If a quarterback gamble is inevitable, why wait?

February 19th, 2011 | Written by Rob Staton

The Rams' shot at Sam Bradford coincided with becoming the NFL's worst team

Every single year we hear it. “This isn’t a good year for quarterbacks.”

It’s usually paired with the assumption that next year’s class will be better. I haven’t followed a draft where I haven’t seen or heard this opinion somewhere.

Last year’s class of quarterbacks was perceived as a poor one because the depth wasn’t good after the top talent - Sam Bradford – left the board. In 2011 it’s a supposed weak group because there’s plenty of depth, just not a bona fide #1 pick like the one selected by St. Louis.

I understand why the ’weak class’ argument is made annually because whether you’re a fan or a pundit, everyone appreciates the importance of the position. Ideally you not only want someone who can win you football games, he also has to have good technique and all the off the field intangibles. He will be the face and identity of the franchise. People want their QB’s to be more like Peyton Manning than Ben Roethlisberger, even though the latter has two Super Bowl rings.

It’s easy to get behind drafting a Sam Bradford type quarterback. He says all the right things during interview - the answers are pretty dull, but that’s ok. He’s a student of the game who you just know spends hours watching tape while the rest of his teammates are winding down. He’s in the facility almost as long as the coaches, if not longer.

On the field he’s a pure talent with everything you look for – accuracy, a capable if not elite arm and he makes good decisions. It’s easy to assume that at some stage in his career he’ll win a Super Bowl for St. Louis, or that they will at least contend for one.

The problem is, prospects like that are always destined to go first overall unless the team making the pick already has a legitimate starting quarterback.

If he’s the one defining quarterback prospect in the draft does it make it a weak class? Not for the team picking first overall. The team’s who may need a quarterback in the 2-32 range however have cause for complaint. In that sense 2011 is a better year for those teams because there are four potential first round prospects – Cam Newton, Blaine Gabbert, Ryan Mallett and Jake Locker.

None are as highly rated as Bradford, but certainly all have reason to be drafted in the first 32 selections.

Seattle finds itself in a unique position because they are a team that would be picking much higher but for a history making 7-9 playoff appearance. In reality you will never find a Sam Bradford type quarterback with the #25 pick. Last year Tim Tebow was taken with the very same selection by the Denver Broncos. He was far from a flawless player and clearly the Broncos (or at least Josh McDaniels) bought into the ‘Tebow factor’ and hoped his driven determination to improve would solve some of his technical problems.

That’s the type of gamble that presents itself when picking a QB late in round one.

The fact there isn’t a Sam Bradford type quarterback this year is irrelevant to the Seahawks because they don’t pick high enough to wonder whether they’ll have a chance to draft them. On the other hand, the depth at the position offers at least the option to solve the team’s biggest long term question mark even if they ultimately decide to pass.

Many will consider the prospect of drafting a guy like Ryan Mallett as unfavorable. He doesn’t come across even half as well as Sam Bradford does and the negative euphoria surrounding him these last few weeks may leave permanent damage to his stock.

No doubt people will say, “wait till next year.” I’m not a fan of that line of thinking.

Clearly the team should not feel forced to draft ‘any’ long term option at quarterback. The Seahawks aren’t going to plough in carelessly ready to make a colossal gaffe on a player they aren’t fully convinced with. Neither will they be entertaining thoughts of next year in their decision whatever it may be.

The Seahawks’ intentions must be to select in the 20′s or 30′s every year. If they do so, it will mean the team has qualified for the post season year after year. In order to achieve that they will have to address the long term future at quarterback – a situation of great urgency now that Matt Hasselbeck is a free agent-in-waiting and will turn 36 in September.

We can look ahead to next year and acknowledge the possibility of both Andrew Luck (Stanford) and Matt Barkley (USC) declaring. We can also anticipate that both will be top 5-10 picks with Luck almost certainly the #1 choice.

