Possible Seahawks draft targets in rounds 1-7

March 13th, 2016 | Written by Rob Staton

It almost feels inevitable that Missouri’s Connor McGovern will be drafted by the Seahawks

What seems likely at #26?
Even if the Seahawks re-sign Russell Okung, all signs continue to point to the offensive line. It was Seattle’s greatest need coming into the off-season. The only moves they’ve made in free agency so far are to watch J.R. Sweezy and Alvin Bailey walk out the door.

There are two possible scenarios:

1. The Seahawks sign Okung, Kelvin Beachum or Donald Penn on a short term contract and draft an offensive lineman at #26. That player competes to start at left guard in 2016 with the option to move back to tackle in the future.

2. The Seahawks fail to sign a veteran left tackle and are forced to move Garry Gilliam to the blindside. The rookie in this case starts at right tackle.

There’s sufficient depth on the defensive line to fill that need later. As we’ve discussed many times over the last few weeks — there are basically five realistic options at offensive tackle and then that’s your lot. Laremy Tunsil, Ronnie Stanley and Jack Conklin will not reach #26. Taylor Decker, Germain Ifedi, Jason Spriggs, Le’Raven Clark and Shon Coleman could be available.

All five are capable of starting at left guard or right tackle.

Signing a veteran this week and investing a top pick in the O-line is the best way for the Seahawks to upgrade their #1 priority this off-season.

Of the quintet, Ifedi and Clark’s upside arguably gives them the edge on Seattle’s board.

What about at #56?
This is going to be a really interesting pick with many options available. We discussed the possibility of trading up on Friday. With two picks in the late third round, moving up ten spots to get an impact defensive lineman could be appealing. Florida’s Jonathan Bullard could be a target.

If they stay put — there are multiple options. They could still draft a defensive lineman (Kenny Clark?). They could take an athletic linebacker such as Travis Feeney (health permitting) or Josh Perry. They value the running game enough to target a running back here and Kenneth Dixon could be an option.

It could also be used to further bolster the O-line. The Seahawks doubled down on a similar need in 2011 using their first two picks on James Carpenter and John Moffitt. One of Seattle’s keys for each draft is to identify the range their guys will be available. That’s why they are often accused or ‘reaching’. They work out who they want and make sure they don’t miss out.

It’s why Pete Carroll can pretty much reveal every pick before the 2014 draft using a series of cryptic musical clues. When you hear them say, “We got two out of three players we really wanted” as they did a year ago — you know they spend a lot of time in the planning process working out how to get specific players.

If there’s a prospect they might ‘reach’ on a little bit — it could be Missouri offensive lineman Connor McGovern. He’s the SPARQ king on the O-line this year with experience at tackle. The Seahawks like their interior lineman to play tackle in college and they’re attracted to the way Mizzou coaches their unit.

Mitch Morse played left tackle for Missouri in 2014 and similarly excelled at the combine. He was the #49 pick in last years draft and played center for Kansas City. Don’t be surprised if the Seahawks see a bit of Morse in McGovern and draft him at #56 to play center in Seattle.

If they were to take Ifedi and McGovern with their first two picks — they’d be drafting two of the best athletes in this years class. According to SLA, Ifedi ranks in the 98th physical percentile among NFL offensive lineman and McGovern is in the 87th percentile. Both players almost feel destined to wear college navy.

An alternative to McGovern at center could be Michigan’s Graham Glasgow. He is almost identical physically to Max Unger and plays with the kind of edge the Seahawks are looking for. Arizona State’s Christian Westerman is another possibility.

What about the two picks in round three?
If they’ve taken two offensive lineman — this is probably the area where they look to the defense. Is Travis Feeney still available? He could be an ideal prospect to try and replace Bruce Irvin. Which defensive tackles are left on the board? Do any of the running backs appeal in this range — such as Notre Dame’s C.J. Prosise?

Michigan defensive tackle Willie Henry is very intriguing. He’s a run-stuffer plus. He’s not just a space eater but he plays with relative discipline and power. He can hold up against double teams and over time could develop into a long term replacement for Brandon Mebane.

Henry is close friends with Frank Clark. He could be off the board before Seattle’s pick in round three — but if he lasts he’s a strong option.

