Breaking down Daniel Jeremiah’s two round mock draft

April 21st, 2015 | Written by Rob Staton

Will the Seahawks replace James Carpenter with a player who looks a lot like James Carpenter?

There’s enough movement here to suggest this is more than just guesswork. For example, Daniel Jeremiah has consistently put Kevin White ahead of Amari Cooper in his top-50 big board. I think all of his previous four mock drafts had White being taken before Cooper. Today — Cooper goes first. There’s no reason to make this kind of late switch without a bit of inside info.

A lot of other moves coincide with some of the ‘vibes’ doing the rounds recently. Marcus Mariota is at #2 with the feeling it won’t be Tennessee making the pick. Cedric Ogbuehi goes in the early second — we’ve been hearing he’ll go earlier than many expect. Mario Edwards Jr is at #40 — representing his high placing according to several recent reports. Nelson Agholor goes in the top #20. The whole mock is pretty much a representation of current trends.

It also sums up perfectly the situation facing the Seahawks at #63.

For many weeks we’ve talked about the likely options for Seattle. Here’s a quick refresher:

1. Trade up in round two using the fourth round pick acquired in the Jimmy Graham trade. Realistically this could get you into the #48-52 range. Philadelphia made a similar move last year to draft Jordan Matthews. The target here would be one of the top-8 receivers.

2. Stay put and draft the best remaining receiver.

3. Stay put and take the best offensive lineman on your board.

The interest in this receiver class will likely make the options pretty thin at #63. Jeremiah has Carolina at #57 and Baltimore at #58 drafting for the position (Devin Smith & Devin Funchess). By the time Seattle was on the clock ten had been drafted.

We’ve spent a lot of time debating whether they could trade up for Dorial Green-Beckham, who is taken by the Jets at #37. The pick makes a lot of sense. In some of my own recent mock drafts I’ve had New York drafting Kevin White at #6, eliminating the need to take a receiver in round two. If the Jets go defense early, DGB is a viable option at #37.

Having said that, if he gets past the Jets the fall out of the top-50 is possible. Seattle would likely need to jump both Carolina and Baltimore — and while we’ve discussed the likelihood of either franchise taking a receiver with Green-Beckham’s specific off-field red flags, I believe this won’t be an issue. Jeremiah — who used to work for the Ravens — specifically states: “The Ravens are looking for a big, athletic target for Joe Flacco.” DGB fits like a glove and could be the pick if he lasts long enough.

Trading in front of Carolina and Baltimore won’t be a problem for the sake of the fourth rounder. Trading up to #37 is a bit too rich. It would cost you possibly an additional fourth rounder or maybe a future third. The Seahawks can afford to sacrifice one of their three fourth rounders, but surely not two. The depth on the offensive and defensive line in that range probably won’t allow it.

Would they trade up for Smith or Funchess? I’m not convinced. I’m a big fan of Smith’s big play ability and he has some DeSean Jackson to his game as a downfield threat. You can find receivers like this later in the draft, however. Funchess, at least physically, would offer the kind of taller ‘box-out’ receiver they currently lack. Yet he had such an underwhelming career at Michigan and lacks the kind of tenacity and grit you usually see in a Seahawks receiver. He also had a sluggish combine and didn’t look sudden enough to be a force at the next level. He’s kind of a poor mans Big Mike Williams.

Conceding a fourth for the huge upside of a DGB is one thing. Conceding it for a player like Funchess just seems unlikely.

They could stay put and gamble on Sammie Coates — although the drops are a major concern there. They could take Tyler Lockett — but again you can probably find a smaller, shiftier receiver and kick returner later on. If they aren’t moving up and they’re presented with a board like this, taking the top offensive lineman available is probably the best plan.

Cue Jeremiah pairing Seattle with South Carolina guard A.J. Cann at #63.

The Seahawks have taken a pure guard in this range before — trading down from the late second round before taking John Moffitt in 2011. Cann is very much a guard-only prospect. He has 32 5/8 inch arms, he’s 6-3, 313lbs and runs in the mid 5.4’s. There’s little to get excited about in terms of athleticism or size. He’s just a really solid, plug-in-and-play guard. That won’t be unattractive for the Seahawks as they attempt to fill two big holes on the O-line. Cann’s also the type of player they haven’t really shown interest in since the Moffitt pick.

He isn’t a big second-level blocker although that’s sometimes used to beat a prospect in terms of the ZBS. Some schemes don’t call for it. You’re not going to rush to the second level if you’re instructed to do the opposite. He’s pretty hard to move off the spot and he doesn’t get bull-rushed. You see some real power at times. Seattle likes mobility and athleticism to a point but they’ve always used a big powerful guy at left guard under Tom Cable.

The football purists will love the move. Solid, no-thrills guard. Meat and potatoes. Not entirely Seahawky, though. But if he’s top of their board, isn’t that the point? That’s what the plan calls for.

There are alternatives of course. Ty Sambrailo is available. He too has the massive size Seattle likes for the left guard position but he has the added bonus of some tackle experience. He was also tested at center during a recent visit to Seattle. Florida State’s Tre Jackson is on the board and has a little more upside (arguably) than Cann. He too has the size (330lbs) and if anything could stand to lose some weight. He’s fleshy. The last thing the Seahawks need is another ill-conditioned left guard.

There are several fast risers to consider too. Missouri’s Mitch Morse is gaining a ton of momentum. Ditto West Virginia’s Mark Glowinski. You’ve got Jamon Brown at Louisville and of course Ali Marpet from Hobart. It’s fair to say all would be a reach in the late second — but didn’t they draft Justin Britt in that exact range a year ago?

The difference between this year and last of course is the third round pick plus a bevvy of picks in rounds 4-5. Seattle didn’t have that luxury a year ago — and there wasn’t the fantastic O-line depth we’re seeing this year.

Jeremiah’s mock does a good job painting the situation for Seahawks fans. If they can’t move up for someone like DGB and the receiver options aren’t great at #63, they kind of have to just take the best O-liner. It might not be a flashy pick. It might be a reach. It is what it is. The #63 spot isn’t a great time to enter the draft. You’re caught between some good value at the top of round two and some decent value in the middle of round three. You can make a case for moving down — but who really wants to move up? And do you need any more late rounders when you already have 11 picks — most of which come on day three?

The volume of picks and the poor value at #63 calls for one to be sacrificed in a second round trade. I suspect it’s what they’d like to do. Yet if the player you want isn’t in range — there’s very little you can do. If a potentially elite, dynamic receiver with some flaws like DGB goes in the top-40, you kind of have to take it on the chin. If he lasts up towards pick #50 — watch out. And there is some sentiment that he could fall out of the top-50. If it doesn’t happen, it increases the likelihood of an O-line pick in round two.

Seattle’s visit with Mario Edwards Jr. also adds a layer of intrigue. The defensive options later in this draft are thinner than the O-line options. Could they move up for a defender if DGB is out of reach?

If they take an offensive lineman at #63 I think we could see a defensive lineman drafted at the back end of round three (is Frank Clark a possibility?). Then in round four you can focus on drafting from a large pool of athletic offensive linemen, you can look at running back and finding a receiver/kick returner.

Possible round 2-4 projection based on Jeremiah’s mock

Round 2: O-lineman
Round 3: D-lineman
Round 4: Running back
Round 4: O-lineman (center?)
Round 4: Receiver/return man

298 Responses to “Breaking down Daniel Jeremiah’s two round mock draft”

  1. Rob NC says:

    It sounds like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Honestly, if there is that much depth at O-Line when we are picking I’d rather pick a smaller but useful receiver like Lockett and then go for a big size project receiver later in the draft. If not that, would it be out of the question to draft a pass rusher with the first pick? It would just seem like a waste to draft a guard who would be the exact same quality of player we could get in the third.

    • Rob Staton says:

      #63 is a horrible draft position really — and picking up another 5th or 6th for the sake of moving down a few spots just seems like adding for the sake of it.

      I suspect they’d really, really like to move up. We’ll see what happens.

      • DC says:

        You can trade back & gain a pick that is used to trade up in a later round.

        • Rob Staton says:

          But would you need to move up? Is there really anyone in round three you just have to have? They also have a plethora of picks later on.

          • j says:

            The corresponding question is – is there anyone at 63 that you just have to have? If someone we really like falls to 63, stay at 63 and pick him. But I wouldn’t rule out moving down, if the board falls that way. In fact, I’d say it is just as likely, if not more likely, than moving up.

          • DC says:

            It all depends on their board. If the 2nd round trade up scenario you propose simply doesn’t happen because their target is gone and they have 10 guys with the same grade at #63, they may choose to trade back as they have often done. They have moved up in the later rounds in the past, I believe they did to nab Simon. It’s just another option. Just as an example, maybe they trade down from #63 adding a pick and then trade up twice, once in the 4th and once in the 5th round, picking a total of 10 players. They’ve also added vets via trade with later picks. It’s just additional ammo.

          • jj says:

            There are a couple scenarios where moving down makes sense.

            The first is what we’ve seen the last few trades down – they have a few player nearly equally ranked and they would like the extra draft capital…

            Trading down 10 spots into the third would likely allow you to move up 10 spots in the 4th. If you think Cann is equivalent to two or three other guards at that point, you’d be stupid to take Cann instead of an extra pick and whichever OL is there 10 picks later.

            That extra pick could be used to move up in a later round. It could provide another draft pick at it’s natural place, or it could be turned into additional 6th and 7th rounders.

            Every year this team fights like crazy to get UDFAs that were on their draft list, and they commit guaranteed money in the form of signing bonus to get those guys to sign with Seattle. If they have 2 extra 7th round picks, they automatically get those players with no signing bonus required and with no courting of the agent and the player.

            Our roster is flush with players right now, approaching the offseason limit, but drafted players don’t count against the limit until a contract is signed. To get an UDFA, you have to have a signed contract. This is another benefit of having “too many” 7th round draft picks.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if Schneider would want 5-7 extra 7th rounders every year. You control their rights, and as long as they are unsigned, they are ghost roster, and a way the team can control more players than are allowed under the roster limit.

            • Rob Staton says:

              The Seahawks value 7th rounders so much they traded one for Terrelle Pryor a year ago.

              I think we’re overstating the desire to claim priority UDFA’s, especially when you have a two-time Super Bowl roster already. They have 11 picks. They don’t need 5-7 seventh rounders.

              • jj says:

                I guess you and I interpret their philosophy differently.

                But even you talk about 10-11 picks and 5-7 UDFAs. Those UDFAs have choices where they go, and to get your priority UDFAs, you must offer them signing bonuses (granted it’s only 80K or something max you can spend on UDFA signing bonuses).

                The team has a draft list of maybe 75-150 prospects that they want to bring into camp and run through (Baltimore’s draft list is typically around 100-120 players, I am sure ours is similar). Any of the players on that draft list that go undrafted, the team wants to bring in. Those are not “we need someone to do x in training camp, but there’s no way he’ll make the team” players, those are “he is really interesting athlete, football player, and I think there’s a chance we could develop him into an significant contributor” players. As a FO and a coaching staff, you want to get a chance with every single one of those players to see what you could do.

                I am not saying you sacrifice picking a unique player at a draft position you want him at by moving down for a 6th or 7th rounder, but if you have 4 players you rank as equivalent and you can lock up one priority UDFA for moving back 3 spots, it would be best to move back, and I think that is why this team moved back twice and took Paul Richardson (Easley was probably their last unique talent on their draft list last season)

                As for Pryor, they clearly rated him as higher potential than any projected players projected in the 7th round. Athletically, Pryor is a phenom, and player with his natural talent (aside from positional skills) are particularly rare in the late rounds and almost impossible to find as UDFAs. He doesn’t serve as a good argument about how little they value 7th rounders.

                I expect they bring in around 18 players in the draft and immediate UDFA period. Just like we’ve seen the last few years. Of course they don’t have room on the 53 man roster for 18 (just like they don’t have room for all 82 players on the roster right now), but 12 6/7/UDFAs has more likelihood by far to find a contributor than 4 or 6 or even 8. The FO brings in the players to see who has the ability to learn and develop and who has the competitive fire and work ethic to earn the team’s attention to developing the player. The more players the churn, the more players they will hit on. Simple odds.

                They are like the numbers daters of the NFL world. If you go to a bar and ask every woman for her number, you’ll get a few numbers. If you do that every night, you’ll get a lot of numbers every night. In the course of the year, you’ll achieve 2 things: 1) you will have discovered a few elite talents, 2) you will be a lot better at getting numbers.

                • Adam P. Boyd says:

                  There simply aren’t enough roster spots available to make it worth sacrificing a potential game changer higher in the draft for another lottery ticket late. The returns are so diminished especially with 11 picks already, it simply makes no sense.

                  • Wil says:

                    The assumption though is that ALL roster spots are safe !
                    Sweezy , Maxwell , Lane , Cam , Sherman , Thurmond , McCoy, Turbin & Wright
                    all came in the 4th – 7th rounds
                    We would love to keep every talent , but the cap means sacrifices so the revolving door swings

                  • Jake says:

                    If you can get the same guy at #80 as you can get at #63, why not grab an extra 5th to do it? It makes no sense to draft a guy at #63 IF no one else is going to take him before you have a chance to pick again. You have lost exactly NOTHING, but gained an extra guy in the 5th round. It could be DeAndre Smelter, who could be IR’d a year and then compete for a starting job if healthy. It could be a 3rd CB project like Trey Walker (I expect two CBs to get drafted at least). It could be a QB, like Cody Fajardo, to groom behind Russell. The simple fact is that Seattle is going to bring in UDFAs, so there is room on the 90 man roster and a 5th round pick is worth more than NOTHING.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  You also run the risk of spreading yourself too thinly. Seattle has 11 picks and an UDFA class to choose from, minus a first round pick. That’s already more than any team in the league, especially on day three.