Seattle would have to be a 0-3 win team to have a shot at Luck and maybe also Barkley. Considering they play in the weak NFC West I’m not entirely sure that’s even possible. It was quite some achievement for St. Louis to be bad enough in this division to select first overall – something the Seahawks should strive to avoid even if the prize is a shot at Luck.

You end up coming back to a guy like Mallett, because that’s the type of player we’ll be discussing if Seattle succesfully maintains their place atop the NFC West rankings. He doesn’t have all the intangibles you look for, but he’s still clearly a talented quarterback.

Mallett’s football IQ is among the best I’ve scouted but it’s not often discussed simply because – to put it bluntly – he doesn’t come across in such a positive way with his body language and during interviews. Christian Ponder is established as a very bright and intelligent individual off the field and I’ve lost count how many times I’ve heard people credit Ponder’s game intelligence because of this fact. It’s a mistake because his decision making is often terrible and he’s much more erratic than Ryan Mallett.

For me the bigger gamble would be to draft Ponder any higher than round five and expect him to work out as a starter than it would be to take Mallett in round one and work on the ‘intangibles’.

While ever the Seahawks enjoy success (and even at 7-9, winning the division has to be classified as such) they will almost certainly have to ‘take a chance’ on a quarterback one day. That will be the case whether it’s Charlie Whitehurst, a round one pick, a mid/late rounder, a free agent or trade. They will not find a flawless diamond a la Bradford, Luck etc without experiencing one of the worst seasons in franchise history.

The argument of ‘waiting till next year’ can only be classified as an admittance that the team cannot hope to achieve the status of picking in the 20′s again. The same problems will exist next year, only Hasselbeck will be a year older and it’s not obvious we’ll see the same level of depth at the position.

Taking a chance on someone might be inevitable. So why wait?

29 Responses to “If a quarterback gamble is inevitable, why wait?”

  1. Joe McKenna says:

    Why wait? Because the Seahawks already spent a 3rd round pick in this draft for a QB on whom they want to take a chance. Matthew just needs a decent line (and associated running game) and he can still be very good for 3 more years. This year is not the year for the Hawks to take a QB. They should develop Whitehurst as much as possible, and look for a day two QB next year (maybe Kellen Moore).

    Oh, BTW, I totally disagree with your assessment of Mallett – I don’t see why people call him accurate, yet question Locker’s accuracy. Locker is inconsistent, and I see the same inconsistency in Mallett’s ‘accuracy’. I don’t think Mallett makes good decisions as if he is a QB savant … and that despite having a great O-line, a defense that gave them the lead, a scary threat of a running game and some very good receivers. I would take Ponder in the 2nd and wouldn’t touch Mallett until the 5th. However, I thik the Hawks should work on their real deficiencies before taking a luxury pick at QB – esp. when they already invested in that position in this draft.

    • Rob says:

      Hi Joe, I appreciate your views (and welcome them) but disagree strongly with everything you say.

      The Seahawks spent a 3rd rounder on a QB this year, but they also never felt confident enough to start Whitehurst last year. We’re not talking about a young pup here, this is a guy approaching 30. Whatever people’s opinions on Matt Hasselbeck are, there were times last year when benching him for Whitehurst would not have been a shocking turn of events. They never pulled the trigger.

      I don’t agree that Hasselbeck can play for three more years. If he starts in 2011 then he’ll almost certainly be the oldest starting QB in the NFL. To project him starting at all as a 39 year old is unfathomable to me.

      Kellen Moore will not be a day two quarterback next year. He’s an UDFA who might find a home in round seven.

      Jake Locker had a 55% completion rate last year as a four year starter. Mallett was at 65% as a second year starter in the SEC. Those numbers alone show the gulf in accuracy. When you break down the tape there is a significant difference between the two when it comes to accuracy.

      To suggest Mallett is no more than a 5th round talent and Ponder would be a viable option in round two – I can’t understand that line of thinking. But to describe a quarterback as a luxury pick is really an incredible statement. Clearly the Seahawks must find their long term option at QB. The pick spent on Whitehurst is irrelevant – when Green Bay were still starting Brett Favre and had Aaron Rodgers (1st rounder) on the bench, it didnt stop them spending a second round pick on Brian Brohm and then later bringing in Matt Flynn. If they have the flexibility to draft like that, Seattle certainly has now that Whitehurst is on the roster yet not even tied to the team beyond 2011.