If they do go O-line with their first two picks — taking a pass-rusher of some description and a defensive tackle would appear to make sense in round three. There’s a dearth of pass-rushers so this might be difficult if Feeney is off the board. That might be why they met with Chris Clemons — and they might feel obliged to sign a veteran edge rusher when the left tackle situation is resolved.

South Carolina State’s Javon Hargrave has the athletic potential (4.93 forty, 34.5 inch vertical at 6-1, 309lbs) to interest the Seahawks in this range. He’s one of the better interior pass-rushers in this class.

Day three?
Despite re-signing Jeremy Lane, the Seahawks have consistently added to their pool of defensive backs. That could easily continue this year.

Colorado State’s DeAndre Elliott ticks all the boxes in terms of length, size and athleticism. Keep an eye on the cornerbacks visiting the VMAC over the next few weeks. The Seahawks consistently pick from this pool of players, several of which won’t have been invited to the combine.

If they haven’t taken a running back yet — round four could be their range. It’s where they selected Robert Turbin and the re-signing of Jermaine Kearse reduces the need for a high pick at receiver.

The only problem is — the talent pool isn’t great beyond the first few rounds. Arkansas’ Jonathan Williams might be an option here. It’ll be interesting to see what the Seahawks do in free agency. If they go into the draft without adding a veteran or two — this could be a much greater priority than round four.

D.J. Reader met with the Seahawks at the combine. He gets good publicity as part of the Clemson defense — but he’s generally been graded in the late rounds or even as an UDFA (by Tony Pauline). He’s a classic run-stuffer, two-down DT. The Seahawks can add to their depth up front by taking Reader later on. Whoever replaces Brandon Mebane — it’s likely to involve a competition involving veterans and rookies.

They might take another D-line conversion project for the offensive line. J.R. Sweezy was a seventh round pick and Kristjan Sokoli a sixth rounder. Michigan State’s Joel Heath could be primed for a similar switch and might be there in the sixth. He’s 6-5, 293lbs with 34.5 inch arms and he jumped 33 inches in the vertical. Ferris State’s Justin Zimmer is another possible project for the O-line.

As pointed out by regular contributor ‘Volume 12’ — the Seahawks took an interest in Oregon’s Alex Balducci at the Shrine Game. Seahawks coaches were also heavily involved in his pro-day workout recently. He could be another camp body for the D-line competition.

If they do consider a receiver — keep an eye on Marquez North for his athleticism and untapped potential plus California’s Kenny Lawler. While not an amazing athlete, Lawler is a touchdown machine with big hands and he high-points the football. He scored a touchdown every 5.3 receptions in college. Washington State’s Dom Williams could be another target.

Free agency latest
The Seahawks will meet with former Dallas running back Lance Dunbar according to Adam Caplan. Dunbar is an explosive player when healthy — he suffered a bad knee injury in 2015. He could be a useful third down option.

Sealver Siliga is also visiting Seattle. The Seahawks once traded for Siliga and he most recently played for the Patriots. They continue to look for depth and competition on the D-line after losing Brandon Mebane to San Diego.

Russell Okung has completed his meeting with the Steelers and seemingly has no further visits on his schedule despite some talk of a trip to Houston. Decision time appears to be looming. As Joel Corry points out — his recent tour of the east coast indicates nobody is willing to match his contract demands.

289 Responses to “Possible Seahawks draft targets in rounds 1-7”

  1. Darth12er says:

    Great read, props to Vol 12! I would love the first 2 picks to fall that way!

  2. Alaska Norm says:

    Rob- How far into the second would it be possible to trade into and still have a shot at one of the o-line quartet? Looking at a team like Dallas who could try and move back into the first to get a QB. Getting another pick in the 4th would be a great place to find a running back to provide competition for Rawls. Just wondering your thoughts on this or going for the top o-lineman available would be the smart move.

    • Rob Staton says:

      You might be able to trade into the early 30’s. There’s a chance Coleman and Clark might be there. I personally wouldn’t take the risk for another fourth round pick. I’d rather take the guy I want, not the guy who’s left.