                  • Matt says:

                    If we have say 5 players we like available at the #63 we should take one-not trade down. Lets say one of those 4 players that we liked at #63 falls to #80 or so. I think we’d be compelled to try to trade up to get that player who we valued in the late second round. I’m not getting into names because it’s very difficult to project, but this is the scenario where trading up in the 3rd round makes sense. In a sense we would leave day 2 with 2 players who we value as 2nd round talent.

      • RealRhino2 says:

        Agree with you, Rob. Every time I look at a mock, the really interesting guys are gone by, say, #55. After that the guys start to look exactly like the guys from 65-85 or so, the guys you could get 10 spots or more down from #63.

        • Matt M. says:

          I agree that #63 is not a great place to pick. But I would feel fine taking Lockett there and then addressing O-Line and D=Line with the next couple of picks.

          • Jake says:

            No more skinny receivers… Dorsett has world class speed, so I would be ok with him, but Lockett doesn’t and it makes a world of difference in how the defense has to adjust. I would be ok with McBride there though, since he is a polished receiver with return skills and jump ball ability. He could replace what Tate did (and cut into Kearse’s snaps) for the offense while Graham opens up the field underneath for Baldwin and Norwood by stretching the seam. Matthews is the wild-card, but I think he can win one-on-ones against most CBs fairly routinely.

      • Grant G says:

        Is there a possibility of moving up in Round 2 and still keeping #63?

        • CHawk Talker Eric says:

          Not unless you’re willing to trade future picks (never a good idea) or there’s a player involved.

          • Alaska Norm says:

            I really hope they don’t use a future third to move up.

            • Jake says:

              I would be ok with that since Maxwell’s contract with Philly should guarantee a 3rd round compensatory pick next year. If it was for a stud like DGB or Dorsett, I’d be all aboard! I prefer to keep this year’s 4th round picks over next year’s 3rd because there is a lot of mid-level talent at our need positions this year (WR, CB, Int. OL). With three picks we could walk away with each one filled. Let’s say it got us Mongomery, Lippett, and Morse (and of course DGB with the move up in the 2nd). Would anyone be disappointed in the trade?

        • Rob Staton says:

          Almost impossible I’d say.

      • Carl says:

        If we move down I am hoping we grab a pick in next year’s draft, oftentimes you get better value by having to wait a year for the pick and get a 4th next year instead of 5th this year.

      • Martin says:

        History shows that PCJS don’t trade up. I believe they stand pat and take BPA, or possibly back a few spots if they find someone willing. Getting a reciever at 2 is not a must for me. I do not see a #1 in the second round. If it was me drafting I personally wouldn’t touch DGB, I do not care for him at all. I would wait and take Waller from GT in round 4. Add little super Mario from WV and Smelter also from GT. With that pick at 63 take Ali Marpet let him play guard or center pick up 2 or 3 more lineman later or UDFA for cable to work his magic.

        • Attyla the Hawk says:

          “History shows that PCJS don’t trade up. I believe they stand pat and take BPA, or possibly back a few spots if they find someone willing.”

          This is true. In the Carroll era, we’ve traded back 8 times, only trading up once.

          Although, I would consider the Harvin and Graham trades as ‘trade up’ scenarios. Especially of late, Seattle has been aggressive in adding alpha talents.

          It’s also worth noting, that Seattle is now moving towards a mature roster. There are new challenges facing the team now, as compared to the 2010-2013 teams. Seattle has to reload talent to keep some costs lower. Most notably, I see both the DL and OL as candidates for this. Our DL spend is very high currently. And our inability to add cheap talent there has been a cap issue for us.

          Similarly, the OL is approaching second contract status. I think the trading off of Unger (already on his second deal) was a harbinger of what’s to come for us. And letting Carpenter walk fits in this as well. Seattle will have to finance cap spend elsewhere by keeping costs low on this unit. We’ve paid Lynch, and will pay Wilson soon. No room to keep a veteran OL unit here.

          I also see WR as a prime unit for churn. This is a group that has approached, or will approach next year their second contract stage. And honestly, I’m not sure we’re getting that kind of value from this group. They are a solid unit when we consider their cost. But that’s beginning to evaporate. Kearse this year, Matthews/Lockette next year. If the delta in terms of quality is low with prospects that will have 4 years of rookie pay — this is a unit that is prime for getting a couple of prospects to do just that.

          Seattle is largely in maintenance mode. With the added goal of acquiring some of the next core of players. OL, DL and WR seem to be the areas where cheap, quality players are most in need from a cap perspective. I don’t see the restriction of whether a WR is a #1 to be prohibitive here. We need #2/#3 guys as well.

          #63 seems to be too far back to get a real alpha talent. This draft feels like it’ll be a lot like the last two drafts. Pick up guys that probably won’t play at a real high level on day one, and maybe get redshirted/PUPed or just remain inactive. It really feels like depending on talent runs — this could be a real opportunity to reload on two of the three positions needed (WR/DL/OL). If it comes to pass that we can’t move up — this is where I see us going in the draft.

          Might be an unsexy, but necessary draft this year. Whose quality isn’t determined until early during the 2016 season.

          • Rob Staton says:

            “History shows that PCJS don’t trade up”

            History also says to expect the unexpected with PCJS.

            • Attyla the Hawk says:

              Completely.

              Seems they reinvent the model almost year to year. SPARQ figures prominently. But as with last year, adding the element of ‘guys who can compete/thrive in our team environment’ — this year could easily see the next evolution of their strategy.

              Seattle’s approach definitely is dynamic. They are constantly honing their criteria. It’ll be interesting to see what this year adds to their prospect litmus test.

              • Wil says:

                Yeah , EVOLUTION !
                Speedy small WR begets speed small DBs
                Speed small DBs begets tall physical WRs
                Tall physical WRs begets tall physical DBs
                Evolvution may dictate the small speed elusive WR
                to evade tall physical DBs again .
                FEELS like ROCK/PAPER/SISSORS lol

                • Jake says:

                  It’s why the Run-first Seahawks are winning divisions, conferences and Super Bowls… Playing the advantages. Pass-rushers are drafted high, run stuffers are drafted low or eat their way to the job after proving ineffective as a pass-rusher. So, in essence Seattle is attacking every other team’s weakest players.

    • Wil says:

      Yeah , I also kind of like picking up that elusive smallish speedster earlier and picking up height later .
      Hawks D averages forcing 8 punts a game which equates to 8 targets for a WR . Many starting WRs do not get that many targets in a game . Gettng early PR and then use 4 year rookie contract to see if he breaks into WR rotation like Hester . Probably a Dorsett or Lockett ( both major upgrade over the Walters vacancy 😉

  2. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    I still think it’s not necessary to go OL at 63 for G/C. This draft is too deep to justify it (unless something really crazy happens like Cameron Erving slipping to mid R2). If a legit OT prospect falls – like Ogbeuhi or Fisher – that’s one thing.

    I also think the WRs available to SEA at 63 aren’t worthy of the pick relative to the options likely available later on.

    I keep coming back to DB like FS or NB – Damarious Randall.

    • LadyT says:

      I agree with you on the no OL pick at 63 unless its a OT that has fallen. Previous drafts they have drafted OL in rounds 1-2 only at OT. Although they have never had to draft a center so who knows for sure.

      I think they draft either WR or DL in round 2 move up or not, but you never know they could draft another RB in round 2 haha.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        I’d caution against correlating past selections with a speculative standard.

        Every year is different. And Seattle has consistently shown that they can sway with the tides of talent in the draft. This year, we are very short on OG/OC talent. We’ve been in this situation once before, and took Carpenter/Moffitt to relieve it. But that doesn’t mean they’ll approach it the same. That year, we had strong need and the options were really poor.

        The one thing that does seem to remain constant, is their belief in drafting relative to the current roster. There are voids on the roster in the interior with what are in essence, backup level players slated to start. I do think that will factor prominently in the relative grades we assign to the draft prospects. As will the very real depth and quality that this year has in the 3rd through 5th round range.

        To me, it’s almost equally likely we go OG/OC early as we do hold off until R4. It does appear that there is a definite sweet spot throughout R4 and into R5. Seattle could easily seek to maximize their return throughout the draft by adding talent of lesser need early and getting good return in this range.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Randall was off the board at #63 in DJ’s mock.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      I just can’t see Seattle investing a 2nd round pick in a CB or S, when they have so much success finding guys later in the draft (per the current regimes history).

      We constantly talk about game changers, play makers, tilt the field guys and high impact guys.
      Then we have to consider “value” at when Seattle picks. I disagree with Seattle making a trade up…. for the sake of trading up for a “risk” pick.

      Bang for the buck might be RB, TE or WR, but I’m in favor of getting some big uglies on OL or DL.
      I’m leaning towards fixing the OL “problems” with quality and quantity. You want the SPARQ warrior (Marpet), the powerful presence (Jackson), the plug and play Canter (Grasu) or Project Guy/High reward guy (Sambrailo)

      Cable, choose wisely

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        No disrespect to Sherm or Kam, but ET3 is the lynch pin of this D. His range – a combination of speed, agility, instinct and experience – it vital to the cover 1 scheme.

        I like Shead (congrats to him on the recent birth of his daughter!) but he’s not Earl. ET3 could be one big hit away from missing some plays. The NFCCG showed us he’s not immortal and how difficult things could be if he’s not at 100% or unavailable entirely.

        Add to this the increasing importance of the nickel back, and a versatile DB like Randall makes a lot of sense.

        Strictly my opinion, but I don’t think SEA’s record next year would be any different if they draft OL in R2 or in R4-R6.

        • Robert says:

          I agree about ET3. But if Kam would have been healthy, that over the middle dink and dunk game plan the Patriots relied on to win the Super Bowl would have ended abruptly at some point….

  3. EranUngar says:

    Rob,

    Regarding the trade down option at 63:

    I agree that we do not need that 12th pick. Maybe trade back and use that extra pick to trade back into the 3rd using the the NO 4th?

    If the 3rd round seems like the next sweet spot why not use 3 picks in the 3rd?

    • j says:

      Its an option and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it happened. Essentially a second and fourth/fifth for two thirds.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m not sure I really see a sweet spot as such. The value in the middle third is pretty good when you start tapping into the RB’s and OL’s. Giving up an early fourth and change to get into the third again — I’m not sure there’d be much to gain really.

  4. bobbyk says:

    I still think they go defensive lineman with their first pick if they don’t get a WR like DGB. With Mebane, McDaniel, and Ruben all scheduled for free agency, the only interior DL moving forward and of significance is the often-injured Jordan Hill and the scheduled starter at Leo is a question mark in Marsh. One of the two other who can rush the passer is whining about his contract. The DL scares me.

    Alvin Bailey, imo, is better than Carp moving forward. That actually improves LG and the OL.

    I always liked Lem and am confortable with him at C. If Lewis beats him out, all the better. In fact, I always hoped (before his injury last training camp) that they would give him a chance at LG because I thought he was better than Carp, too.

    Granted, the depth is horrible if Bailey starts and Okung may need to be replaced with a pick this year in looking forward (Bailey has actually looked better at filling in for Okung at LT than he has inside… weird).

    • AlaskaHawk says:

      If you consider that the Seahawks first pick is Graham the tight end, and that they might think they can get good offensive linemen in the 4-7 rounds, then going defense as the second pick makes sense. It could be a linemen, it could be a really good nickle back. Historically they have waited till 4th-5th round for corners so it would seem more likely they get a young stud defensive linemen.

      I could see it going either way, defensive or offensive linemen. It may be meat and potatoes, but you need that to get to the Superbowl.

    • Kuya206 says:

      Bobby,
      I agree with you about the DLine. The depth scares me, especially IF Bennett leaves.
      With the DL value being strong in rounds 1-3 and the OL value being strong in rounds 4-6, I could see us going DLine early.

      I really like Marcus Hardison DE AZ St. in Rd 2, Frank Clark DE/DT Michigan or Henry Anderson DE Stanford in Rd 3.

      Random question for you: Are you the same bobbyk that was a regular contributor in the TNT blog back in the day?

      • bobbyk says:

        Yep. They posted my mock last week on the TNT blog and, yes, I have the Hawks taking a DL with their first pick. Here it is:
        http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2015/04/17/open-mic-no-2-bobbyk-breaks-down-seahawks-2015-draft/

      • Rob Staton says:

        The depth of the D-line is essentially upgraded from last year when Seattle fielded the #1 defense in the NFL. They haven’t lost any key personnel apart from two-sack O’Brien Schofield. They have added Ahtyba Rubin. I suspect people remember the Super Bowl and fret a little — but Seattle has a pass rush duo most teams can only dream of and some nice interior pieces. Plus they will draft one or two extra D-liners too.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        Don’t forget guys like Dobbs, Scruggs, King, Smith, Staten. And Rubin as Rob mentioned.

        Add those to the starters of Bennett, McDaniel, Mebane, Avril, and rotational players like Hill and Marsh.

        Also, the DT talent pool is pretty deep in this draft – particularly with small school prospects. 3Ts like Slater, Ringo, Irving (ok not a small school prospect but a relative unknown due to off field issues), 1Ts like Buckley and Hamilton.

        FWIW, as between 2 DL prospects with off field red flags – Frank Clark and David Irving – I think SEA prefers Irving. He has the length to cover 2 gaps, and I could see him evolving into the old Red Bryant 5T role. Clark is really good at converting speed into power. His bull rush is hard to stop. But once he pressures the pocket, he has trouble disengaging from better OTs and making an impact on the play.