      • Bruce says:

        I dont see why people complain about Whitehurst, or wasting a pick on him. He has never really been givin a chance yet. A third round pick is a mid rounder, not 2 first rounders that other teams have givin up for a QB. Matt just plain out worked Charley in competition . If ComPete Carroll stated Whitehurst the team would lose respect for Carroll when Matt competed hard and won the job. Not to say Charley cant be a starter in the nfl. The hawks got a guy no one is talking about from SF Nate Davis. Maybe some one can look at his film and see if you see what i see in him. If you dont bring Matt back I would develope Nate behind Whitehurst and see what you have. I would not draft a QB but beef up both lines. Locleer was a revolving door at right tackle. And at gaurd i dont see what people like in Unger has he done anything?? Do book end offensive tackles and draft a good offensive gaurd. They need depth in the defensive line. Before injurys Iwas really impressed how good the defensive line came together.

        • Rob says:

          Not many people do complain about Whitehurst. However, he’s on a one year deal now. If he doesnt start next year – when does he?

          As for Nate Davis, we need to limit expectations there. He might not make it past camp. We’re looking at a guy who was drafted by a member of the Niners front office who now works in Seattle. If he was that great a prospect, he would’ve been on San Francisco’s roster because their QB situation was a mess. Doesn’t mean he won’t work out in Seattle, but it seems to be a long shot.

        • darnell says:

          I’m not sure I would consider Locklear a “revolving door” at RT. Including the playoffs he only gave up 5 sacks, not a bad total. Its his untimely penalties and shoddy runblocking which make him replaceable and an upgrade desirable.

    • Alex says:

      QB is definitely not a luxury pick. It’s a need and an immediate one. Regardless of how you feel about Hasselbeck, you still need time to groom the next QB. It’s unrealistic to expect a rookie to come in to make an immediate impact.

      Even the oh-so-holy Sam Bradford wasn’t as great as he was made out to be. First. his offensive line is acceptable, he has GREAT running support, a workable defense, and Joe Theismann once noted that over 90% of his passes were short 1-2 read throws. Truth is, most young QB need time.

      As for charlie whitehurst. I simply viewed it as a dip. Some complain about how we just threw away our 3rd rounder this year for a backup, but I view it differently. I see it as a 3rd round for a chance at someone potentially good. That’s why he got 2 years instead of 4 or 5 years. If he works out and could be a very good QB, then extend him. If not, then oh well. It’s a 3rd rounder. At least, there is the attempt to find a good QB.

      Ponder is not worth a 2nd round pick if for no reason for his A) durability and B) arm strength. I will be the first to tell you that arm strength isn’t everything. You don’t need a Terry Bradshaw, Brett Favre, or Dan Marino arm. You just need sufficient arm strength to make all the throws like a Joe Montana or Drew Brees. However, it’s quite another thing to have a QB that is NOT able to make the required throws like a Jimmy Clausen or Christian Ponder. Jimmy Clausen for example is sufficient to make the short and intermediate, but is unable to arc his long throws (it SINKS at a point). Ponder has trouble with the long throws and even his short passes are greatly inconsistent with insufficient zip (from point A to point B) that the WR would already be downed in the NFL.

      Alex

      • darnell says:

        Agreed about Charlie Whitehurst. And it’s a late 3rd-rounder too now, coincedentally thanks to a game he won. That late 3rd really is only a handful of spots ahead of the 4th rounder we got from the Pats. And it could be argued that we might have taken Golden Tate at 40 even though we got him at 60.