      • Greg Haugsven says:

        I just want us to have a day 1 pick. Wait all this time and we don’t get any of the fun on Thursday

      • SeventiesHawksFan says:

        Agreed. If the guy they want is there and they can find a trade partner, then trade up and get him. This is one of those times it makes a lot of sense to do that. Especially if it’s a coachable special athlete who checks all their boxes.

    • LantermanC says:

      What about the opposite. If they just loved Conklin that much and he was available at 20, any chance we trade a 3rd or 4th to get him? I know we don’t trade up usually, but if the Seahawks grade Conklin that much higher than the other 3,and he’s available, why not?

    • kevin says:

      Would be a good trade. And I would love to pick a running back like Jonathan Williams in the 4th round. His foot injury may drop him this far and he would be a great fit for the seahawks,

  3. Greg Haugsven says:

    I would love getting a tackle to play left guard for a year or two and also draft a player to play center at 56. Then turn to the defense in round three. The longer we go it feels like Okung comes back. I hope it happens the way you just described.

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      Ifedi seems best suited to be the guy due to his size (320+) then either Martin, or the 2 guys you just talked about at center. Not sure Martin falls to 56 but we’ll find out.

      • Greg Haugsven says:

        Maybe look like this:

        2016: Okung, Ifedi, Lewis, Glowinski, Gilliam
        2017: Okung, Ifedi, Mcgovern, Glowinski, Gilliam
        2018: Gilliam, 2017 draft pick, Mcgovern, Glowinski, Ifedi

        • Greg Haugsven says:

          This would make Ifedi in 2016 the only rookie to start.

        • Rob Staton says:

          If they draft McGovern in round two — I think they’ll believe he can win a job in 2016 just like Mitch Morse.

          • Greg Haugsven says:

            It would be a competition for sure, but would we want 2 rookies playing right next to each other.

          • BrianH says:

            Do you think they were prefer to take someone who hasn’t been a center but is really athletic and move him? As opposed to taking Kelly in the 1st or Martin in the 2nd?

            • Rob Staton says:

              It depends. If Kelly was there in R2 he could be a good option for them — but doubt they go center in R1. Martin, as much as I like him personally, doesn’t seem to fit their profile for the O-line. McGovern’s fit is ideal for his physicality, tackle experience, athleticism, Missouri coaching — all things they love.

          • Madmark says:

            I like Connor McGovern at G or C spot was hoping he was going to sleep for a pick at 4th rd

            • RWIII says:

              Don’t count on McGovern lasting until the 4th round. Last year Mitch Morse was the 49th player taking in the entire draft.

        • SeventiesHawksFan says:

          This looks like a fabulous outcome. With lots of continuity and development time for both Gilliam and Ifedi to gain mastery before moving to more demanding positions. I like this scenario an awful lot. And it’s a very realistic timeline and scenario too.

  4. Coleslaw says:

    Su’a Cravens could be a target if we trade up from 56

  5. cha says:

    Did the Ohio State workouts change Braxton Miller’s stock much?

    I tend to agree with Rob’s posts about filling spots but Miller in the 2nd round would be enticing. He could get snaps as a RB as well as WR in year one in specific packages. His skill set is tantalizing.

    • Rob Staton says:

      On a fast track he ran a little bit faster. I really like Miller but don’t see the urgency to draft a developmental receiver in R2 given the serious needs elsewhere — especially since they re-signed Kearse.

      • cha says:

        Agree with you 100%, I just wonder if he’s one to keep an eye on as a Christine Michael-like ‘athleticism over need’ type round 2 pick.

        • Rob Staton says:

          I think in another draft he definitely would’ve been — although for the first time since 2012 the Seahawks are faced with some very serious needs which probably limits their ability to make another Christine Michael/Paul Richardson/Frank Clark style pick in round two.

      • RealRhino2 says:

        One of the guys in this draft I just wish we had a spot/need for who will likely be gone by the time I’d be willing to take him (meaning we’d already filled other more pressing needs). Heard some interviews with him and he really stood out as a guy we’d love to have in the locker room and on the field. At one point he even said “competition” was his middle name.

        As to the fast track, he said he’d been timing in the 4.4s in the 40 during all of his practice runs — and maybe even on the Indy field before the Combine — so I don’t think it’s just the different track. But that straight-line speed isn’t what you’re taking him for anyway, IMO.