        • bobbyk says:

          I totally disagree. If the Rams or 49ers had the depth of Dobbs, Scruggs, King, Smith, and Staten… we’d be making fun of how bad their depth is. Instead, since they are Seahawks… that supposedly makes them good since they ride the coattails of LBs, DBs, and Bennett/Avril that are actually good. If anything happened to either Bennett/Avril we’d be screwed… like we were in the Super Bowl when Avril got his gord knocked out. We don’t have Kevin Williams around to bail us out if Mebane goes down again. Granted, we have Ruben… but he wasn’t exactly highly sought after from 31 other teams.

          • DC says:

            If Dobbs was our last DL off the bench, as in our 9th or 10th guy I would feel ok about our depth.

            Bennett, Avril, Clemons, Mebane, McDaniel, McDonald, Hill, Bryant, Irvin… That was a sick rotation! DL is our #1 need.

          • peter says:

            I kind of agree with this sentiment and lean to a half empty world view. Mebane and his injury? Hill and two straight years of injury? Marsh starting out with an injury? Scruggs? Williams? Kevin Williams? It’s not exactly a whos who…youre left with serious unknowns in Dobbs, king, Staten…a guy in Rubin, and two great pass rushers who are 29….if we even remotely consider life without lynch with Turbin, the cmike, and now Davis…dont we have to ponder at some point with Wags/wilson/ maybe Irvin taking a bigger slice that me not always be able to sign d talent as easily… The team already couldnt do it this year, pribably can’t do it in fact past the one year prove it deals after next off season.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            What’s the depth of the STL DL you’re referring to? They carry only 8 DL on their entire roster. Outside JSmith, Dorsey, Dockett or Dial, they have Carradine and, well, that’s it.

            As for STL, you do realize they’ve gone DL with their R1 picks 3 out of the last 4 drafts?

            • CHawk Talker Eric says:

              Ooops that was supposed to be SF early not STL.

              • bobbyk says:

                Instead of saying those teams, lets pretend it’s a generic team… that depth sucks. Period. You can think it’s good. I’ll think it sucks. Neither is going to change the others mind.

                • bobbyk says:

                  Sorry. That looks harsh in print. We can agree to disagree about the “quality” of their depth on the DL.

                  • CHawk Talker Eric says:

                    I agree the DL needs improvement, either through better, more reliable starters in the middle (plus a LEO), or with better talent in rotation.

                    STL has the best front 4 in the League. But they should. They spend enough draft capital on that group. They’re so deep they have Nick Fairley backing up. But their LB corps isn’t close to SEA’s. Ogletree isn’t Bruce Irvin and Laurinaitis isn’t Wags.And let’s not get started with a comparison of secondaries.

                    I’m all in favor of SEA adding to the position group going into camp and I’m impressed with the quality of DT in the later rounds.

                  • Volume12 says:

                    CHAWK, I disagree. While Daving Irving is dam intriguing, I actually think they’d prefer Clark. Upside is the same, he’s more Michael Bennett than Mario Edwards IMO.

                    Right now I actually have them taking Frank Clark with their firs pick on the 4th round.

        • Steele1324 says:

          I don’t see Clark getting to the QB well at all. All he’s got is a bull rush that doesn’t always work. Some of his sacks are the garbage stuff—coverage sacks, second guy in, etc.

          • Attyla the Hawk says:

            Funny, because I see him largely the same way.

            I see players like Xavier Cooper (early) or David Irving (late) as being better penetrators who are players who can create pressure for other guys to clean up.

            For that matter, I see Grady Jarrett as a better 1 gap penetrator as well.

            If we’re looking at Clark in the R3 range, then these are the alternative kinds of players that also fit in that range. Cooper may be a bit higher. But for the purposes of these conversations — the assumption has been a severe run on WR and OL talents. If that does come to pass, then that will necessitate some other talents (DL/DB) falling further than projected.

  5. Trevor says:

    Rob I noticed the Jerrimiah mocked Offensive tackle D Smith Penn St. to NE with the 64th pick. Why would we not take him over a guard like Cann or Tre Jackson?

    D Smith is the one guy left with legitimate starting tackle size and movement skills. To me if we are going to go Ol with the first pick a guy with true tackle potential just makes so much more sense. Even more so given the depth at guard / center in this draft.

    The knock on him rumors of work ethic but I went back and watch the tape Penn St. Tape I could find this year and he looked good to me and played snap to whistle. Also he was dominant at the Sneior Bowl and was even more athletic and trimmed down at his pro day.

    With all the instability at turmoil at Penn St. I think he will end up being a steal in this draft. He is my Bitonio for the 2015 and I would love to see him after a year under Cable.

    • bobbyk says:

      Like.

      • CC says:

        I like Smith too, and you know they got some intel on him due to Gilliam.

        Hobart makes me a bit nervous since he hasn’t played against top competition. I think about a couple of those high rising OL guys from a few years back who had the same type of experience, or lack there of, and were busts. I’d rather look at guys who put in on tape against the best, and just need some better coaching.

    • Ho Lee Chit says:

      I completely agree. Donovan Smith is bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic than Cann. Historically, the Hawks have preferred tackles that kick inside to pure guards. Cann has no position flexibility.

    • Rob Staton says:

      There have been questions raised about a quirky personality and conditioning. They’ve really had to work on the weight of Bowie, Bailey and Carpenter. Do they want to go down that road again? They’ve never had to worry about conditioning with Okung, Sweezy, Britt, Unger and others.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        Good point. Seems Seattle has really made an effort to move away from those kinds of prospects. Particularly early. Schneider even mentioning prominently the ‘love of the game’ and how that factors into our grading.

        I’d have to think Smith’s track record would result in a lower grade for us on that basis.

    • j says:

      I like Daryl Williams out of Oklahoma. Tackle who would be better at guard. Not a SPARQ guy, but like Cann in a lot of ways – size, length and attitude.

  6. Kuya206 says:

    As stated in the previous blog post, I like the pick because it is both a value pick and fits a need. In DJ’s mock, Cann would be the best OL available at 63.

    Using DJ’s mock and the 3 scenarios discussed in the blog for #63:

    “1. Trade up in round two using the fourth round pick acquired in the Jimmy Graham trade.”
    Not for Funchess or D. Smith. If we were to get a dynamic WR, I would trade up for DGB, Dorsett or Agholor, in that order… but all 3 are gone in this mock.

    “2. Stay put and draft the best remaining receiver.”
    10 WRs are gone by 63. I would consider it a reach if we select Coates or Lockett. Not an ideal scenario.

    “3. Stay put and take the best offensive lineman on your board.”
    Out of the 3 scenarios, this would make the most sense. Not sexy, but helps the team if we have to face the monstrous DLines of the NFC West.

    Another scenario would be:

    4. To take the best player available, regardless of position or need.
    Is Shaq Thompson considered? PC loves players with special traits and versatility. Another person who’s falling is Ajayi, RB from Boise State.

    63 – A. Cann OG, H. Grasu OC, T. Sambrailo OG/OT/OC, S. Thompson OLB/SS/RB, J. Ajayi RB
    95 – F. Clark DE/DT, A. Marpet OC, M. Morse OG/OC
    112 – S. Diggs PR/WR, T. Montgomery PR/WR, M. Davis RB
    130 – Chris Conley WR, Glowinski OG/OC
    134 – B Finney OG/OC, J. Langford RB, B. Allen RB

    • Rob Staton says:

      I liked Shaq but I expected a more explosive workout. He looked pretty average at the combine. I’m not sure what he is anymore. His workout suggests middling running back. I wouldn’t want him playing as the rangy safety I thought he could be. You’d have to really buy into the playmaking because athletically he’s not as good as we thought.

      • OZ says:

        Rob, you obviously have not watched much Husky football.

        • Rob Staton says:

          That’s pretty patronizing OZ. Especially seeing as my comment was based on a lack of explosion at the combine.

          • David M2 says:

            Also, OZ you have to remember. College production doesn’t always translate to the Pros. Not saying ST is going to be a bust, just saying you never know how a player is going to translate at the next level.

    • Alaska Norm says:

      I would be happy with Thompson or Ajayi. Good way to look at it really. Thompson could play a Cam role or a nickel LB role. I have always thought he could be a interesting addition to Seattles defense but always thought of him as a late first rounder…. Out of reach even with our first round pick. Now I’m kind of hoping this plays out. I know robs not as big on Ajayi but he reminds me of Lynch a bit. Nice option as a back up understudy.

  7. Zorn is King says:

    Barring crazy surprises, like the Lions recent domestic violence issue, it looks like tu Hawks will have every opportunity to truly address their strengths: o line talent and depth and receiver/ returner depth- without sacrificing chemistry.

    And we will swing for the fences in a couple areas- DL, LB, possibly QB. Maybe RB. (Though I think we’re set at RB)

    This chemistry issue is key, in that we will have every opportunity to be in the SB for the next two- three years as is.

    Seahawk fans, enjoy the ride.

  8. Zorn is King says:

    I meant weaknesses…hmmm. I’m getting old..

  9. bobbyk says:

    I hate the idea of trading up in the second round “using the fourth round pick acquired in the Jimmy Graham trade.” The fact is that “throw in” pick is really our first round pick if you think critically.

    We lost an (often injured) Pro Bowl Center and gained a Pro Bowl TE. Advantage us.

    What we needed to do that to make that deal complete was give them our first round pick in exchange for their fourth rounder. Advantage them.

    Trade = Fair.

    So, our “first round” pick doesn’t come into play until the fourth round (even though our first pick is in the second round).

    It boggles my mind to think we should “throw in” Mich Morse or any potential guy we like who could potentially be gotten with that fourth round pick just to move up in the second round unless, as Rob has stated, it’s for a legitimate guy who can tilt the field like DGB.

    I still say stay put and keep all the picks, as they are going to draft some crappy players who will suck and get cut – just like they do every year. The more picks you have, the better your chances at a Sherm, Kam, Sweezy, Smith, etc. With our guys getting rich, we need all the cheap labor we can get on these rookie contracts.

    • Rob Staton says:

      To be clear, I only think they will move up for a guy like DGB. Someone they really, truly believe is a first round talent with flaws that fell into range.

      The fourth is fantastic trade bait and they do have five total picks in rounds 4-5. If you basically count the late third as an early fourth, you’re talking about six picks in that range even if you deal the fourth to move up in round two. It’s a nice little gem to use to move up. I even wonder if they made a point of acquiring that pick specifically to help them move up in round two. “You can have Unger and the 1, but give us that fourth so we have the option to move up and get a guy we actually want in round two”.

      Much harder to move up with the late fourth.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        Agreed. Any team wanting to trade back is going to look at that early 4th round pick.

        It’s worth noting too, that Seattle has a pretty good track record for conceding trade value as we understand it. We’re a pretty good trade partner from the other end perspective. Which allows us to reliably move around for specific players.

        We just haven’t been as keen on ‘winning’ trades historically. Focusing instead on the player(s) that results from the trade from our own perspective. We’re not pushovers, as we’ve admittedly refused trades before where the return value wasn’t good enough. But we’re not hard bargainers either.

  10. Ukhawk says:

    Three thoughts if Jeremiah’s mock proves true:

    1 Based on who is available at 31, best pick is definitely…… Jimmy Graham. Only Harold in that range offers interest.

    2 Would love to lose a fourth and trade up for……..Jalen Collins

    3 BPA at 63 IMO is defo Lockett per above

    • Rob Staton says:

      I would happily trade up for Jalen Collins.

      • Hawksince77 says:

        That’s the one scenario I don’t think we have discussed enough. If the intent is to get an impact player with the first pick, and trading up in the second is the way to do it, and there isn’t an offensive player (we have worn out WR and RBs in this discussion) who are the impact defensive players worth consideration?

        I don’t know. Thoughts (based on this mock) in addition to Jalen Collins?

        • Rob Staton says:

          I would consider it for Eric Rowe is this mock too. Jordan Phillips lingers enough to intrigue too.

          • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

            I would pound the table for the selection of ROWE, if Seattle must trade up for a guy.

          • peter says:

            Those two are certainly pieces to consider….plus before people get bummed if they got Rowe, Collins, Phillips.. They can still go all out and get a small army of oline men to fortify and improve upon.

            • OZ says:

              The Hawks need to just sit tight. A player they like will be there. And that’s what they will do. It will be a player nobody suspects.

              • peter says:

                Well yeah technically a player they like will be there…but they’ve built a Venn diagram tho year where they have a ton of picks with minimal needs. They wont but it allows them to move up in the second for a player otherwise couldn’t get ie, dgb, Rowe, erving…and still pick a lot of good talent later to flesh out roster spots.

          • Ukhawk says:

            Like Rowe( > Collins?) but not Phillips in the range. Not only because he does not play a premium position but also due to injury history

        • Steele1324 says:

          I think Jalen Collins is overhyped and will be overdrafted. He doesn’t cover that well on film, looks stiff. Only 10 starts. Good frame, potential, but needs a lot of work. I think there are other CBs who are more ready.

          • Rob Staton says:

            My opinion of Collins would be very different. Personally, I thought he looked about as promising as any corner to enter the league in recent years.

            • 'bout that action says:

              I actually very much like the idea of trading up for Collins/Rowe. I may even like it better than any other scenario in this thread. CB to me is still one of the weaker spots and if you can get a stud you should. WR/OL can wait ’till 3-4th rounds.

            • Ben says:

              Any chance Seattle tries to acquire a guy like Morris Claiborne and remold him?!

