Thursday, 15 April 2010

Eric Berry vs Earl Thomas

By Rob Staton
Who do you prefer? Mike Mayock and Charley Casserly make their case in this video. Mayock votes for Earl Thomas, Casserly for Berry. Mayock: "I think a lot of coaches feel the way I do and personnel guys feel the way you (Casserly) do." It's an interesting point, especially considering strongly sourced speculation recently that Berry is very much in play at #6 for the Seahawks.

The NFL Network also recorded their 'On the clock' segment for the Seahawks today with Steve Raible discussing what the new regime might do at #6 and #14. They discuss the possibility of Seattle drafting C.J. Spiller, something Seahawks Draft Blog understands will not happen.


thomas said...

for some reason im still high on taylor mays...the hawks should consider him at 14 if there is no berry at 6 and thomas is of the board

Frankfrog said...

It's hard to disagree with Mayock about a safety. I'll buy Thomas is the better player. Would he be there at #14?

Matthew Baldwin said...

Berry. I like Thomas, but he seems a little small to stay healthy (Bob Sanders 2.0).

If the sources are correct and Spiller will not even be considered at 14, I will be dumbfounded. It doesn't make sense for a team with ZERO playmakers to take the #1 playmaker in the draft off their board. Maybe the report is acurate, but it doesn't make sense.

Anonymous said...

Berry and Thomas are roughly the same size.

Anonymous said...

There are more pressing needs than a playmaker at RB when you have a solid, but not great Justin Forsett.

SS, LT, DE, DT, OG alone are more pressing needs.

We having NOTHING at SS. We have NOTHING at LT. We originally had something until Kerney retired. Colin Cole is insufficient and can be upgraded in the deepest DT class I've ever seen. OG needs to upgrade.

I see the possibilities as
SS- Eric Berry (as noted by this site), Chad Jones, Morgan Burnett, and the other Georgia S.
LT- Williams, Brown, Capers.
DE- Derrick Morgan at #14. That's it. I don't think anyone else would be good enough.
DT- If McCoy in some way falls to #6. If not, #60 with who's remaining like Alaulu or Houston.
OG- Jon Asomoah at #60 (PERFECT FIT) and Mike Petrus in the 4th.

There are just too many needs and possibilities for the luxury of Spiller when Forsett is sufficient. I'm not opposed to a big back for short yardage situations, but I wouldn't want to spend one with the first 3 picks. My favorite is Charles Scott because he has vision (Blount doesn't) and ZBS is the perfect fit for vision based RB.

Matthew Baldwin said...

Berry has a few pounds and two inches on Thomas (6' 0" vs 5' 10"). It's close though.

Matthew Baldwin said...

A playmaker is a "luxury"? We averaged 17 points a game and only 10 the last five weeks. We wouldn't have won 6 games with the Ravens defense.

We need playmakers; plural.

And playmakers help keep the defense honest and prevent them from loading 8 in the box and blitzing without the downside of getting burned for a big play.

Forsett is ok. Housh is ok. But no defensive coordinator is up burning the midnight oil game planning for those guys.

Anonymous said...

How do people feel about the William duo that is in training camp?

micah said...

I agree we need playmakers badly. on both sides of the ball as a matter of fact. Of course we need a lot of positions, but we need to at least consider getting potential playmakers. USC always had playmakers. Bates in Denver had some playmakers. Right now we can't really say we have anyone who is threatening. We will be able to find adequate OLine depth in the later rounds, as well as interior dlinemen. i think the elephant position is trying to help us get more pass rush. if anything, this is a make or break year for l jack. he's playing in a familiar system/coach, and he's had some time to develop. With the addition of the Williams, I think we have a bigger possession WR, and we already have the smaller guys (Housh,Butler,Branch). We'd have to at least consider getting playmakers.

Anonymous said...

You know after reading all of these player evaluations it just makes you pause. Why don't we just pick two of the best offensive lineman at #6 and #14 so we can actually solve a big problem (and there will be two good ones too - this is a deep draft for OL). Give Gibbs the beasts he needs and let's build from there. The entire offense would get better and could eventually become elite over a 3 year period. All this just by drafting focused on OL. Heck even if it is #6 and #60 - I'm just saying that OL should be 2 of the first 3 picks. Use the later rounds to fill the other holes.