  6. vrtkolman says:

    I’d be a big fan of picking up Seavler Siliga. He’s certainly one of those unheralded players on a sound Patriots defense.

  7. sdcoug says:

    Do we need to add Nick Vannet to the mid-round discussion? I guess a lot depends on how they feel about grahams recovery, but it seems like a lot of faith to think he will be the same player out of the gate next season. My guess is they would also like to have more of a dual-purpose option regardless

    • Rob Staton says:

      I don’t see TE being a target. They can roll with Willson and Heflet (as they did in 2014 to be fair) if Graham needs a bit of time. Chase Coffman could be in the mix too. Don’t see Vannett as particularly special.

      • sdcoug says:

        Interesting. I guess the problem, if that’s a fair word, is that none of those guys really offer much in the way of blocking, ala Miller. It’s easy to say they don’t care much for that, only to watch them repeatedly use Graham as a blocker or matched one-on-one with a DE…which predictably (to anyone other than the coaching staff) was a huge failure

        • Rob Staton says:

          Clearly they want the TE to block — but the offense was absolutely flying just before Graham’s injury and following his absence. There wasn’t really any point in the second half where a natural blocking TE was noticeably absent. In fairness to Vannett — he’s asked to block unlike many college TE’s these days, but you wouldn’t necessarily describe him as a blocking TE. I would expect Willson and players like Helfet and Coffman to pick up the slack if Graham can’t go.

          • sdcoug says:

            I do think a blocking TE would have been an asset against AZ, StL, Car… someone to effectively chip DEs and slip out as a safety valve

            • Rob Staton says:

              Willson can do that.

              • Coffman too. I recently re-watched the Cards game from week 17 to scout Glow (really high on him). Ended up falling for CMike and Coffman more too.

                Coffman can block. Dude was making solid blocks in both the run game and pass pro. He even had a goal line block that helped open a lane for the RB to score. Not to mention Pete and Russ rave about him after we got him, Pete say Russ instantly found him on the practice field, loved his catch radius, I believe Pete said he quickly picked up the offense, and we used him quite well in the passing game vs the Cards. A handful of passes (i believe 4 caught of 5 targets) and a TD specifically designed to him.

        • sdcoug says:

          Also, isn’t Clank Willson a FA next year? Is he a core guy, especially with Grahams big money on the books? Just my opinion, but especially with Grahams injury it seems this is the year to ‘plan ahead’ to avoid a possible scenario of ineffective Graham and FA willson. But perhaps there are too many needs elsewhere and as you said, they can get by with other options.

          • Rob Staton says:

            Willson is a FA — but I think they can let this play out until next year. It’s another horrendous class for TE’s and I doubt there’s anyone they really have to have from this 2016 group.

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      I like Vannett as well. Maybe 4th or 5th round target? Also sdcoug, the sounders 0-2 stinks.

  8. CA says:

    R1: ifedi or Coleman
    2: RB Booker Utah
    3: Dahl WSU
    3: DT
    4: Seattle type CB

    Then they fill in the blanks at LB, DE, Dom Williams, and another interior OL

  9. drewjov11 says:

    I will continue to bang the drum for Josh Garnett. He’s a natural guard who could seal that spot for a decade. He would outperform any tackle prospect we draft because he’s already a dominant guard, dominant LEFT guard with size, athleticism, and power to go along with smarts. Plus, he’s local. Put him in the mix with glowinsky and see hat happens. Cross train Britt to play center and make him the swing man. I like the idea of taking a center, but I feel like we can get one a little later.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m not against Garnett as a prospect — but the Seahawks haven’t generally taken pure guards to play LG. They’ve consistently drafted or signed tackle converts for that role.

      • drewjov11 says:

        moffit, glowinsky, those guys are pure guards. One was a busy and one is a pup. Carpenter was tried at tackle first. He had a bad knee and struggled with speed so they kicked him inside. Sweezy couldn’t pass block. It’s time to take a player who could legitimately be a plug and play guy who still has the measurables to be a beast.

        • bobbyk says:

          Glowinski was a tackle in college before he transferred to West Virginia.