  2. Chavac says:

    I think with four first round caliber guys this is the best draft in a long time in terms of QBs, and even after the first you have guys with starter upside. As you point out, there’s no “can’t miss” prospect at QB (has there ever really been?), but I think it’s inevitable that at least one of these guys turns into a beast a few years from now. The best part for us is that any of the top five QBs in this draft could be that guy. And with all the d-line talent clogging the top 10 picks, someone “should” end up taking an Aaron Rodgers fall to us.

    On a side note, despite the obvious blow to our draft from beating NO, one of the upsides is that clipboard jesus only ended up costing a late 3rd. To me that makes it seem like not such a big loss.

  3. tom page says:

    Why wait? Because the players available aren’t worth the pick. QB’s are always overvalued, they usually are drafted higher than their talent warrants. Going into last year’s draft the top four QB’s with potential first round talent: Bradford, Clausen, Tebow, and McCoy. Clausen was supposed to be the most pro ready prospect. After watching him play last year, I wonder whether he will ever be starting caliber quarterback. We don’t know about Tebow because he didn’t play enough. McCoy seemed to show some potential to develop into a starting caliber quarterback. Even two years ago when Mark Sanchez went at #5 I think was a reach. The Jets have a good team which has masked Sanchez weaknesses. Mark Sanchez skill set reminds me of Rick Mirer. Reaching for a QB because it is a position of need usually doesn’t work out very well.

    • Curlin says:

      I think the point though is that this problem isn’t going to solve itself. QBs always get drafted a bit higher than their overall ability indicates … waiting won’t change that. Unless we have a 2-14 year and get the first pick we are probably going to have to settle for a slightly overdrafted QB with risk and hope it works out. In this particular case, at least the two guys who might be a possibility both have the upside of being an elite player, even if it comes with a little extra “bust” potential. I think if you go back over the past decade, all of the quarterbacks drafted outside of the top 5 or so carried a decent amount if risk in one form or another. Some have worked out (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Flacco to some degree), some have not. At some point we have to at least try to solve the problem though, or we’ll just be resigning ourselves to mediocity (albiet in a worse than mediocre division).

    • Rob says:

      Hi Tom,

      I’m not sure about other people, but I never graded Clausen, Tebow or McCoy in round one. I always had Clausen as a R2 prospect and the archived evidence is there (googe: The Jimmy Clausen debate). Tebow I had as a R2-3 QB prospect and McCoy in the R5-6 range. This year I have Newton, Gabbert and Mallett with first round grades and Locker in R2. Overall it’s a better class and any of those four at #25 wouldn’t be a reach.

    • Alex says:

      No, you clearly didn’t follow the draft very closely last year. Yes, there were the Big 4 of last year, but only 2 were rated in the 1st round by most mocks (Bradford and Clausen) and Tebow and Colt McCoy were actually rated in the late 2nd to 3rd round by most drafts. Even then, as the actual draft proved, no one in the league actually rated Clausen in the 1st round, which this board and me (on a personal basis) rated as a 2nd rounder.
      If you want the actual briefs of the scouting report I gave (irrelevant to Rob’s scouting report)…

      Sam Bradford- great accuracy… about as good as it gets for a college prospect. Decent mobility. Great pocket awareness. Great mechanics. Great touch. Great intelligence. Arm strength average, but sufficient to make all the NFL throws. Concerns: Durability (not an issue now because he bulked up) and injury concerns. Lean frame and has been injured twice in college career. Spread/Shotgun formation. Questions about transition to pro-system. Overall grade- Top 10 pick. He was NOT my top pick. Suh was and if I had to choose between Suh and Bradford, I would have picked Suh because of major legitimate concerns about Bradford’s durability.

      Jimmy Clausen- Mobility-ok. Pocket awareness-above average. Good mechanics. Good touch. Accuracy average and the completion % are inflated as the ball placement was bad- WRs had to readjust. Experience in pro-system. Concerns- slightly below body size. Arm strength-below average and an issue for the vertical pass as it sinks like a bomb. Character concerns. Overall grade- early to mid 2nd round.

      Tim Tebow and Colt McCoy are rather self evident. The main player I was arguing about was Clausen as he was clearly overrated. In sum, one early to mid 1st rounder, 1 2nd rounder, 2 3rd rounders. I was in favor of passing on QB last year because it WAS a bad class.