    • ontoic says:

      I appreciate you revisiting the point about the first round, UkHawk. Others have made a similar comment, but it hasn’t been brought up for awhile. I have a hard time imagining anyone taking issue with Graham over the first round options at 31. Someone hassled me about the notion of “best player available” in another thread, but it seems to me like we’re in the position to take the best receiver available to us or the best lineman available to us, depending upon what falls. I just don’t feel the sense of urgency to move up. I’d rather have more players in camp to evaluate than diminish the number of picks for a speculative shot at someone who we have a slightly stronger feeling MIGHT be a pro with better potential.

      The draft history is littered with first round busts. No need to reach for someone we like at the expense of pick volume, especially given the front office’s history of drafting and developing solid players from mid-round picks.

      • Ukhawk says:

        Thanks for the comments, it’s a point I was trying to elude to.

        I think it is becoming more apparent that the graham trade (at least to us fans) was good because it appears alternates we thought we’d get, will be gone.

        Further, in terms if moving up, Rob brings up a point in this post that to get value, JSPS may feel the need to. In fact, many if us think so with our limited knowledge of the prospect pool that there is a drop off. But I think it Kind of boils down to relative value vs relative needs. I think the only reasonable counter to the need for volume is not the search for depth but rather the search for value meaning simply if they want someone like DGB or Collins, they believe his ceiling is high and achievable, or they want/need an immediate starter then they trade away a pick and draft him. IMO the JSPS MO is to trade around and position themselves to pick their prospects wherever they are on the board. if they want 7 guys badly, they may forego 12 picks or historiclally they want more guys than picks so they trade down. Also historically they clearly saw that teams undervalued lower picks and overvalued higher ones , maybe this stays the same or others start to copycat and the value shifts.

  11. James says:

    fwiw, I just spent a half hour watching the highlights of Tre McBride, WR/KR of William & Mary, and was really impressed. He reminded me of a bigger Golden Tate. Great hands catcher, high points the ball, fearlessly agressive as a returner. I would absolutely take him in R3, after going for the top OL on John’s board in R2 (any one of Cann, Jackson, Sambrailo, Tomlinson, Morse or Marpet, whoever Tom Cable likes the most, would really help the team, immediate starter).

    Lockett is the more electric KR than McBride (by a little), but Lockett appears to be spindly-brittle, like Paul Richardson, and McBride is 6-1, 205, solidly built like Golden Tate, but taller. Also, Lockett is purely a slot guy, which we don’t really need, whereas McBride has some SE elements to his game.

    In the unlikely event Edwards, the DE, is there at #63, you of course grab him, but that’s not very likely. A decent C can be had in R4. And pick up an additional OL in R4, since the draft is so deep there in the mid-rounds.

    And the #63 pick might not be well-positioned for WRs, but I like the spot for an O lineman, someone really good is going to be there, who would be gone by mid-R3 if we get too cute.

    • Rob Staton says:

      McBride is a wonderful player. Will need time, but someone’s going to get a nice pick there.

    • ontoic says:

      Here here. Good observations. I’m a fan of his physicality at the position

      • Steele1324 says:

        I am on the fence about McBride. He is among the many “very good” WRs who would contribute, but he just doesn’t strike me as a game breaker. Just not enough height, not really explosive. Ideal as a #2. The Hawks need a #1.

        • John_s says:

          I don’t think you’re getting a #1 WR this year. I like DGB but I don’t think he’s a #1.

          • James says:

            Honestly, I believe we can utilize Jimmy Graham in such a way that he is the #1 WR, in effect. He can get deep, control the safeties while working from H-back positions, he can dictate coverage from LBs, nickels and safeties, and stay away from the other team’s #1 CB, effectively removing him from the game on most plays. Graham will have a superior effect than most SEs except for the Megatrons of the world.

            • 'bout that action says:

              This is how I see it too, pre-snap reads will be a cakewalk, I can’t wait… I think someone opposite him or a somewhat equal mismatch would just make opponents give up. I still like the idea of Funchess if he gets in range. McBride is one of my favorite picks, good returner at the least. Others are Smelter, Dezmin Lewis, Hardy, Montgomery, Waller, Geremy Davis, Diggs. All mid round or later guys that allow us to address CB/DL/OL first. Also, I see backup QB as somewhat of a priority at this point. 4th or later we may grab one to keep on the cheap for 4 years, I haven’t studied this class of QB though and maybe a UDFA will suffice.

              • peter says:

                It’ll almost have to do with the cliff from the first two guys to the grayson/petty/hundleys being a round or more different. I think QB needy teams may push the issue in the second hopefully pushing players towards the seahawks

                • Matt says:

                  That’s what I’m hoping to see too Peter. It wouldn’t surprise me to see both Petty and Hundley go in round 2.

        • Dawgma says:

          And they aren’t getting one without a first round pick, although they might be able to get a prospect who can develop into one. Vincent Jackson didn’t grow into that role for a few years, and there are some mid round prospects who could (but probably wont) follow the same path.

          • Volume12 says:

            Exactly. Go get one in UDFA that gives you the samething and now has even more of a chip on his shoulder from going undrafted.

            • Kuya206 says:

              Kasen Williams. I still believe in the kid and his abilities. It was unfortunate to see him not get enough chances to prove he’s a special player.

  12. DoubleJ says:

    I’m curious if someone could walk me through their thinking about why we don’t need 12+ picks (after a trade down)

    Seems to me if money is going to be squeezed in the next couple of years, then we need to have competition at depth at almost every position — so you can perhaps get 70-80% of the incumbent player for 20-40% of the cost (and of course create constant competition)

    That might be served by a healthy, consistent dose of 4th, 5th, 6th round kind of players — what am I missing?

    • Rob Staton says:

      The Seahawks currently have eight picks in the 4th, 5th and 6th rounds. Is that not enough to do what you’re suggesting Double J?

      • DoubleJ says:

        Sure but why not 9-10? Or adding more picks next year in a trade-back?

        Given the Seahawks like of SPARQ-y, developmental prospects, just curious why it sounds like we’re imposing an upper bound here

        • Rob Staton says:

          Because eventually you have to find a way to fit these guys onto a loaded 53-man roster. Right now it might be tough for five rookies to make the cut, let alone +10. And let’s not forget, you’ve got all the UDFA’s competing as well. How many picks do you really need on day three to create a healthy competitive 2015 roster with a nod to the future? And don’t you at least need some early picks to try and find some added quality or impact?

          • Dawgma says:

            That’s only an issue if you hit on all the picks AND you don’t have anyone on the roster you want to replace.

            But if you hit on 6 of 12 picks you’d be doing great, and there are DEFINITELY multiple position groups where the bottom depth is sub-league average. WR for one has maybe two legitimate, healthy pieces. The defensive line is full of injury red flags, zero producers, and guys running put the clock at 30 plus. The 3rd RB has provided nothing. We have very little secondary depth, and lost one of our key reserve LBs. We have two starting slots open on the OL and our LT is on the final year of his contract.

            Frankly if we draft 11 and don’t manage to get 5-6 good enough to make the roster, it’s probably because we drafted poorly. We’ve got good starters, but the depth across the roster is really looking iffy in some key areas.

            • Rob Staton says:

              I disagree the depth is looking iffy. I think we were spoiled in 2013 and it’s created an unrealistic image of what a roster can look like. The Seahawks are generally in fantastic shape in comparison to the rest of the league. We’re worried about injuries to Jeremy Lane and Tharold Simon. The Pats are trying to replace Revis. Seattle has talent across the board in pretty much every area. The depth isn’t fantastic at every position, but it never will be. Not again, not like 2013. That’s what happens when you’re paying Wilson, Sherman, Thomas and others peanuts.

              The point I’m really making though is whether you have 10 picks + a group of UDFA’s or 13 picks and a group of UDFA’s — you should be able to achieve the type of depth building Double J is talking about without trading down.

              • j says:

                Regarding your first point, isn’t that just saying “good enough”? We were good enough to make the SB, so we don’t need to improve?

                At the very least we could use 4th/5th rounders to improve on four out of the five WR spots. I would expect those picks to beat out what we already have. Immediately that is four out of the expected six successes filled. In one position group. It wouldn’t be wise to take four WR, because of other needs.

                Going to your second point, the same argument applies in other circumstances. You should be able to get a solid starter at 63 without trading up. Yet if the right guy is there you trade up. To improve the quality of starter.

                The same applies to trading down – you are improving the quality of depth building. Through having higher depth picks, and through competition.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  1. You’ve lost me J — what am I saying is “good enough”? If it’s the depth and talent of the roster I think back-to-back Super Bowl appearances speaks for itself.

                  2. When you have a loaded roster you’re going to be lucky to see 5-6 picks + UDFA’s make the roster. They have eight picks in rounds 4-6. Sometimes it really is about quality over quantity. The Seahawks will have enough competition with a 10-11 strong rookie class plus UDFA’s. There really isn’t any need to further move down for the sake of even more fifth or sixth round picks.

                  • DoubleJ says:

                    In terms of the view that 10 picks + UDFA is pretty much the same as 13 picks + UDFA:

                    I agree with you if the one pick we move to trade-up results in a game-changing player who can come in and contribute right away (or trade for affordable above average veteran) Totally on board with your ideas here.

                    I can’t say I agree if we are simply giving up opportunities to trade down because we simply don’t think more picks are valuable or needed, and we reach a bit in places instead. This is where I can’t get beyond the argument that we can just get UDFA as good as those 3 additional picks, especially as I think we are going to get challenged for priority UDFA more with each passing year (and the later round picks start becoming more of our UDFA mining as a result).

                    Maybe it’s worth a discussion of what spots you see as potentially up for grabs on this years roster — sounds like you feel only maybe 5 rookies will make the team, whereas I think there will be more like 10-15 spots (my own uneducated count) where rookies will challenge for starting or depth roles. If 5 is the real number, then maybe we need to get rid of a couple more of our picks this year to trade-up further, save for future years, or for veterans who have better chance to compete, etc… — in your scenario, we’d be cutting half our draft picks (not even counting UDFA choices) and that would seem to be a poor use of our draft capital, if we already feel that the chances are long for some of these drafted guys to make the roster.

          • DoubleJ says:

            I see what you are saying — so what would be the optimal number of picks for the Seahawks to ultimately have in your view, given roster competition currently? It sounds like it would be less than 10 — so maybe that’s additional flexibility to move up further than mid 2nd round? (especially if we consider we might want to consider leveraging some of next year’s picks given David ess’s point below about compensatory) Or trade some picks for some established, reasonably priced veterans to get that quality?

            Also, are you at all concerned about UDFA becoming even more competitive now that you have more Seahawks minds proliferating into the league? Part of my thinking about continuing to have a bunch of late round picks was that you could get some of those guys you know Quinn, Bradley, Norton Jr., etc… will be gunning for and have much better business cases for roster spots and playing time now. You’d certainly have to cut and stash some of those guys, but we haven’t been afraid to do that in years where we didn’t have as many picks…

            It’s an interesting discussion — appreciate you continuing to shed light on your thinking

            • Rob Staton says:

              I think if they can make ten picks + UDFA that would be a great return. This includes using the early fourth rounder to move up in round two. If not, you’re looking at 11 total picks instead.

              • James says:

                Agreed that this is the year to move up if ever there was one. Realistically, the Seahawks can only add about 6 new players max: 2 OL, 1 DT, 1 DE, 1 WR/KR, and 1 S. It would take a crowbar to work another CB or LB in there. Even leaving room for about 4 or 5 “bad” draft choices who will have to be cut, Seattle still has at least a couple of more draft picks than they can effectively use. Trade up John… listen to Rob.

                • peter says:

                  I’m down on the hawks wr so I think there’s two there. Then simon/lane/burley is a,question mark leaving sherm and Williams…i think it might be a need no one is ready to say just yet.

          • Screeching Hawk says:

            Exactly, how many players total will be different from last year after our free agents left to other teams. I’m thinking 6-8 tops realistically including signed free agents( Williams, Blackmon, Rubin) practice squad, and undrafted free agents. So use some of the extra picks to aquire the players they are realistically targeting.

          • hmabdou says:

            Rob you make a really good point about how important it is to have a diverse pool of rookies ranging from more “sure thing”/high floor types, to the more high risk/high reward project types. I think it’s a good idea to diversify our portfolio (to make a comparison to personal finance).

            I noticed that too many commenters want to just keep trading down and accumulating picks. That’s too many project types (and besides, not many draftees are going to make the 53 anyway, since we have solid depth to begin with). Excellent suggestion by you that makes sense for us to use some of our mid- and late-round picks to move up in round 2 and target someone Pete, John, or the other coaches might really like.

        • David ess says:

          Also Hawks are believed to get 3-4 comp picks next year and one being a 3rd (maxwell). No reason to trade for next year because they will most likely be in the same position they are in this year picking late 20s or 30s of each round.

          • DoubleJ says:

            Very good point I forgot about — which makes me wonder if we shouldn’t also be thinking about using some of those picks in this year’s decision-making re: trading up, trading for establishing veterans, etc…

            It really is fun to have flexibility like this

            • David ess says:

              Well we can’t trade comp picks. But if you meant the other picks we have then well I think we don’t really trade for vets, more or less sign them and let them compete with younger guys.

              • DoubleJ says:

                Yes I meant the non-comp picks — I’m just following the same logic that if we think 11 is too many this year given roster competitiveness, then next year may be no different to have 11 picks, so why view next year’s picks as in play as well to trade up, trade for veterans, etc…

        • OZ says:

          I suspect the Hawks will move up in the 3rd, where it won’t cost them as much capitol.