          I do agree with taking a good LG like Garrett and simply letting him play there for perhaps 10 years. I understand the flexibility of taking a tackle with the idea he may be able to protect the blind side one day, but then it’s another year of major change on the OL (LG moving to LT).

          With some guys on the OL, I could care less that they can’t play somewhere else. I never hated Steve Hutchinson because he wasn’t a center or they didn’t think about moving him to the right side or wasn’t the primary back-up for Big Walt. He was a LG and that was it. And good at it. I’m fine with Garrett if he “only” becomes our LG for a long time.

          Heck, I don’t like Russell Wilson any less because he can’t play nose tackle, too. I don’t think you should care if all your starters aren’t versatile. If you draft a pure guard in round one and he’s good… I don’t care. That’s what your later round picks and cheap free agent acquisitions are for – playing multiple positions.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Moffitt and Glowinski didn’t/don’t play left guard.

          Gallery, Carpenter, Britt, Poole, Bailey…

          Consistently their LG’s have tackle experience.

          • drewjov11 says:

            I see your point, but maybe it’s time to admit that they haven’t had a ton of success with this template. Get a guard. Let the tackles play tackle. Many tackles are terrible in confined spaces and aren’t suited for the position. Garnett has the size and power to play left guard for the Seahawks. He played tackle in high school, if we really need to have that on the resume.

            • Rob Staton says:

              In fairness, it’s a template that helped this team go to back-to-back Super Bowls. The line plays was good enough in 2013-14.

              • drewjov11 says:

                True, but I feel like the line was nothing special. Russell running around for his life has been a common theme. Having lynch in the backfield certainly didn’t hurt. We can keep settling for average, or we can really add some tough, talented players who have the ability to perform. I hear what you’re saying, but the offensive line has not been superb by any means.

              • STTBM says:

                In fairness, the team went to back-to-back SB’s, but mostly despite the line, and not because of it. Winning a SB didnt make a sow’s ear into a silk purse. And it was the same template O-line that most definitely cost the team a chance at a third SB.

                In the NFL, change is constant. If you follow the same philosphy without adapting it somewhat year after year, teams will figure out how to beat it. You have to adapt. What was good enough in 2013 and almost enough in 2014 was far from enough in 2015.

                The same holds true across the board, not just on the O-line; for instance, Seattle went away from the 4-3 Under with a Leo when they cut Clemons and were unable to find a proper Leo, and they have adjusted their D-line and LB play each year. Part of this is out of necessity–and adjustment to maximize the talent they have, the expected scheme alterations due to Coaching turnover, etc–but part of those changes are that if you stay static in the NFL, you get beaten.

                Seattle appears to be changing their scheme a bit on defense, perhaps attemtping to go back to a more traditional Leo and 4-3 Under. Perhaps Clark losing weight is a part of that? If they have noticed that teams have figured out ways to handle their defensive schemes (and they have–Cover 3 was used less as last year went on), and have set about adjusting, why wouldnt they do the same on the O-line?

                It certainly couldnt hurt. Despite the great rushing numbers the last few years, Seattle’s line has graded out among the very bottom in actual blocking efficiency. They accomplished what they did on the backs of Houdini Wilson and Money Lynch. Drafting guys like Terry Poole ahead of others who started and played well for other teams (and ahead of Glowinsky, who showed from Day One he belonged in the NFL) seem to show that a change in grading of lineman and perhaps scheme is justified.

                Im hopeful Seattle adjusts, rather than continuing to overdraft guys like Carpenter, Moffitt, and Poole.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  The line definitely cost them in 2015 — but I think it was better than people recall in 2013 and 2014. It wasn’t an elite O-line by any means, but those don’t really exist in the NFL. 2013’s line for example was actually pretty good — maybe not statistically but it didn’t hold anything back.

      • SeventiesHawksFan says:

        I’d rather have the tackle convert who can play RT or other spots on the line in an injury situation arises. We’ve had o line injury problems every single year. So versatility matters for this team.

        • drewjov11 says:

          The false assumption is that a tackle can slide to used seamlessly. No reason you can’t take BOTH. Create competition with Gilliam and the best 5 see the field. Take a tackle first round, Garnett second round.

