I just don't see us taking the third OT, unless the guy we think is the top OT falls past the two other OT's that we did not value. There is two much talent in this draft to draft for need instead of BPA. More likely, we pick BPA at #6 and wait for #14 (or later if we trade down) to pick up Brown.
I keep hearing how poor this draft is for OT's and then I see so many mocks with 5 of them gone in the top 12 picks. Can you explain that one to me?
I think it's just the so-called premium at the position. I don't think it's a great class. I don't think Russell Okung is anywhere near as good as a lot of other people do. I don't think Davis, Williams or Bulaga will be taken at par value. But like I say - teams rank offensive tackles highly and more and more each year go early.
Oh, the 80's big screen TV. Always makes me laugh, ESPN has so much money and they try so hard to be cutting edge on everything yet this hunk o' junk is their new toy.
I liked it better the first time, when it was called the George Michael Sports Machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCLoaKFYhTM&feature=related
also the way they shoot these pieces really lets you see how tiny McShay is.
I can't understand why mocks have Seattle going OT with the #6 pick. Assuming they don't get something done for Marshall I wouldn't be surprised if they took Bryant at 6 and got someone like Brown at 14. Brown is just as good and you get your playmaker at 6. This seems more likely than using the #6 on a guy like Baluga and missing out on a playmaker. Anyone else agree or disagree? I think the pick at 6 is McCoy,Berry,Bryant,Spiller,Morgan. No offensive tackles.
I feel that, I would rather not miss out on a playmaker when a Tackle can be had at #14 but I personally assume the #14 wont be for us to pick with. I have a feeling they'll trade out of it or trade it for Marshall. In such a scenario I wouldn't mind a Tackle at #6.
I agree with a playmaker at 6, since our likely LT target (Brown) will be there at 14.
6. Spiller 14. Brown 60. Marshall
or....
6. Dez 14. Brown 60. Ben Tate
After losing Burleson, we need a ready on week 1 WR or our o-line problems will be worse in '10. I think Dez and Marshall are the only two WRs that will keep the safety out of the box and limit the blitz.
I'm a firm believer that improving time of possession, minimizing the 3 and outs and putting some points on the board will do more for our defense than any rookie FS, DT or DE.
Hunger is the best spice. Its often need that drives high picks, and if a lot of teams early in the draft all need tackles, you'll see a big run on them. The 2009 draft was considered very good for OT, but only 4 went in the first round. This year, with a far weaker class, I expect at least 6, maybe 7 (Saffold) tackles going in round 1.
McShay just said something pretty interesting in that video towards the end. If Clausen falls in the draft, we might see a team trade up from the early 2nd to get him as the Browns did for Quinn. This cost the Browns a future 1st.
There has been speculation (and not by Seahawks fans) that Philly (#24) or Green Bay (#23) might be trading partners for Seattle's #14. Wouldn't that be awesome if the Seahawks moved down to say #23 or #24, and then made another trade that got them a future 1st? Its fun to think about, at least.
I would prefer they got Spiller or Berry at #6 than Trent Williams or Baby Baluga. Attempt to trade down from #14 to the #18-22 range (ahead of the Packers at 23) and pick up Charlie Brown. If you can't trade down grab him anyway. He does not seem to be a big drop off from the higher rated tackles, especially considering our ZBS. And if we could add a 2nd/3rd/4th rounder from the trade down it would give us more ammo to work a deal with Denver for Marshall. You added 2 stud playmakers and a quality left tackle and still have plenty of later round picks to fill guard and safety positions.
Austin I agree 100% about Charles Brown, McCoy, and Morgan are all good players, and I'd take Bryant over Marshall. Berry is over valued I think but I don't see ED Reed, or Bob Sanders type game impact. Just can't stand Spiller. I smell bust to slow to be a fast guy, to much of a panic runner to run between the tackle's.
I'm not a fan of sexy pick's in general but I would love a receiver with the body to pancake defenders for the run game. I'm sure since we traded Tapp we're grabbing Morgan or JPP at #6. JPP and Bryant may still be there at #14.
I still would love to see hometown hero Taylor Mays as a Hawk, if we could make a package to move up in the second round. He would change the soft label overnight for this team.
future busts in the 2010 draft Bradford, Davis, Spiller, Bulaga, Campbell, Tebow, Colt McCoy, and Tony Pike and the handfull of conversion guy's to 3-4 olb that can't cover. Future studs include McClain, Morgan, Kindle, Clausen, Haden, Iupita, Bryant, and Brandon Graham!!! The Graham kid is special watch the senior bowl again. I'd find a way to get him.