    • Ho Lee Chit says:

      By all means if the team determines that the guy they are targeting is available a little later than their pick then they should trade down and collect the extra pick. The extra pick can then be used for a subsequent trade up or traded for a pick next year. You can never have too many guys competing for jobs. It stands to reason that the ones drafted are better prospects than the UDFA’s. If we are willing to suggest we trade up into the second round from #63 then it is a strategy we need to use throughout the draft. A good example might be Ali Marpet. Most mock boards have him being picked in the middle of the third round. We may trade back a little and still take him.

      • Screeching Hawk says:

        Rob really likes Marpet and that’s good enough for a lot of us on this board. What if New England especially traded up and grabbed him ahead of us at 62? My point is take the player you really want to ensure you get him even if it’s a round or more higher. Who knows what teams really want what players so by that philosophy you’re ahead of most of the other teams, while loosing a bit rated potential. I’m sure some of you will think that’s silly talk.

        • shiva1008 says:

          It all depends on the details so talking in generalities is meaningless. Trade up, trade down… for example in this instance it matters how many similarly ranked players you have on your board. If you like Marpet but like another guy equally who’s still there, you can let the board come to you.

        • Rob Staton says:

          I like Marpet’s potential SH — but it’s impossible to judge the tape considering the level of competition he faced. He’s a very intriguing total unknown quantity. It’s hard to pin him to a round in this class without feeling he’s a little too high or a little too low on where his value is.

          • Screeching Hawk says:

            Marpet was an example. As you and some of us know it will be whomever Tom Cable wants. I just want to know who we draft already so I can watch highlight tape of our new Guys. This is my first year getting into the drafting process deeply and I owe it all to you Rob. After that last pass I just tried not to be angry about the play call, but to be thankfull for the team we have and started looking forward to next year. That’s how I found your blog and all these hardcore Hawk Fans! This is the first discussion blog I’ve ever been on mainly because people on here aren’t mean and rude to one another. It saddens me the way people are these days making spiteful, hurtful comments about anything.

  13. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    If I had to pick one prospect in the entire draft that I think is a lock for SEA, I’d say it’s Josh Shirley on Day 3.

    • Steele1324 says:

      Chawk, you may be right. Then again, there are still a few days left for the crazy hype machine to push more Seahawky types into rd. 2.

    • Volume12 says:

      Totally agree. This kid is a freak, highly versatile, great motor. He’s got ‘special’ written all over him.

      • John_s says:

        I’m sorry but I don’t see anything great about Shirley. He’s a one trick pony which is his speed rush and if that gets defended he doesn’t have a counter move. I haven’t seen him able to play in space. I think there are othe players with better abilities.

        • Volume12 says:

          His speed rush is unique though. He’s actually a pretty good hand fighter and is able to chase down plays from behind quite frequently.

          There’s going to be flaws in every prospects games, and taking guys late on day 3 with Shirley’s motor, pass rushing skill, and athleticism, you can’t ask for mich better.

        • kelly says:

          I like Shirley. The point of the “one Trick Pony” maybe true at this point, but couldn’t you say the same thing abput Bruce Irvin when we drafted him?

  14. Ealafa says:

    Just looking at this Draft, I would go DL. Move up for Jordan Phillips, Carl Davis, or stay put DE Henry Anderson

  15. Steele1324 says:

    Rob, I do see the importance of a big “box out” receiver, and think it is a priority, even with Chris Matthews on the team. It is, I think, the key to creating an unstoppable mismatches, on top of Jimmy Graham’s work at TE. DGB and Funchess are the two obvious candidates at the top of the draft (DGB also offers other things), but they are not the only WRs in this draft class who can offer similar.

    There are a number of WRs at 6-3 and over with the catch radius/above rim/red zone game, going all the way down into UDFA. It would be frustrating to miss out on DGB, but if they do, they should maintain focus and grab a tall target somewhere.

    The next big receiver after Funches is Dezmin Lewis. What Jeremiah says about the Ravens’ interest in a tall target for Flacco is reflected in their interest in Lewis. Lewis has spent some time with Bobby Engram and Ravens scouts. I think Lewis is their plan B if they don’t get DGB. That is exactly what I think the Hawks should also do.

    • Rik says:

      I like Dezmin Lewis better than Funchess. He was more consistent and more athletic. Funchess seemed to disappear in games against solid opponents.

    • Kelly says:

      Great Points Steele1324

      I totally agre with you. We need another Big WR and hopefully Matthews comes through for us, but I wouldn’t count on it as fact just yet.Go get another one and let the competition begin. If we dont, I have a fear that defenses will just double Jimmy and we will again be left with the wr’s not getting open before the rush gets to Russell.It will open up Lynch more, but imagine what it could be like to add another big WR to give us two “go up and get it” options in the Red Zone. Go ahead and double Jimmy, we also have X

      • Madmark says:

        Jimmy Graham is the tall WR we got. Get Tyler Lockett to replace Bryan Walters Roster spot which is open. He’s a rookie and his best bet to get on the roster is that skill. Walter got to play a few snaps just because he was in uniform. I’m not going to count out Anthony McCoy. This is Pete’s guy, 6th round draft out of USC recruited by Pete. If he can stay healthy, this will be his 5th year in the system. You can’t be around Zack Miller that long that without learning something. I think Anthony McNeil III is going to make this roster. The tape I watched on Mathews really wasn’t impressive but McNeils tape however caught my eyes immediately. A young Sydney Rice with healthy legs. I believe there’s enough competition here.

  16. Steele1324 says:

    Jeremiah sees DGB going to the Jets. But they have Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker. They have Jace Amaro at TE. To me, they don’t look to be in need of tall WR, although DGB on any team is a weapon.

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      I thought the same thing – NYJ has other needs to address. Their LB corps is lacking, and the need to refresh their OL. Oh, and they have a QB issue to address.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      It would be called a double down on your bet….. get the best possible weapons around the QB…. if he sinks, he sinks because he sucks.. not via lack of play makers around him.

      • Nichansen01 says:

        Their QB is the weakest part of their team, the Jets have great corners, great receivers, and a good. defensive line, I see them quarterback (Garret Grayson or something) and inside linebackers the first two rounds, I could also see them drafting a tight end.

        • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

          I see Randy Gregory going to them in the 1st. Bowles loves to bring the heat on defense.. and this guy is truly dynamic and explosive athlete. The puff puff pass stuff would be the only concern, but Bowles p[positive track record in AZ (honey badger). Sidenote: If Vic Beasley somehow fell, which would be ridiculous, they would grab him as well.

    • bigDhawk says:

      DGB to KC at 18 seems to be picking up steam. Possibly trading up into the mid-second for him is looking like more and more like a pipe dream.

      • Rob Staton says:

        It’ll be a major upset if he goes at #18.

        • bigDhawk says:

          I assume by upset at 18 you mean that’s too high. Not in terms of talent, apparently. It’s what we have discussed before. If his character checks out sufficiently to take in the second round, his talent will dictate a first round selection. The only way we have a shot at him in the second is if his character doesn’t check out. If that’s the case then do you really want to use even a second on him? I don’t. The only way I want him is if his character warrants a first round pick. Again, catch-22, and pipe dream. Barring any new off the field revelations between now and the draft it will be an upset if he doesn’t go in the first. We’ll see, though.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            This assumes that every FO will view his character concerns in the same way.

            Not to oversimplify it, but one team’s trash is another team’s treasure.

  17. Robert says:

    Hey Rob and others, what do you guys thing about Darryl Roberts as a nickel CB. His athleticism, ball skills, run support and football instincts appear top notch. Yet he could probably be had in the middle rounds?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU-H3R4rTUA

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      He’s as ‘Seahawky’ a DB as there is in this draft.

      • Robert says:

        Cannot find his arm length listed anywhere, but I am pretty sure they are telescoping after watching the way he knocks the ball away time and again!

      • Steele1324 says:

        There are many Seahawky DBs they could take, if they forego the typical height and arm length litums tests. Swag is definitely one of them. I’d also put Devante Bausby, Tye Smith and Dexter McDonald on the list. Tiny Senquez Golson is slot defender only, a liability outside, but man, what a ballhawk.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Roughly a 5th round pick currently. The sweet spot in the draft with many intriguing players.

    • Screeching Hawk says:

      My opinion Robert is that he looks like a Legioner to me. With Williams signed to replace Maxwell, and Blackmon insurance for Lane and Burley. We probably will draft at least two CB’s in this draft with hope of future grandeur! The best part is since Carroll has taken over there is this hope we have of always getting better. Seattle fans deserve it! Praise Wilson!!!

  18. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    Another prospect I think SEA will target on Day 3 or UDFA is Harold Spears.

    Based on a 90-man off-season roster, SEA will want 6 TEs in training camp. They currently have 5 (Graham, Willson, McCoy, Helfet and Allen.

    If they add one, I doubt they spend anything higher than a late Day 3 pick, or more likely a UDFA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ht4PZ8vus

    • Volume12 says:

      Again I agree. He’d make a fantastic UDFA.

    • j says:

      If they add one I think it’ll be a block first type. Graham, Willson, Helfet and Allen are either bad to decent at blocking in-line.

      Miller was a great at that, and I think that is what we will be looking to replace. Not to say we are going to get a guy the quality of Miller. But that same style of TE.

      • williambryan says:

        I think Willson has been pretty good as a blocker. The run game sure didn’t miss a beat with him. Miller though could block DE’s as good as Okung can (very well). Doubtful to find anyone like that. I really hope Gilliam can be the new Miller, well, I am sure he can be, so I actually hope the team uses him in that way.

        • j says:

          Willson is a move TE that weighs 250, who is an OK blocker. Graham is a move TE who isn’t known for his blocking. Helfet is a move TE that weighs 240, who is an OK blocker. Rashaun Allen is a developmental move TE that weighs 250. Not a lot of diversity in the TE group. 240-250 is on the small to average size for TE.

          McCoy would fit that blocking TE role, but unfortunately we can’t count on him to do anything but get injured.

          Any relatively relatively light move TE added in the mid-late rounds would be fourth on the depth chart. Doesn’t make sense. Meanwhile, if you are talking a bigger 260+ blocking TE, all he has to do to contribute is beat out McCoy. Miller was our biggest TE, but also blocked above his size due to technique and tenacity.

          • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

            Wouldn’t the Seahawks want a big TE to block… what about Boyle (a fav of mine) or Uzomah (another fav)….. 5th or 6th round pick, low risk… but they would both add something to the TE position lacking currently on the roster.

        • Robert says:

          I feel like Gilliam is gonna show up to camp at 320 and challenge for RT. Britt would be a ferocious LG!

          • Trevor says:

            I feel the same wat about Britt I think he would be an amazing Guard but realize I am in a minority in hoping he is switched. His short arms and inability to deal with speed rushers scream for him to be a guard where I think he would be amazing!

          • CC says:

            Gilliam can also line up as a TE too – and I heard they might use Tukaufu as a TE as a blocker who can flex out if needed. His versatility may lessen the need to draft a blocking TE

      • Volume12 says:

        I think the blocking aspect is a little overrated. They’ve been notorious for wanting unique skill sets at the TE position. Zach Miller was brought to help as an extra blocker when they were putting together this o-line and because he was one of the better all around TEs at the time, also was familiar with TCs system. The blocking was an added bonus.
        If McCoy stays helathy, big if, then him Helfet and Willson are all decent to good blockers. And maybe they see Gilliam as a hybrid TE/OL.

        NH TE Harold Spears would give them a former basketball player at the position to go with Jimmy, and Spears is also a good ‘go up and get it type.’ The NFL loves them some former basketball players.

        • j says:

          They seem to really like Rashaun Allen. Also Helfet, Wilson and Graham. Which means Spears would probably be fifth on the move TE depth chart. At most he beats out Allen and sits at fourth.

          • Volume12 says:

            Nothing wrong with keeping a developmental TE on your squad, PS, whatever it may be. Allen need some competition anyways.

            • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

              I think this might be very close to the Seahawks thinking. None of the TEs from last year really made a name for themselves…. bring in a TE to compete. Draft James, Uzomah or some other guy… I’m perfectly fine with them continuing to upgrade the position.

  19. CharlieTheUnicorn says:

    I have always wondered, if the Seahawks GM takes a peak in on this blog, grabs a cigar and lights it… takes a few puffs, then laughs his butt off at how far off from their draft board “we” are on here.

  20. hawkdawg says:

    Do we really have to worry a lot about Carolina for DGB when they have Kelvin Benjamin? I would think the Panthers have enough holes that this might not be where they choose to go in Round 2…

    • OZ says:

      That’s for GOSH DARN sure!!!! Don’t56 take too much stock in DJ. He is usually way off the mark.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Two big, dynamic WRs in the offense… is not a bad way to go. But a small speedy WR would be a better fit

    • Rob Staton says:

      Receiver remains a big need for Carolina. They do have Benjamin, but considering they just need to keep adding talent, I don’t think it matters what type of receiver they bring in to play across from him. They need to make life easy for Cam Newton and putting DGB, Benjamin and Olsen out there together is a great solution.

  21. linehawk says:

    What about dealing #63 to a team for their next year’s second and this year’s fourth/fifth? Will a team in a win now mode be interested in that?

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think it’s doubtful. The #63 pick isn’t a great spot. What would entice a team to make that move?

      • linehawk says:

        May be someone who doesn’t have a great record developing late round picks and may be willing to pay next year’s second for moving up from fifth to second this year? Buffalo? I know its unlikely but it might not be a bad option if available.

        • Rob Staton says:

          What is the deal here then Linehawk? If it’s Seattle trade down from round two to round five (where they have three picks) for another second rounder next year, that looks like a pretty horrible deal for Seattle.