          • SeventiesHawksFan says:

            I’m talking about getting through it. We had Paul McQuistan playing LT when Okung was injured in 2013. He was extremely out of position and not an athlete who could fill the role adequately. We don’t want to be in that situation again. A guard who at least has a prayer at filling in at tackle if the need arises is just smart roster construction.

    • Trevor says:

      I am big Garnett fan as well Drew and think he would be a great fit.

      • manthony says:

        I’m on board with Garnett.
        Although its not a thing the Seahawks normally do, it actually makes a lot of sense.
        If there is one thing the Seahawks do, its think out of the box and are fairly unpredictable in what they do.
        They do stuff no one sees coming, and none of the tackle-to-guard converts have been anything close to Pro-Bowlers, what’s to say they don’t take a shot at it.
        I’m not saying they will, but they might.
        I played all over the line in HS, and I preferred to play Guard. Getting to pull and create running lanes all over was a lot of fun, and an elite Guard can really effect a game. Look at how SFs guards dominated for a couple of years, then when they fell off, the running game fell off, suddenly Kaep got exposed.
        And beings we got ripped right up the middle of the line last year, and Aaron Donald twice a year, maybe(hopefully) our FO maybe starts to value and approach the Interior oline differently

  10. Josh says:

    Rob have you watxhed Marshaun Coprich from Illinois State? Someone posted a video of him on .ney and he looks very explosive.

    • Josh says:

      Should say watched and .net. Posting on my phone sucks.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I haven’t Josh, sorry.

      • Jujus says:

        Rob you have too check him out. He isn’t a stunning athlete but he has the ability and just needs a zbs and great coaching.

        Emory from fbgp has him the #2 back in the entire draft…

    • Rik says:

      I watched some of his highlights on youtube. A one-cut runner with a burst. Lots of instances where he ran away from defensive backs. He is intriguing as a later round pick.

  11. the other billy zoom says:

    stuck in the same ruts early:

    1. Spriggs or Rankins
    2. Bullard or L. Clark
    3. McGovern / C. Tapper / S. Davis
    Wild card is Jaylon smith

    zoom

  12. Jarhead says:

    I guess we all have our guys we want this year. But Rob I hope that our draft goes way different. Coleman/Decker and Kelly/Martin is how I hope it shapes up. Everyone seems to be more in love with athletic ability and length than ability to play football. I love the Hawks and I think Pete and John are great at what they are great at, but O Line selections isn’t their strong suit. I hope they don’t overthink it this year worrying about arm length and sparq and just get some really solid, gritty, tough football players. Being the black sheep of the blog ain’t so bad. But come draft day I am sure we will all be chewing our nails

    • sdcoug says:

      No I fully agree with you. Sparq and upside are great considerations, but above all…in this current window…give me football players. Guys who have experience and production playing their position.

      Tyler lockett is a good example, and I don’t mean this as an “I told ya so”, but last year there were countless posters much more enamored with the high-sparqed WRs, many of which had struggled to even post productive college careers. I kept saying lockett was just a baller…a flat-out football player…someone who knew his position and had every stat imaginable to back it up.

    • SeventiesHawksFan says:

      I mostly agree too. Experts in their field always have a lot of TIME put into mastering their craft. The nuance and finite split second responded and muscle memory required in the NFL don’t just happen overnight. Which is why a LaRaven Clark pick would be one of the scarier choices they could make. And Sweezy never picked up pass pro very well. It’s the same reason Michael Jordan would never have been able to hit a baseball well. Every other professional baseball player has the time advantage of developing the muscle memory and skill set over him. Having done it matters an awful lot.

    • Trevor says:

      Coleman and Kelly with the first two picks would be two great building blocks to a solid OL. They are my two favvourite Ol prospects in the whole draft after Tunsil with Conklin and Garnett being close behind.

      If we end up with any of 2 the these 10 OL prospects with our first 4 picks I think it would be a great start to rebuilding the OL.

      -Coleman
      -Conklin
      -Kelly
      -Garnett
      -Martin
      -Ifedi
      -LaRaven Clark
      -Westerman
      -Mcgovern
      -Glasgow

      • SeventiesHawksFan says:

        LaRaven Clark flat out scares me, unless they are going to put him on a one to two year development timeline. The odds of him picking up an NFL level skill set by the start of the season is just extremely low.