      By comparison, two years ago, the prospects were considerably better. Matthew Stafford was a top 5 pick. Mark Sanchez was a top 10 pick. Josh Freeman was a late 1st and early 2nd in my grades. Overall, everything happened like it should in the relative sense.

      As for Mark Sanchez. I agree Mark Sanchez hasn’t matched my expectation and grade ( top 10 pick) in the regular season, but he is quite another QB in the playoffs when he turns up his several notches. I see that as potential. If you can get it done in the playoffs against superior opponents, then it’s only a matter of time because you get it all together in the regular season where the opponents are weaker.

      This year, there are at up to 4 QBs that are worth a 1st round pick. Even Jake Locker is at worst an early 2nd round. And it doesn’t end there. The depth in the 3rd-5th round pick are also considerably better than in the past. Colin K, Pat Devlin, Andy Dalton, Christian Ponder, Ricky Stanzi are all superior depth in the middle-late round prospects than in the past. If anything, this is a STRONG year depth wise for QB. The only reason there is the perception that it’s a weak class is because there isn’t a clear cut #1. Well, if Luck had came out this year, then what would this QB draft have been? The best since the 83 draft? I frankly don’t remember a draft in the last decade that has the depth that this draft has in the QB position. If anything, I argue that this draft is superior to last year and next year’s draft for the QB position because you’ll have one top 5 pick and then… no one else.

      Alex

  4. FWBrodie says:

    What a well-thought-out, logical piece. Some really great points. Every year it’s “wait until next year when the QB class is projected to be better”, wait for Sam Bradford, wait for Jake Locker, wait for Andrew Luck, squeeze the last couple drops out of Hasselbeck’s crashing ability before we take a risk like that.

    Enough.

  5. Al U says:

    If no CBA has been, or looks like being, agreed by the time the draft rolls around do you see it being much more difficult for the Seahawks to address the QB position? Most mocks seem to predict the likes of Cincinnati, Arizona and San Francisco drafting other positions, implying that their QB needs will be addressed in free agency. Have you considered posting a mock for a scenario where there will be no free agency?

    • Rob says:

      Hi Al U,

      I think the mocks so far have considered that. Three of the top four quarterbacks go in the top ten, it’s only Mallett that falls and I’ve had him in the first round before. When I mock CIncy, Arizona and San Fran going in different directions, it’s not based on a free agency problem solver more considering that the options don’t fit. It’s not impossible, but I don’t expect every team that needs a QB to grab one at the earliest opportunity just because the FA period remains a mystery. Having said that, there’s a very real possibility all four of the best QB’s go early, which increases the chances of another prospect falling to the Seahawks.

  6. Sea-Town says:

    Why wait? Simple. Just because a guy is considered a first round prospect doesn’t mean he is a first round talent. Teams get in trouble when they reach for a perceived need. Now do the Hawks need a QB? Hell yes. Whitehurst is clearly not the answer and Hass is at the end of the road. The problem with taking one of these QBs is that most of them have never payed under center, nor with a FB lined up behind them. Most QBs from spread offenses (sans Bradford) take time to develop. So if the Hawks reach for a spread QB just to fill a need, they are getting a guy who will needs lots of time to get ready and with the uncertainty of the labor situation, the Hawks would be potentially taking a guy who will be behind the 8 ball from the start and will most likely not contribute for 2 years, if at all. This draft is deep at DL and OL boith major need areas as well. The Hawks would be much better served to draft say a bookend RT or DE/DT and then look for a QB in rds 4-7.

    • Rob says:

      The point I tried to make Sea-Town is that if the Seahawks continue to pick in the 20′s or 30′s (which has to be the aim) the team will only ever face the same questions every year. I’m not arguing any old QB should be drafted, but at the same time I think we have to appreciate that a quarterback tagged to go in that range won’t be of the Sam Bradford/Andrew Luck standard. Ryan Mallett could very easily be available at #25 and he has a lot of positive qualities. A lot of people would still see the team pass (and I have seen this case made) because next year, Luck and Barkley may be available. The team will have to be very poor to have a chance at either and there may not be an alternative option if the team finds itself picking outside of the top-5/10.