  22. Volume12 says:

    Call me crazy, but I still like WR/R/OW Ty Montgomery at 63. It’s going to be extremely impossible to crack the 5 man receiver core come game day. The quickest spot to upgrade would be a dynamic offensive chess piece, that’s an NFL ready return man. Last year Seattle’s offense was crying out for that big target, that’s what Jimmy Graham is. And they needed that movable weapon to jump star an offense. That’s what Montgomery is.

    Pick 63 is not a great spot to be in, in this draft. It’s really a 3rd rounder anyways, they take guys a round or two early every selection it seems like. He’s incredibly unique, full of potential, I’d suspect they’d fall/fell in love with his character/personality. It’s the ultimate swing for the fences type pick we’ve known to come from this team.

    Of course I’m basing this off of if they stay put, which I’m going to assume they are.

    • j says:

      I think it’ll be easy to draft the 5 man corp. Baldwin, maybe they like Kearse better than me but then again maybe not, and the rest of the spots are wide open. That is three or four spots up for grabs.

      I still like Montgomery though. Dynamic athlete with the drive and character to capitalize on it.

    • Ho Lee Chit says:

      I like Montgomery also. I think #63 is too early. All of the boards I have looked at have him available in the 5th round. I think he is a unique talent. Not many returners have that big RB body.

      With Richardson out we are down to only Baldwin as a smurf, slot receiver. Given Baldwin is RW’s favorite target it makes more sense to add a 6-0 body that can get separation rather than another tall guy that wants to run deep. I don’t get the love affair with the tall guys. We lost Walters and Richardson, both who are smaller receivers and have no returners. A body type like Ty Montgomery, Lockett or Agholor with return skills, makes the most sense. I think folks will be disappointed again when Schneider takes a pass on the 6-5 receivers to improve the return game. We have 8 WR’s and 5 TE’s on the roster. Only 3 of them are 6 foot or shorter. The two most productive (Kearse and Baldwin) are two of the shortest ones.

      • Steele1324 says:

        A returner is just about a given. I really think you can find excellent returners throughout the draft and in UDFA. They can be WRs, but need not be. Why is everyone focusing only on the WR returners?

        Montgomery’s real upside is as a WR. He is underrated and has technique that is not that far off. Yes, he has a running back body type, which makes him useful in gadget plays and running plays.

        • purpleneer says:

          I’m totally with you on that first point. I’d almost prefer to see a DB be the returner, particularly on punts.

      • CC says:

        Montgomery may be there with our first pick in the 4th – drafting him at 63 might be too high since we have a need at OL. I could see him or another WR at 95.

    • peter says:

      I get your reasoning. I am DEEPLY considered that his ability at OW will be present at the next level. I really like his kick return chops but like 4 guys just,as WR’s for that. I like your thinking and your insights are pretty good, he just doesn’t seem like a 2nd rounder…..

      • Volume12 says:

        That’s just it. He doesn’t seem like a 2nd rounder, but did Justin Britt? The position that’s in need of desperate help is the return/offensive weapon position, offensive line, and some help’on the d-line.

        Steele is spot on. He’s much, much more than a return man. His receiving skills are underarted, his drop percentage was right around ODBs.

        He might be viewed as a 5th rounder by pundits and webites alike, bu I have a sneaking suspicion he’s thought of more highly by NFL GMs.

        The surest way to upgrade the receiving core is by getting someone that can help on STs too. It’s going to be difficult to find rookie receivers that can play with the type of consistency PC wants out of a championship team. And I get he’s frustarting, but presents so mich to work with and is by no means maxed out or hit his ceiling.

        • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

          Britt got picked in the second, because Seattle couldn’t find someone to trade down with, so they went ahead and grabbed Britt, since they couldn’t count on him falling into the deep 4th round.

        • peter says:

          I dont disagree with you its just me personally. Some players dont grab you. I can’t put a finger to it.

          The Britt thing was an error on their part. Pure and simple. They can talk our guys all they want. 1. They’ve been pretty crappy in figuring out what that is. 2. They can say per example bitonio wasn’t there guy but the league disagrees with this. The team gets massive slack for picking Russel and making that work….picking players that may have wrestled and TC sees something is not and has not been a good combo.

          You could be right about Montgomery. In the second. I just see him squarely in the fourth

        • Ho Lee Chit says:

          I see your point. I will say this. IMO, we have room on this WR corps for one new body and he better be able to return kicks. Montgomery fits that bill. Anybody else has to beat out an incumbent and that will be hard to do as a rookie. As for Montgomery, I expect he becomes an All Pro returner. We obviously need him more than most teams so if they need to reach to lock him up so be it.

          • Volume12 says:

            Exactly. He’s a receiver that has a ton of upside and might be the best, definetly one of the best returners in this game. Just get this kid the ball on space. This offense still lacks that dynamic element that Percy was supposed to bring.

            His character, personality, leadership ability, athleticism are all highly reagarded. IMO he comps quite favorably to Sammie Coates, but could make a quicker impact due to his versatility and STs play.

            I see what your saying Peter. Britt was probably a bad example by the way.

  23. kevin mullen says:

    Why for the life of me would anyone trade a 1st round pick to Philly for Sam Bradford is beyond me but there’s talk of three 1st round picks being exchanged for the rights of Mariota/Bradford and getting into the top5? Shit, I’d almost say the ‘Hawks should listen to offers for Wilson should three 1st round picks being tossed around. Not that i’d pull the trigger but shit, be damn interesting especially of this talk of him possibly being a 2-sport athlete…

    • David ess says:

      I think it’s more or less a negotiating tactic, him saying he would like to play baseball. He had his chance when he was drafted by the Rockies but chose football. His deal I would believe would come out around the draft, probably after. Trading Wilson for 3 first round picks would be a mistake. I know you said that you wouldn’t pull the trigger so I’m saying the same. He’s a hell of a leader and winner and wouldn’t trade him. Unless a 3rd round pick is thrown in…kidding of course. RW is too valuable.

      • kevin mullen says:

        I completely agree, RW is probably worth more in terms of overall product you get from him. No one I’d rather have with the ball with less than 2mins left in the game down with less than a score.

        That being said, in light of all the balking RW is giving the negotiations, wouldn’t surprise me if they draft a qb somewhat early, we don’t have a back up after all. And it’s still intriguing if a team would be willing to give up three 1st round picks should we even fathom to listen to such an offer. I hear Matt Barkley is available.

        • David Ess says:

          I think they will sign Tjack a swell. his market wasnt that great so i can see them bringing him back.

        • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

          Let’s suspend belief for a second.. reality has been thrown out…. what about Petty in the 3rd round?
          He brings a ton of intangibles. Appears to be a hard worker. He has not been forced into a pro style offense, but he has considerable athletic talents. Would you pull the trigger, in the alternate universe?

          • Screeching Hawk says:

            Charlie it would be a good idea not only for insurance but to push Russell even farther not that he needs it. I bet T Jack will sign back though he was just seeing if he had a chance to start somewhere. Or maybe he’s content with what he’s made and the time he’s spent in the NFL. If not time to start aclimating some QB with potential into our system.

            • David says:

              I don’t know how much more you can push a guy that reportedly shows up at the facility at 5am and doesn’t go home till later that evening. but who knows maybe getting petty would make him get up at 4. kidding aside. I believe getting a QB in any rounds would be a waste. seeing as Wilsons durability has been tested numerous times and hes shown he can take it. I think an UDFA QB to groom as a back up (i.e Daniels) is good enough. I don’t see them going for a QB unless its an UDFA in which he would be battling with RJ Archer and BJ Daniels. I just feel like there are more holes to fill then worrying about the back up QB when Tjack will most likely be signed.

              but the fanbase has been fooled before. who knows maybe draft day will come and the hawks will trade up for Hundley and totally throw everyone off. haha

        • Zorn is King says:

          What do you think a good trade value for Wilson would be, though?

    • peter says:

      I think chip Kelly is considered a genius way to often as that he has yet win the big one, and non ducks fan here in Eugene it grows tiresome….but if he gets a first for Bradford that lets him get mariota he’s an economics genius. Not a football guru like Walsh…but a day trading bastard.

  24. Madmark says:

    My Dream right now.
    63 Tyler Lockett WR/PR/KR (Walter’s replacement always opportunity when your in uniform +)
    95 Mitch Morse C/G (2 Missouri boys on same line)
    112 Marcus Hardison 3-tech
    130 Tyler Davidson 1-tech
    134 Sequen Golson CB (turned down a 1.35 million baseball at 18. a Bawlhawk.)
    167 Jarvis Harrison G/T (Cable could start him at guard in a year maybe a tackle the next. The dancing bear)
    170 George Mancz C/G
    181 Aalana Fua OLB
    209 Rob Crisp T
    214 Thomas Rawls RB
    248 Shaquille Riddick DE/OLB
    I could live with a draft like this. Yes Please.

    • David says:

      I’d like this draft but I’d like one more Big target WR. maybe a Waller with one of the 4th’s if there.

    • Madmark says:

      Remember we got Jimmy Graham at 31 the Tall receiver and the next need is a returner. Tyler Lockett is a WR who watch’s film and understands route running. If you think that receiver has to be tall. I’ll counter with we took PRich last year didn’t we.

      • David says:

        We did take Prich who was 6′ and a speedster. i think they need a big WR that can build a rapport with Wilson and can be the Drew brees-Colston esque combo we need. remember Graham turns 29 this season and who knows how much he has left in the tank with the hits he takes. not saying he will retire next year but he isnt getting younger. we got a speedy WR in Prich (if he can stay healthy)

        My mindset though is to draft a smaller shiftier WR and a taller box out WR this draft so i am not against getting a smaller one just as long as they get a jump-ball WR aswell.

        • Madmark says:

          No matter what there is no returner on this team when Walter left and it is a roster spot that must be filled. There is a need and field position is very important. There is no doubt in my mind that this is all he is. He a WR also and his stats prove it. He would get along with RW because they are alike in many ways. What if Baldwin gets hurt he can backup. There’s an advantage to having this guy in uniform which means he always will have the opportunity and give us another WR option. This guy knows how to run routes and is a film rat. What conversation do you think those 2 could talk about in the film room after practice.

  25. Nathan says:

    Teams with the least picks.

    6 – Buffalo Bills, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions, Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers

    Any chance we nab 48 from san diego?

    • Nathan says:

      Jets 37
      Maimi 47
      Lions 54
      Bears 39
      San Diego 48

      Bills have no first rounder, and the rams won’t trade with us.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Seahawks will not do a deal with the Rams.

      Lions (pick 88) and Seahawks have worked together before as have the Bills (Pick 81). Personally, I would do a deal with the Bills, to give them as much ammo to take on the Patriots. End the Patriots easy road to the #1 seed and make them work during the regular season. Perhaps they can swing a draft pick+player trade, for the Bills 2nd round pick.

      I highly doubt this will happen, but you just never know. The question, who would be worthy of a big trade up…. if you say DGB…. I would say HELL NO. A guy such as DE Hunter, CB Rowe or RB Coleman would be much more appealing pick imo. I doubt any of these guys would be available at #81, so you would have to do a deal with a team like the Raiders (pick 68), Redskins (pick 69) or Bears (pick 71).

      • Nathan says:

        The Bills aren’t going to trade back, when 50 is their first pick in the draft.

        • Nathan says:

          48 for 63, 130 and 167.

          Feasible?

        • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

          I’m thinking trade the 1st next year for the Bills this year. The Bills then turn around and ship off their 2nd they got in this exchange this year and 2 1st next year for #2 spot and which ever QB falls to them.

          Well, from a Bills point of view… but from Seahawks point of view, this doesn’t work out imo.

          • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

            or something close to this…. swap a few higher round picks for a very high pick for a QB.
            Honestly, they should sit tight and draft either Grayson, Hundley or Petty.

    • Rob Staton says:

      It depends what they do in R1. Are they moving up for Mariota? How does that impact what they do in round two?

  26. Steele1324 says:

    We tend to look at the WRs who can return kicks and punts, and we know their names.

    I think the Hawks should consider some of the smurf running backs who are returners. In today’s NFL, I think having a Sproles/Vereen change of pace back who can also catch passes is almost becoming a standard feature, yet the Hawks don’t have one.

    RB/returners include:

    Rd.2-Ameer Abdullah
    Rd. 6-Akeem Hunt
    Rd.5-6-Corey Grant
    UDFA- Marcus Murphy

    Bottom line, getting a returner from another position, or getting a strict returner, might be easier than forcing ourselves to fit a Tyler Lockett onto a roster where Baldwin/PRich/Kearse/Lockette are blocking,er, occupying roster spots.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Grant is the perfect value pick, late in the draft. He is extremely explosive and elusive. A type of player the Seahawks lack on the roster quite frankly. A bit of a Harvin element the offense was lacking at the end of 2014 season. I’m not a fan of drafting/over drafting a guy early because he can KR or PR.

      Abdullah intrigues me greatly. He is explosive and and a self made RB. He was a play-maker in college. The only real knock is his size, but if you use him like change of pace back…. limiting his touches… he could bring a very dynamic element to the Seahawks RB group. LEGIT game breaking speed out of the backfield, not requiring 2-3 broken tackles. I guess a RB similar to what Darren Sproles or Curtis Martin could bring to the table to an offense.

    • Old but Slow says:

      Corner P J Wiliams is also a decent return man, although we would have to use our 2d round pick to get him.

    • Robert says:

      But can Bevelle be trusted to use discretion if he has a weapon in his arsenal that can OCCASIONALLY be effective at executing a bubble screen?! It’s weird that CM cannot contribute in the KO return game and as an explosive RB that can catch passes and be a lethal YAC threat???

    • Madmark says:

      I’m going to make a bold prediction that if PRich even comes back this year it wouldn’t be till the end of the year. This is his 2nd ACL and they won’t rush him. The thing about Lockett is he will get Walter’s roster spot and wouldn’t even interfere with those 4 receivers you named.