Savage said...

Peter King mentioned that the Eagles are the most likely team to try and trade up for Eric Berry. If that is the case, maybe the Hawks could get a few picks for the #6.

I certainly wouldn't mind dropping down from #6 to get the #24, #37 and #70 back. I'd then target these picks

#14- Davis
#24- Bryant
#37- Price
#60- Best
#70- Burnett/Wright/Petrus

Thast a lot of talent to come out of one draft with.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rob,

Maybe I'm missing something about Earl Thomas being faster and having more range than Eric berry. But didn't Eric berry ran a faster 40 and he returned kicks for Tennessee a few times?


Anonymous said...

I don't mind dropping from #6 to #24, but I doubt we'll get BOTH 37 and and 70. It's likely we'll only get 37. Sure, the #s add up in the draft value chart, but in actuality #37+#24 is what we can probably expect (citing last year's Mark Sanchez who was picked at #6).

As for OL, I would do it in one of two routes. Either give him all the autonomy he wants (2 of the top 3 picks is on OL) or bank of him working with less talent and fill other needs such as DE, SS, etc. Personally, I'm actually leaning towards the latter. You're maximizing talent.

Anonymous said...

I think Berry is the second best player in the draft behind Suh.

If he is available at 6 I think we must take him regardless of our left tackle needs. He is just too good of a player to pass up.

Kelly said...

Hey Writers!

I'm interested in hearing from the writers on the three players they would love to see in a Seahawks uniform. (This does not have to be the best players or the most schematically right players). I want to know what 3 players you guys would love to have on the 2010 roster.




Also I asked awhile back about a pre draft podcast. Is that still in the works, 6 days out...

Kelly said...

Let me make one suggestion on the three picks. Give me picks that are "realistic" options at 6, 14, 60. Because I guess without that, you would probably say Suh, McCoy and Bradford. HAHA

Savage said...

In regards to Kelly's question, I know you'll put out your final mock draft soon Rob, but are Kyle or Kip going to put one out? I think it would be interesting to see their prespective as well. Thanks

Rob Staton said...

Savage - I think it's safe to say Kyle and Kip won't be able to resist putting out a mock. Stay tuned.

Kelly - realistic options at #6 are Berry and Williams. If they keep the pick at #14, Morgan/Haden or an OT if not taken at #6. Personally, I'm a big fan of Derrick Morgan and always have been.

As for a podcast - technically they are difficult to put together unless you know what you're doing. I'd also want it to be more than just me/Kyle/Kip saying vocally what we've already written. It's something I want to incoporate to the blog as a regular feature - I'm disappointed I never got round to it this year. I'll see if we can't sort something before next Thursday.

ivotuk said...

Worst interview by far this year!

NFL Commentator:
"Mandatory Camp"

Steve Raible:
"They also gave away a couple of three high draft choices"

"A lot more hair...makes him much more popular in some circles" What?

Kyle Rota said...

I will be putting up a mock draft Tuesday or Wednesday. Don't expect a whole lot though - I consider myself a much better talent evaluator than mock-draft-maker.

As for players I like, here goes nothing:

In order. Adjust for redundancy (if a position is taken earlier, no need to take it twice... not a hard-set rule (2 DEs would not horrify me), but it'll make things easier).

6th: Suh, McCoy, Morgan, Trent Williams, Joe Haden (I've done at least 3 games on everyone on the list).

14th: Anyone on the above list, Eric Berry (probably optimistic), Charles Brown, DeMaryius Thomas (only guy so far I haven't thoroughly scouted), Jimmy Clausen (an interesting scenario. I like Clausen a lot, and have a bad feeling about Whitehurst, but a friend made a compelling case - since you already hitched your wagon to CW, might as well give him a realistic shot of success... Obviously Clausen does not help that. Still, Clausen would not be a bad pick as you might be able to pawn him off even if Whitehurst plays well, so I could see taking him here and wouldn't complain)

60: Mathews, Best (again, I'm an optimist today), D. Williams, L. Houston, Reshad Jones... I know the possibilities at 60 significantly less well, but from what I've read, heard, and sometimes observed I think they would all be solid choices.

palacio de la aljaferia said...

So, I do not really consider it may have effect.