      Mallett is more than just a spread offense type QB. His offense incoporates some spread methods, but he does take snaps under center and he is tasked with making more than 1-2 reads, making audibles and running his offense.

      • Sea-Town says:

        Honestly, I am not against the Hawks taking Mallett. I just think there are other need areas that can be addressed with players who have a better chance of actually contributing next year. The Hawks picking #25 this year is the biggest fluke. Realistically this team should be picking in the top 10 and, quite frankly, they should be picking in the top 10 next year as well. The Rams, with a more productive Bradford and defense will pass the Hawks and the 49ers, with better coaching and better QB play, will pass the Hawks as well. The Hawks schedule looks brutal on paper right now, so a top 5 or 10 pick could be reality. This team has so many holes to fill (OL, QB, DL, Secondary) that, in my humble opinion, it would be better to take a player that has a real chance of contirubuting and then rolling the dice in the later rounds on a QB and then next year if they are in the top 10, go all out for Luck/Barkley.

        • Rob says:

          But the team can’t plan like that. They can’t assume a bad year next year or an improvement from the Rams. Even if the Seahawks won four games they might pick 3rd or 4th overall and still not get a shot at Luck or Barkley. What if the teams won’t trade down and would rather take the two highly rated QB’s? What if Barkley stays at USC? These are all things we can’t answer this year yet we’re willing to let it impact our draft board?

          And if we take a player with a greater chance of contributing and go 8-8 or 9-7 and win the west because they help significantly improve an area of the team – we won’t be picking early. This is the point of the article really – we can’t look at next year as always being the best year to draft a QB. One day we’ll have to pull the trigger on someone and it might be a guy like Ryan Mallett. I’m not saying draft at all costs regardless of who’s on the board, but waiting is only an option for me if you either don’t rate Mallett or if a player suffers an unexpected drop.

        • Alex says:

          There is no guarantee that Barkley is coming out next year. People assumed last year that Andrew Luck was coming out this year and guess what? Even as the clear cut favorite #1 pick, he still went back.

          If anything, Barkley is MORE likely to return because his 4th year is the year that the bowl bans are lifted. After Luck, the depth next year in the QB position is weak.

        • FWBrodie says:

          Next year? The Seahawks are not in a position to be choosing their first round pick based on how he will contribute next season. Not even close.

  7. schnrb02 says:

    I do not think the Seahawks will take a shot at a QB with the 25th pick. So if they cannot trade up for Newton, Gabbert, or Locker then maybe they could trade the pick for early picks in rounds 2 and 3. Then maybe they could select Christian Ponder (QB Flordia St) in round 2 and maybe Jurrell Casey (DT USC) in round 3 if everything goes right. I’m not looking into this to much, just a thought for the upcoming draft. Go Hawks!

  8. Kyle says:

    I like Mallett a lot. The complaints against him are ephemeral, but his positives are all measurable, with a demonstrated track record as added evidence. I also like Locker enough to take him as some mock drafts suggest. The problem is that I see all of the big 4 gone by pick 20. Long gone. Mocks are one thing, front office needs another. Who wants to be the guy who passes on a Pro Bowler when you have a hole at QB? All of the big 4 have that potential.

    So given that, do you wait to the late second to see if Kaepernick is there, or jump on him in the first? In the second you could grab Dalton, who I think has a lot of upside. And Enderle or Stanzi are reasonable in the fourth, and offer more potential than many give them credit for. There is a LOT of depth in this class. The question we can’t answer is who the Hawks front office likes the most, what their board says.

    Rob, I like your site a lot. I have to note that when you post on .net you can be a real jerk, and most of your comments are wasted on me, but when you get to run your own show a different side of you comes out. Well done.