    • CC says:

      Very good reminder – some of us may feel like since we have a need a WR why not double down and get a returner too. But you make a good point that we will have to find a RB at some point too. On that subject D Bronson is still on the roster, maybe he can play?

  27. Volume12 says:

    Rob, I’ve been noticing that out of all the DTs that have visited the VMAC that only David Irving and Kristjan Sokoli meet the 33 inch arm/wingspan parameters. Could this be the yeat they buck the trend?

    Also interesting that they were rumored to like CB De’vante Bausby at his pro day. But again, not 32′ inch arms. Will they deviate in your opinion here too?

    I like Bausby, Ringo, Buckley, and others, but I’m curious as to your take on this.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Possibly — but I also think the Rubin signing negates some of the likelihood they go interior DL in the draft. And the Mario Edwards Jr visit is interesting. For me he’s a three-technique in Seattle.

      • peter says:

        I sense from the tone that Mario Edwards is the pick for your final draft next week…ughh I hope it isn’t but I feel it in my bones. James carpenter, cmike….then Britt….if they go Edward I’m going to be truly bummed and hope they score big later because he just does nothing for me like carp and cmike.

        Dont tell I still want a week where I can see it being basically anyone else

        • Rob Staton says:

          “I sense from the tone that Mario Edwards is the pick for your final draft next week…ughh I hope it isn’t but I feel it in my bones”

          Not in my mock. Although I’m intrigued as to why they brought him in.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        Edwards is the James Carpenter of this draft. His game play is thoroughly underwhelming. His weight fluctuates between “too light for the interior” to “too heavy for the edge”. His work ethic and passion for football is suspect.

        If SEA is still searching for their 3T (and I think they are, notwithstanding Hill), do they overdraft a prospect like Edwards who will need to pack on some weight from his Combine 273lbs to move inside? His weight issues are well known – he’s much slower and ineffective as a rusher when he pays around closer to 300lbs. His 1.76s 10yd split is okay for a DT, but not great.

        Just one alternative, but he’s probably the best – Marcus Hardison. A natural 3T who’s played that position through college. He has the size at 6’3″ 307, and the quickkness (1.69s 10yd).

        • AlaskaHawk says:

          I think they are still looking for a young DT that can bust open the pocket from the interior. Currently there are a lot of defensive linemen signed on as camp bodies. The list is long and impressive. However most are on a try out basis, or are veterans with short contracts. The permanent veterans like Bennett and Avril are older and are peaking right about now, they won’t last forever. I’m sure the Seahawks are looking ahead, and I don’t think they have found their guys through the draft yet. Maybe someone will step up this year and really contribute to the line. I’m sure the Seahawks will pick a defensive linemen, just not sure what round it will be.

        • Madmark says:

          I actually didn’t ignore the Defensive in my mock.
          112 Marcus Hardison 3-Tech rotates with Jordan Hill and maybe McDonald gone.
          130 Tyler Davidson 1-tech rotates with Mebane and be ready next year to step into his spot
          181 Alana Fua OLB/LEO he’s 6’5″ 238lbs you put 17 pounds of muscle on this guy and he’d could become a Clemon at 6’5″ 255lbs he’s has the burst off the line.
          248 Riddick Leo/DE he needs more strength He would definitely be a project. Something you work on with this type of pick.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            Interesting call on Fua. Clemons was 236lbs at the 2003 Combine.

            Fua killed his agility drills, especially for someone 6’5″ – 4.15s SS and 6.83s 3C.

            His arms seem short at 32″, but I don’t know what Clemons’ arm length is for comparison.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            Also, other than attending BYU pro day, don’t know that SEA has indicated any interest in him.

        • Steele1324 says:

          For 3-T, I would look to Hardison in rd. 3 and Chris Covington in rd. 5+.

          • Madmark says:

            Can’t do 5th both belong to cable in this draft. He also gets a 6th comp or the 7th. I’ve brought in 2 tackle to compete and I believe they have the ability to make the roster.

  28. Steele1324 says:

    One WR I don’t hear much talk about is Dres Anderson, a highly productive player famous for big plays. Son of Flipper Anderson. He went out with an injury in October, which certainly dropped his profile, but seems to have recovered. Ran a 4.5, which is about his normal speed. He is 6-1 185, but when you look at his film, he is a lean lengthy, plays taller than he is. Good team first guy, blocks well. Good vertical as well as going across the middle. The knocks on him are that he is skinny and has to become stronger to deal with press. He has to gear up to hit top speed, but when he does, he’s impressive. He is also a returner.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4yalKG3Vk

    I see him going around the same range as Conley, maybe a bit lower.

    Anderson has refinement to work on, but he is a deep threat for sure.

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      BAL and PHI are reportedly very interested in him.

      • Steele1324 says:

        The Ravens are clearly interested in the tall WRs, the same ones I want the Hawks to grab. DGB, Lewis. Anderson may be 6-1, but he plays much taller. The thing about Anderson is that he seems better at the big vertical spectacular play than the short stuff, which he will work on. Whereas, much of this draft class are short game lacking the deep vertical.

        Anderson to the Hawks would not bother me.

  29. Steele1324 says:

    Late round UDFA pass rushers on my list: Alec May, Ryan Delaire, Tavaris Barnes.

  30. CharlieTheUnicorn says:

    I do not understand this love affair of drafting a KR/WR in the second round… this is not good value using the second round pick. Hell, I think DGB would be a better pick in 2nd, than a guy who is more known for his KR/WR. Drafting a guy because we NEED a KR/PR is not the way Seattle operates.

    Later in the draft, sure.. take a swing on a guy (such as RB Grant in the 6th)…. but in 2nd,3rd and 4th rounds.. you need starters or key contributors. 4-8 plays a game (max) is not good value imo.

    • Old but Slow says:

      But it is very unlikely that DGB will be there for us at pick 63. It seems clear that DGB would be a better pick at that point, but he will likely not be there. I don’t disagree with you, however, but I would be looking for a defensive back or DL at that time. I would likely change my mind if certain players dropped to that level, but that does not seem likely.

    • David says:

      I agree with the whole not drafting a KR/PR in the 2nd. I’d prefer if a big WR didn’t fall to us to just draft an OL

      I don’t believe our KR/PR problems can be solely put on the returner. the blocking was atrocious. P. Richardson wouldn’t even be out of the end zone and guys would already be on him. part of me cant blame Walters for taking fair catches even when he had open grass in front of him. the blocking was so inconsistent that when it was open he didn’t have the trust to take off. I believe the special teams will be better this year in general and while it may not seem like much but having Derrick Coleman back might make a difference. him being the Captain and all. a lot of times players were thrust into spots they weren’t ready for and often lead to what we now know as the “2014 seahawks special teams” haha. think it will be better this year though.

      • peter says:

        Good reminder about Coleman and the blocking on general.

        • AlaskaHawk says:

          If we had more confidence in the offense then we wouldn’t bother returning from the end zone. Likewise with punting, make the fair catch and get the offense on the field.

    • Attyla the Hawk says:

      I would agree.

      Although with a player like Lockett, you’re looking at a #3 kind of WR to begin with. He definitely has more value than merely a PR/KR. That kind of added value particularly for Seattle who has a void there currently would make that pick attractive.

      I wouldn’t think he is plan A. But he could easily be plan B as far as the WR improvement goes.

      He’s a lot like Richardson as a prospect. If we think Paul is going to return, then Lockett is a very redundant pick. The two WRs really do share a similar role. If we expect his return is doubtful next year and beyond — then Lockett’s value is more pronounced.

    • Steele1324 says:

      Charlie, I’m with you. KR/PR/WR is not a good value in rd. 2. More like, you accept PR/KR if the rest of a player’s game is exceptional enough to merit a rd. 2. Sorry,I do not think Tyler Lockett is exceptional, when you can find a similar player lower down. Guys like Justin Hardy, Mario Alford, Chris Harper, etc.

      David, great point about the ST blocking problems. What is going to be done about it?

    • Matt says:

      “Drafting a guy because we NEED a KR/PR is not the way Seattle operates.” charlie

      It is and isn’t how we operate. We don’t always take a “need” position early in the draft(Michael), but we usually do(Carpenter, Irvin, Richardson, Britt). I get your point that the majority of people on here, myself included, are focusing on pick#63 being either a WR(preferrably with strong return skills) or OL. This may not be the case, but they are 2 pretty glaring holes to fill, that could upgrade the roster day 1. Could we get a DL or CB at #63 sure-they’re needs too, although less glaring. We do tend to draft for need early though, with it usually being for offense. Can’t wait until the draft!

  31. David says:

    i get the feeling the hawks will “reach” (as viewed in the eyes of most experts) for a WR and we will be hearing “they could’ve had him in the later rounds” or “well they get an ‘F’ in my book” the hawks normally do that and totally surprise people. I believe they will draft WR with totally different skillsets like a Lockett and Waller or DGB and if not DGB maybe Dez Lewis and Stefon Diggs. Just my opinion. but I believe in the draft they will select 2 WR’s and get a few UDFA WR along the way. of course for competition.

  32. Trevor says:

    I think a trade up in the 2nd with SD for us to take DGB makes a ton of sense for both teams if DGB is available.

    Think about lining up Matthews and DGB outside , Baldwin in the slot and Graham at TE. That would be an incredibly dynamic group with our already potent run game. There would have to be mismatches all over the field and teams could not stack the box anymore which would only further add to our run game. Think about Baldwin facing teams nickel CB instead of their #1 CB.

    I truly believe if we add a guy like DGB with true #1 potential our offense will be top 3 in the league.

    PC/JS have been able to find all other positions except a big mismatch TE and a #1 receiver. This is the year they could finally get both with Graham and DGB.

    My only concern is that I still think DGB goes in the 1st or early 2nd. To be honest I think he will as he just has too much talent so I won’t get my hopes up just yet.

    • AlaskaHawk says:

      Someone will bite on DGB early because of his height. At least we know New England has bigger worries at the cornerback position, because if DGB went to New England or Denver it would be a disaster for the Seahawks. If he does fall I’m on board with moving up for him.

  33. Phil says:

    I’m reading lots of posts about using draft picks to move up, but what about using player trades to move up? Are there guys on the current roster who you would sacrifice?

    One of the obvious goals from this draft has to be the replacement of high-priced veterans with lower priced draftees. It would be even sweeter to be able to move up the board by trading high-priced veterans to move up to get a guy we really like. For example, Mebane carries a $5.7 million cap hit in 2015. Kearse’s cap hit is $2.3 million. Jon Ryan and Hauschka each have cap hits of more than $1 million. Are there any scenarios where we could use these guys, or others, alone — or in combination with our #63 — to move up to get DGB or someone else?

    • Rik says:

      I wouldn’t trade either kicker, especially with the special teams needs we already have. Hauschka in particular is gold. I’d trade Kearse and his inconsistent hands/routes in a second. And maybe there’s enough DT talent to let one or two of our older and more expensive players go, either package with #63 or by themselves. Intriguing thought …

      • Phil says:

        I think it’s a more enticing scenario than trading picks to move up. But, the rub is finding a willing trade partner.

        I feel the same way you do with our kickers. But, at age 30 and with his big cap hit in the last year of his contract, Mebane is expendable in my opinion. I like his game, but you can only afford so many guys on their veteran contracts. Maybe we could get him to extend and lessen his cap hit ….

        I’m not sure of the details of Kearse’s contract, but I think we can find an equivalently skilled guy in the draft at a lesser cost.

  34. EranUngar says:

    One of the most common views against hording draft picks is the statement that we do not have room on this deep and talented roster for more then 5-6 rookies at best.
    However, when i look at the roster i see the following open spots for a new face:

    2 OL spots – Carp and Unger are gone, no new players added. The only backups with any on field experience are Gillian and Lem. Two new bodies are needed. A third if he beats the PS talent.

    2 WR spots – Walters is gone so a PR/KR is a need. A tall body blocking ball catcher is also a need with Matthews a FA next year. With PRich on the PUP list we have room for that guy.

    1-2 LB spots. We have our starters (Wags, Irvin and K.J.). Behind them we have KPL and not much more. We may not be paying for both Wags and Irvin next year. We need a new guy in there.

    1-2 DB spots – At least one CB till Lane is back. We start the season with Sherm, Williams and Butler and….???

    1-2 DL spots – We lost Schofield and KW, got Rubin to replace KW. No backup for Avrill and Bennett and Mebane+McD+Rubin are FAs after the season. Please do not count Dobbs, Scruggs or Williams, we need fresh and reliable blood to learn and be a starter next year.

    I will be very surprised if we do not see a minimum of 8-9 new faces in the 53 roster.

    • Trevor says:

      I agree completely and would add Safety unless Pinkins pans out.

      I think we need 2 WR, 3 OL, DT, LEO, CB, Safety. So basically 9 spots to fill if we want to keep the quality depth and roster quality we have been spoiled with.

      With either 10 or 11 picks + UDFA and a couple of Vet Free Agents after the draft this should be possible if PC/JS get back to 2011/2012 form I think 2013/2014 were below average drafts for us.

    • Ed says:

      For the most part, I agree. I would say:

      3 OL – at least 1 starter and 2 that could turn into starters (okung could be gone next year too)
      2 WR -a slot returner type and a bigger body
      1 LB – we have Coyle and KPL
      1 DB – we have Simon too
      2 DL – an inside pass rusher and outside pass rusher
      1 TE – all TE are receiving TE, need a talented dual guy (J.James?)

