonymous - Kampman is worth considering. I'm not sure what the Seahawks are planning, this could be a youth movement. They might be intent on drafting a DE. However, as you rightly say Kampman on a one year deal would offer an experienced scheme fit and offers a solution if they don't intend to draft a DE early and instead focus on offense.
Johnny - The Pats absolutely have a well oiled machine as their schemes, which is why Matt Cassel was able to lead them to 11 wins. Brady has achieved so much, but it'd be wrong to completely ignore what the system has done for New England in general. The head coach in NE, as dour as he may be, is a genius.
The Patriots were also able to draft guys like Brady waiting for one to stick because they had an established, injury free starting QB already.
Seattle is going into 2010 with Hasselbeck having missed 11 games in two years and facing a contract year. He's no guaranteee to be here this time next year. Bringing in multiple late rounders and hoping one sticks is a luxury this team can ill afford. Very, very shortly they're going to have to produce a starting QB from somewhere. If they think Clausen can do the job - then that nips that issue. If they don't they will pass and have to find a guy some other way - whether it's free agency, trade or the draft.
Great discussion everyone. Good site.
Classic - "Also, I'm not sure why everyone seems to be so down on Clausen and Bradford. Bradford would have been #1 last year if he had declared. The last time I remember anyone talking highly of a 1st round QB it was JaMarcus Russell." Well, look at that has turned out.
Brendan said something very important that often gets overlooked: "However, to me, QB more than anything else is about the intangibles. And if the Hawks truly believe that he possesses that killer instinct, that work ethic, that leadership then I take him."
Romo was mentioned above, as a guy from Dallas, I can tell you the "intangibles" are what got Parcells to notice him - not his arm.
Johnny I think you are misinterpreting that article. Look at what the Harvard professor wrote about the methods used to conduct the study (it's actually the bit you quoted). Only 28% of the QBs taken after the third round were included in the analysis. That means they entirely discounted almost 3/4 of the bust QBs after pick 101, and half of the qbs in 50-100. It's kind of like buying 100 scratch tickets, and calculating your average winnings.. except you're not including any tickets you completely lost on. They try to rationalize this by making the assumption that all those QBs left out simply never got the chance. The truth, as we know, is these players never played over 100 plays because no coach in their right mind would let them butcher a game.
What the article actually shows, is that if you draft 4 later round QBs, only one of them will ever play over 100 plays. From what I read it ignores completely the level of their play. It doesn't touch on the fact that picks after #50 are seven times less likely to make a pro bowl. This is even more proving considering that most picks after #50 get several years to sit back and learn the game, while the Staffords and Smiths are thrown directly in the fire.
Hey Rob and bloggers, I would not force the issue of QB this year. There is a strong possibility that St. Louis and Washington will draft a QB this year. The Redskins have increased that liklihood with the trade tender placed on Campbell. I would be looking to trade out of the 6th or 14th spots or both. This is a a deep draft and we could probably address all our needs with the extra picks. My reasoning;
To get the true value of a high pick like 6, it should be spent on a QB, T, D line, or a super stud CB or WR. The best D lineman and QB's will be gone by 6, the top CB Haden ran a 4.6, and there will be good LT's in the mid to the end of the first round. With that said, the only viable option other than trading down would be Dez Bryant at 6. Maybe we could work out a deal with New England who holds three 2nd round picks. If we could somehow aquire picks 6, 22, 40, and 47, that would be best in my opinion. We Could give New England Branch or a LB(Hawthrone or Tutupu) and our 14 pick for the Patriot's 22 and 47 and maybe a 3rd.
6. Dez Bryant
22. Charles Brown
40. Mike Lupati
47. Tim Tebow( I cant help but think he's gonna be great.)
3rd RB( Hardesty, Tate, Gerheart)
4th DB
5th D line
What do you guys think?
Lenny
Only thing I would not like about this is trading tatupu or Hawthorne for essentially a 3rd rounder. Even though he was injured Tatupu has been a pro bowler three times. If his health checks out we could get a first rounder for him alone. Also Hawthorne could have made the pro bowl if our team was better, or if he was our #1 MLB last year. I truly believe we could get a 2nd round pick for him. If I was on a team with need at MLB I would give those draft picks for those players.
Good day
[url=http://www.internetmosque.net ] The Lord Complete Audio English Quran in MP3 [/url]
"Does Islam tolerate other beliefs?"
The Quran says: God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for [your] faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just. (Quran, 60.8)
It is one function of Islamic law to protect the privileged status of minorities, and this is why non-Muslim places of worship have flourished all over the Islamic world. History provides many examples of Muslim tolerance towards other faiths: when the caliph Omar entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam granted freedom of worship to all religious communities in the city.
Islamic law also permits non-Muslim minorities to set up their own courts, which implement family laws drawn up by the minorities themselves.
When the caliph Omar took Jerusalem from the Byzantine, he insisted on entering the city with only a small number of his companions. Proclaiming to the inhabitants that their lives and property were safe, and that their places of worship would never be taken from them, he asked the Christian patriarch Sophronius to accompany him on a visit to all the holy places.
The Patriarch invited him to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, but he preferred to pray outside its gates, saying that if he accepted, later generations of Muslims might use his action as an excuse to turn it into a mosque. Above is the mosque built on the spot where Omar did pray.
According to Islam, man is not born in 'original sin'. He is God's vicegerent on earth. Every child is born with the fitra, an innate disposition towards virtue, knowledge, and beauty. Islam considers itself to be the 'primordial religion', din al-hanif, it seeks to return man to his original, true nature in which he is in harmony with creation, inspired to do good, and confirming the Oneness of God.
For more details [url=http://www.internetmosque.net ]click her[/url]
|
All of us will die one day INCLUDING YOU.
so before you die you must find out where the HELL you are going too.
You must find out
who is our savior Jesus or ?
You may sleep tonight and never get up in the morning?
You may die today.
You may die within a week
You may die within a month
you may die within a year
you may die within the next ten years
one thing for sure
You will die
so find out how is our savior so that he may save you.
http://www.internetmosque.net/saviour/index.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/songes/s/1.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/songes/s/17.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/
http://www.internetmosque.net/quran/quraneng/index.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/audio...n_Yahya/1_w.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/audio...f-Estes/1_w.htm
http://www.internetmosque.net/audio...ilips/1-1_w.htm
Post a Comment