9 comments:
I just don't see us taking the third OT, unless the guy we think is the top OT falls past the two other OT's that we did not value. There is two much talent in this draft to draft for need instead of BPA. More likely, we pick BPA at #6 and wait for #14 (or later if we trade down) to pick up Brown.
I keep hearing how poor this draft is for OT's and then I see so many mocks with 5 of them gone in the top 12 picks. Can you explain that one to me?
I think it's just the so-called premium at the position. I don't think it's a great class. I don't think Russell Okung is anywhere near as good as a lot of other people do. I don't think Davis, Williams or Bulaga will be taken at par value. But like I say - teams rank offensive tackles highly and more and more each year go early.
Oh, the 80's big screen TV. Always makes me laugh, ESPN has so much money and they try so hard to be cutting edge on everything yet this hunk o' junk is their new toy.
I liked it better the first time, when it was called the George Michael Sports Machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCLoaKFYhTM&feature=related
also the way they shoot these pieces really lets you see how tiny McShay is.
I can't understand why mocks have Seattle going OT with the #6 pick. Assuming they don't get something done for Marshall I wouldn't be surprised if they took Bryant at 6 and got someone like Brown at 14. Brown is just as good and you get your playmaker at 6. This seems more likely than using the #6 on a guy like Baluga and missing out on a playmaker. Anyone else agree or disagree? I think the pick at 6 is McCoy,Berry,Bryant,Spiller,Morgan. No offensive tackles.
I feel that, I would rather not miss out on a playmaker when a Tackle can be had at #14 but I personally assume the #14 wont be for us to pick with. I have a feeling they'll trade out of it or trade it for Marshall.
In such a scenario I wouldn't mind a Tackle at #6.
I agree with a playmaker at 6, since our likely LT target (Brown) will be there at 14.
6. Spiller
14. Brown
60. Marshall
or....
6. Dez
14. Brown
60. Ben Tate
After losing Burleson, we need a ready on week 1 WR or our o-line problems will be worse in '10. I think Dez and Marshall are the only two WRs that will keep the safety out of the box and limit the blitz.
I'm a firm believer that improving time of possession, minimizing the 3 and outs and putting some points on the board will do more for our defense than any rookie FS, DT or DE.
Hunger is the best spice. Its often need that drives high picks, and if a lot of teams early in the draft all need tackles, you'll see a big run on them. The 2009 draft was considered very good for OT, but only 4 went in the first round. This year, with a far weaker class, I expect at least 6, maybe 7 (Saffold) tackles going in round 1.
McShay just said something pretty interesting in that video towards the end. If Clausen falls in the draft, we might see a team trade up from the early 2nd to get him as the Browns did for Quinn. This cost the Browns a future 1st.
There has been speculation (and not by Seahawks fans) that Philly (#24) or Green Bay (#23) might be trading partners for Seattle's #14. Wouldn't that be awesome if the Seahawks moved down to say #23 or #24, and then made another trade that got them a future 1st? Its fun to think about, at least.
I would prefer they got Spiller or Berry at #6 than Trent Williams or Baby Baluga.
Attempt to trade down from #14 to the #18-22 range (ahead of the Packers at 23) and pick up Charlie Brown.
If you can't trade down grab him anyway. He does not seem to be a big drop off from the higher rated tackles, especially considering our ZBS.
And if we could add a 2nd/3rd/4th rounder from the trade down it would give us more ammo to work a deal with Denver for Marshall.
You added 2 stud playmakers and a quality left tackle and still have plenty of later round picks to fill guard and safety positions.
Austin I agree 100% about Charles Brown, McCoy, and Morgan are all good players, and I'd take Bryant over Marshall. Berry is over valued I think but I don't see ED Reed, or Bob Sanders type game impact. Just can't stand Spiller. I smell bust to slow to be a fast guy, to much of a panic runner to run between the tackle's.
I'm not a fan of sexy pick's in general but I would love a receiver with the body to pancake defenders for the run game. I'm sure since we traded Tapp we're grabbing Morgan or JPP at #6. JPP and Bryant may still be there at #14.
I still would love to see hometown hero Taylor Mays as a Hawk, if we could make a package to move up in the second round. He would change the soft label overnight for this team.
future busts in the 2010 draft
Bradford, Davis, Spiller, Bulaga, Campbell, Tebow, Colt McCoy, and Tony Pike and the handfull of conversion guy's to 3-4 olb that can't cover.
Future studs include McClain, Morgan, Kindle, Clausen, Haden, Iupita, Bryant, and Brandon Graham!!! The Graham kid is special watch the senior bowl again. I'd find a way to get him.
Post a Comment