    • Rob says:

      Thanks for the kind words about the blog Kyle. I welcome honesty so I am sorry you feel that in other cases I have been a jerk, obviously that was not my intention.

      • Kyle says:

        It may be due to the nature of the .net message board, where there’s not a lot of space and so comments may be misunderstood. I apologize if I was overly blunt here. Thanks again.

  9. Brian says:

    There is no question that a non-top 10 QB will have at least one serious flaw. (Many top 10 QB’s do as well.) The question for me is “what kind of red flag should make us pass on a prospect, and what kind of red flag is an acceptable risk?”

    If it’s true that Ryan Mallet does cocaine, drinks and drives, “aggressively” pursues women, and is more interested in partying than working on his development as a QB, does that override his potential as a QB at the NFL level? Is it worth drafting someone who will very possibly turn out to be the next Ryan Leaf over someone else at another position who will likely be more productive?

    On the flip side of the coin, does the fact that Jake Locker appears to have insufficient accuracy for a starting NFL QB outweigh the attraction of his personal character?

    I think both Ryan Mallet and Jake Locker have bigger or more serious red flags than Drew Brees did in the year he was drafted in the second round. I would much rather draft someone whose red flag was “not tall enough” or “doesn’t have good mechanics.” But that’s just me.

    If I’m being honest, I also have to admit that a part of my distaste for drafting Mallet stems from the fact that I simply don’t want to have to root for him. I can’t imagine being a Steelers fan, for example, and having to choose between rooting for Ben Roethlisberger to win or for my favorite team to lose.

  10. Jim Q. says:

    I agree, if QB is the number one most important position, there is no doubt that the Seahawks MUST draft a good QB prospect sooner rather than later, so why wait is an excellent question. I don’t think there is much QB help by trade or FA as many that could be available are available because they are not worth signing, are near the end of their careers or they are average to sub-par players and/or they cost too much in trade and/or money.

    I think a lot of people are of the opinion (rightfully so) that the Seahawks need to draft OL, DL, DB, etc., and they do, however they do have more than just a first round draft pick to accomplish that so why not get the number one most important need and then subsequently pick BPA for the other needs and perhaps fill a hole or two through free agency? Sounds like a plan to me, but what are JS/PC thinking?
    Guess we’ll find out before long……………

  11. Jim Kelly says:

    As for the importance of drafting positions, I think the following is the blueprint for their order:
    Offensive line
    Defensive line
    Cornerback
    Running back
    Linebacker
    Safety
    Tight end
    Fullback
    Wide receiver
    Special teams

    This year I think the Seahawks should draft in this order of importance:
    Defensive line
    Offensive line
    Cornerback
    Safety
    Linebacker
    Running back
    Wide receiver
    Tight end
    Fullback
    Special teams

    I always feel that running back and linebacker should be drafted for depth and special teams. Even though the Hawks need receiver help, rookie receivers hardly ever produce, and you’re just as likely to find a star receiver in the later rounds as in the first round (And as much as it pains a former receiver to say this, the position is more an accessory, than a requirement for success.). Special teams performers can be found late in the draft, or as undrafted free agents.

    I didn’t include quarterbacks because qbs are wild cards. They are the most important position in sports, hands down. (Pele was the greatest soccer player ever, and he had only two championships. Michael Jordan never won a championship until he had at least two other all-stars on the Bulls. Felix Hernandez didn’t win the World Series last year with the M’s. Wayne Gretzky never won a Stanley Cup without Mark Messier.) If you get a chance to draft a franchise qb, or even an upgrade at qb, you should do it. With the introduction of the T formation, the qb became more important than any other position. With the exception of the center, no one touches the ball as much as the qb. The most important aspect of the qb isn’t that he gets so many touches, but that he directs where the ball goes. That puts the onus of drafting a qb in a different category of importance.

    Rob, I like how you change your mocks. If you did minor tweaks, then they’d be boring, and we’d probably not visit your site as often. But because you change it, I keep thinking how those change would affect the Hawks in the upcoming season, and the future. Good job, thanks, and have fun.