      That’s 10. First 5 picks should be (2 OL 2 WR 1 DT) with last 2 picks LB (sparq guy) & OL (cable project (Crisp))

    • Madmark says:

      I’d say we need for than 2 OL. Garett Scott gone before last year even started with medical condition, Schilling retired. Ungar and Carpenter gone. Your missing 2 starters and 2 depth guys that your coaching for next year when Bailey is a RFA and Okung contract is up.
      1 WR yes he is a PR/KR to make the team and He will get that playing time because he’s already in uniform. A Lockett who’s a Daddy’s boy like RW are a lot alike being game film rats. A tall WR in the 4 or farther back will have as much chance to make the roster as Chris Harper did last year. There are already 4 WR that have been signed up for camp and the couple that where on the practice squad. Believe me we already have enough competition ready to go and compete. The LB spot is actually pretty deep. You forgot about Coyle, Morgon, and JPL. We only carry 7 LB so 1 more in the later rounds would work.
      I found 2 DL to move into the rotation and 1 who would need some time to work up to LEO spot or take Irving spot in a year if need be. I pick Riddick at 248 because if we work him out like Irving it could take some time and he definitely needs to bulk up.
      We always pick one CB and I took my at pick 134. Seattle looks at the measurable but they also look at a players talent. If this wasn’t true we wouldn’t have a RW. I pick a CB who short but he has off the wall skills.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I don’t agree on the need at linebacker. They have Morgan, Coyle, KPL backing up three of the best in the league. I think Irvin will get the 5th year option.

      I don’t see any reason not to count Dobbs or Williams or anyone else. This group helped make up the #1 defense in the NFL last year. They basically need to replace two-sack O’Brien Schofield. Not a huge challenge.

      I believe it’s around 5-7 open spots for (currently) 11 picks and UDFA. They can solve these issues without needing to keep trading down.

      • EranUngar says:

        Rob,

        I do not advocate trading down. 11 picks should be more then enough to allow for injuries and the reasonable amount of draft busts.

        As for the DL – I think it’s a must to get at least one big run stopper that will be ready to be a starter at the 1/3T next year. We should not be paying for all those guys with our cap shrinking.

        As for LBs – Coyle is to small for it. Morgan is…Morgan. A backup that you do not want to see starting. KPL IMO is the only valid talent ready to step in.

        CBs – well, i know we have Simon but i’m not that sure that should have Simon. There is something that i cant put my finger on that is bothering me about him. He is too physical with smaller WRs and too careless and he is dominated by the bigger WRs that do not shy away from contact. I had so much hope for him last year and i lost most of it.

        • Rob Staton says:

          “I do not advocate trading down. 11 picks should be more then enough to allow for injuries and the reasonable amount of draft busts.”

          I know Eran — the original topic though was based around a trade down and it’s why I made the response you replied to.

          • EranUngar says:

            I’m really sorry if you thought it was directed at you. It was not.

            It was directed at arguments that usually starts like this:

            “Since we do not have room on the roster for more then 4-5 rookies, why don’t we take the 2nd plus a 4th, a 5th, a 6th, and next years 2nd and 4th so we can move up to get XXXXX….”

            I think that 10-11 picks with 5 at 4th and 5th are perfect this year.

    • purpleneer says:

      I think many are just overstating how easy it is to add more than a few rookies who are actually good enough in year one. We love to to project all these prospects, but most do not reach their potential and those who do often take time. How many gameday roster spots can a contender devote to guys still early in their development to becoming good NFL players?

  35. hawkfaninMT says:

    Rob if you have a moment…

    Could you give your brief thoughts on Marcus Hardison and Henry Anderson? I feel like these guys could partner with Hill to become our DL of the future. Where in the draft do you see them going? If we got the two of them with 2 of our Top 4 picks I would be ecstatic.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Anderson terrific run defender, just really solid and doesn’t get moved around. Great length. I’m a big fan. Not a flashy player but the type an AFC North team builds its foundation around. Hardison has a lot of potential. You can tell he’s a DE working inside and trying to adapt but he also has that plus athleticism for an interior lineman. Like the way he times the snap and gets off the line. He isn’t a natural though — and he lacks the firm base to be an every down DT at this point. Look at the lower body of Malcom Brown vs Hardison. I like Anderson late second or third round. Hardison third round.

  36. Trevor says:

    Here is my draft wish list. Any of these players I believe have a chance to make roster and help improve team.

    Offense (5 picks + Jimmy Graham)
    WR/KR – Montgomery, Mcbride, Lockette, Bell
    WR -DGB, Conely, Waller , Lewis, Smelter
    OT – D Smith, R Crisp, Gibson
    Guard- Marpet, Poole, Morse, Glowinski
    Center – Grassu, Galik, Monson

    Defense (6 picks unless we trade up)
    DT – Covington, Jarret, Sokoli, T Slater
    DE- Frank Clark, H Anderson, P Smith, D Irving
    LEO- Shaq Riddick (my must have pick) D Hunter,
    CB- Lippet, Marshall, Nelson, Swaggy, T Walker
    Safety- Randall, Tartt,Shaw, Ike O, Durrant

    • CC says:

      Nice work Trevor – I really would be happy with any combination of those players.

      I see at least 3 OL; 2 WR; 1 DT; 1 DE/Leo; 2 DBs either corner or safety; 1 LB – with the 1 remaining pick a toss up somewhere on the D side.

    • Ho Lee Chit says:

      Nice work. I would add Ronald Darby to your list of CB’s.

      • Trevor says:

        Agreed Darby would be a great addition to the LOB and a little different physically than most of th guys we have.

  37. hawkfaninMT says:

    This is from a Q and A with Sambrailo through the Seattle PI:

    P-I: How did you feel the visit with Seattle went? Were you able to show off that versatility?

    Sambrailo: Yeah, I think it went really well. I had a workout with Pat Ruel, the assistant offensive line coach. I thought I did really well and showed off athleticism and flexibility and versatility overall to play left, right and center if I need to.

    Anyone find it telling that Cable was not there? I do not know if we should read in to it that maybe Cable is not as interested? Or maybe he was traveling to somewhere like FSU for their Pro Day that day?

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      I caught that too. But I wouldn’t read much into it. There are more reasons for why Cable would be elsewhere than we need to explain it away as nothing at all.

      • Matt says:

        It’s strange that Cable wasn’t there for Sambraillo’s visit. Who knows what that means exactly, but I was a bit alarmed upon reading that too.

        • Rob Staton says:

          The visits are mostly to see how a players personality meshes with the staff etc. I wouldn’t read too much into it. Cable probably doesn’t need to see him up close to know whether he likes him or not.

  38. Madmark says:

    This is a really good draft to stock up both the OL and DL with younger players that have talent and won’t cost us an arm and a leg.
    63 Tyler Lockett WR/PR/KR: Don’t every think field position isn’t important.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/tyler-lockett?id=2552430
    95 Mitch Morse C/G: Might seem a reach here but there are 9 teams looking for centers. Cable guy.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/mitch-morse?id=2552668
    112 Marcus Hardison 3-tech: You can’t ever have enough pass rush.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/marcus-hardison?id=2552672
    130 Tyler Davidson 1-tech: more pass rush
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/tyeler-davison?id=2552329
    134 Sequen Golson CB: I watched this guy and I liked him enough that I reached a little.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/senquez-golson?id=2552264
    167 Jarvis Harrison G/T: Cable will show his coaching skills with the dancing bear. a steal in the 5th.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/jarvis-harrison?id=2552341
    170 George Mancz C/G/T: He got skills to play all position like Paul McQuinston did for us.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/greg-mancz?id=2552244
    181 Alana Fua OLB/ST: Again more pass rush here
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/alani-fua?id=2552683
    209 Rob Crisp T: This would be another steal at the end of the 6th.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/rob-crisp?id=2552664
    214 Thomas Rawl RB: Ran much better on his pro day.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/thomas-rawls?id=2552648
    248 Shaquille Riddick Leo/OLB: Probably won’t be here but he’s a project for pass rush again.
    http://www.nfl.com/draft/2015/profiles/shaquille-riddick?id=2552584
    all our picks are more like early picks in the next round except 112 and 181.

    • Madmark says:

      I forgot to add Jimmy Graham to the tall WR list. Technically I have spent my first 2 picks on offense. Specifically devoted to the pass catching game and special teams. I think that’s 2 roster spots fill for sure.

  39. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    A couple of days ago V12 mentioned SEA scouts worked out SFU WR Lemar Durant 6’2″ 227. I think the only other football team in attendance were the CFL BC Lions.

    If you have 6 mins to spare, take a look at his highlight reel. I understand he’s playing against a low level of competition, but the following plays show he has traits that aren’t dependent on caliber of competition. General football things like awareness, tenacity, athleticism, plus WR-specific stuff like natural route running, reliable hands, consistent high pointer (good timing), willing blocker.

    Plays @ 1:20 and 5:01 – shades of Beast Mode
    Plays @ 1:55, 2:29, 4:35 – great blocking and situational awareness
    Play @ 2:20 – tough traffic catch at the goal line
    Plays @ 2:48, 5:48, 5:58 – great instinct/timing on high point catches
    Plays @ 2:48, 5:25 – YAC
    Play @ 3:46 – break away speed after the catch
    Play @ 4:18 – perfect red zone fade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXQRHMpeIls

    Durant looks like a more athletic Norwood, with great instincts for football and the position. What a great Day 3/UDFA prospect.

    • Steele1324 says:

      Durant looks fine. He runs a 4.5, not blazing. Do we need something better than a “more athletic Norwood”?

      What’s interesting is that the Hawks spent two hours working on Durant:

      http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Ullrich+Lemar+Durant+draft+prospects+boosts+profile/10965119/story.html

      There are so many unknown talents in UDFA that it is possible to meet all of the needs down there, if scouting is great.

      • Steele1324 says:

        “A more athletic Norwood”.

        To me, that is what Tre McBride looks like. Durant as well.

        Maybe that is why I am mildly underwhelmed at the idea of McBride.

        • Steele1324 says:

          Actually there are a lot of “more athletic Norwoods” and “more athletic Baldwins”. McBride, Rashad Greene, Stefon Diggs, Chris Harper, Titus Davis, Lockett, etc. I love Kenny Bell, but him, too.

          They are guys who make very good NFL #2s with primarily y and z roles. Hard to be excited about #2s, 3s, etc.

          • CHawk Talker Eric says:

            Harder to be excited about a #1 that SEA has no chance of drafting. One possible exception being DGB.

      • CHawk Talker Eric says:

        At some point you have to stop staring at the stopwatch and start watching the player. Look for natural instincts. When a play breaks down, does he find a way to still make an impact? Does he have an instinct for timing his jump so he catches at the high point? Can he pull away from a defender in the open field? Does he have the hands and concentration to catch in traffic? Does he refuse to go down, and fight for every yard?

        A 6 min highlight reel won’t ensure that’s the player you’re getting in Durant. But how much of a guarantee do you expect from a Day 3/UDFA?

  40. Steele1324 says:

    Two late round guys that I suspect the Hawks will go for:

    DT/DE David Irving is an absolute beast. 6-7, huge wingspan
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoI52N6MPFM
    He plays inside, but I easily see him outside. Was kicked off the team for 2014, arrests, etc. Otherwise, I think he would be a high pick. Now, looks like a rd. 5 or so.

    DE/OLB Josh Shirley. A pass rush phenom as a Wash. freshmen, then fell off the map. Something tells me that PC would know, given local proximity.

    I hope I don’t jinx these by mentioning it!

    • CHawk Talker Eric says:

      Shirley is as close to a lock as you can get for a SEA pick in this draft.

      The only LB-type that got personal attention from SEA.
      LB is a low-need position group, but that doesn’t mean they should ignore it entirely.
      Shirley has some traits that SEA really likes.
      He’s a journeyman collegiate athlete, which will turn off some teams. He should be available on Day 3.

    • Robert says:

      He knows…off they played football in China, JS would have a scout with a tablet hiding in a bowl of rice!

  41. Madmark says:

    The offensive line. We spent the 1st 2 draft picks what picks will you need Tom. Tom smiles and says, I won’t lie to you we have some needs since I’ve lost 4 guys this year. I’ll take the 3rd(95),2-5th(167 and 170) and a the 7th comp pick(209). I could see Cable working his magic. The starting OL could go as Okung, Harrison, Morse, Sweezy, and Britt. Bailey, Gillian, Mancz, and Crisp. Jarvis Harrison, the dancing bear, Will be my sleeper in this draft. Put him next to Morse, could be they get hooked into the weight room. Shed about 5lbs and this guy would be a monster. He also has tackle experience if necessary in a pinch. Mancz is that Cable blue collar worker. He has skills, plays all the positions but needs to join Morse and Harrison in the weight room. To get Rob Crisp with 6th comp would be a steal.

    • Ho Lee Chit says:

      Tom scowls and says, “I am the Assistant Head Coach around here! Why the heck did you use that 2nd round pick without asking me? I am going to kick your A##.”

      • Madmark says:

        Tom gets 4 guys and proves he can work miracles. I’m pretty sure Morse would be the center and Harrison is the left guard. Cable will make sure the dancing bear understand that football and not basketball is going to be his job in making M O N E Y.

  42. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    GM Steve Keim on weighing off-field issues for prospects: “If Hannibal Lecter ran a 4.3, we’d probably diagnose it as an eating disorder.”

    Ain’t that the truth

  43. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    Hardy suspended for 10 games this year. Very glad SEA didn’t reach for him.

    • David says:

      yeah and unless he has a successful appeal he wont play against the hawks which is nice. hes super talented so im happy we wont see him when we play. just hope this suspension can stir him towards a brighter future (i.e Kevin Williams, Tony McDaniel)