        • Volume12 says:

          Every player he listed needs work on technique. No one from the college level on the O-line is gonna come right in without learning NFL tendencies, scheme, and coaching.

          • bobbyk says:

            I think he’s saying that some will adjust better than others and he’s afraid that Clark is one of them who will take more time to adjust.

            • SeventiesHawksFan says:

              Yes bobby, that’s the gist of what saying. He has almost no foundational technique committed to reflexive and muscle memory. No amount of raw, physical potential can make up for that.

          • SeventiesHawksFan says:

            Yes but LaRaven Clark was in a species category of disaster technique. An already capable and excellent college player who isn’t starting from scratch is one thing. LaRaven sounds luke crawling getting ready to walk. No matter who or what the raw athlete, his brain needs and muscles need to perform the basic and required functions. He sounds like a bridge too far, at least for this season. With a player like Coleman, you’ve got a lesser curve and arc to proficiency. Having done it before and repeatedly over time absolutely matters.

            • SeventiesHawksFan says:

              Typing from an iPhone. Please forgive the numerous typos above. I should have edited.

          • Jarhead says:

            I strongly think that Kelly and Martin are day one starters and potential pro bowlers by year 3 or 4. I feel guys like Ifedi and Clark are way farther away from reaching the level of a solid NFL Lineman. Their measurables give them a higher ceiling if they actually reach their potential, and they will have length and athleticism available to overcome inability as a technically proficient blocker, but they are farther away from actually being a solid NFL blocker than a lot f those guys. They will need a lot of coaching, hard work, time and even the ability to grasp the concepts. More so than a better actual football player without the elite measurables. Guys who are built like Ifedi and Clark, with their measurables should be going in the top 10 with a bullet. If they aren’t, I think that means that there are probably some glaring technical deficiencies that an NFL FO may not want to risk panning out. We can find more polished “ready today” guys who are excellent football players- they may not have the length or broad jump, or perhaps they play a non premium position like C. But they are available near our pick due to medical concerns or age. I would bank on the giy who has the toughness and polished tape. I think that is the difference between some of these guys and Ifedi and Clark. With their length and athleticism, if they had ANY kind of solid consistent tape, they would top15 locks.

    • Rob Staton says:

      “Everyone seems to be more in love with athletic ability and length than ability to play football”

      Two points here Jarhead…

      1. The reason we/others focus on athleticism and length is because that’s what the Seahawks have gone for over the years. It’s not necessarily indicative of a person’s views.

      2. ‘Football ability’ is not limited to just those that aren’t athletic.

      • Jarhead says:

        See Rob, I whole heartedly agree with you on what the Seahawks have gone for in the past. I think you are dead on that they would more likely select Ifedi or Clark in the first round. When I say that everyone seems to vaule length over athleticism, I include the Seahawks FO. I am saying that I personally, since a guy with elite measurables and great tape and production isn’t going to be there at #26, would rather have a guy with great tape and football instincts but less than perfect measurables as opposed to a super long, sparq warrior with middling, soft tape. I feel the team, in its current state, could be better served with a more complete football player than with a high upside guy who grit and toughness are at best questionable. But I agree with you on how the Seahawks approach playet selection. I just hope they change it up this year

        • Jarhead says:

          This phone sucks, that should read length and athleticism over football ability. Otherwise it reads confusingly

    • Steve Nelsen says:

      One of the reasons that Seattle prefers athleticism/tackle experience in their interior O-linemen is the level of athleticism required at the next level in the NFL. A college guard, even a very good one, is at a disadvantage athletically in the NFL. Coaches believe that they can teach technique.

      If you look at the Pro-Bowl guards, many were college tackles.

      • Jarhead says:

        I agree. With G, I mean drafting a pure G, they should emphasize power at the POA, how well a player strikes at the second level, and footwork after contact. Even if you are going to convert a T to play G permanently, he should exhibit these qualities. So what I am saying is: if a more athletic player exudes fewer of these qualities and a less athletic player has these in spades (but not like a total slug athletically of course) I go with the guy who has a more polished skill set.

  13. Tbone4444 says:

    Sounds like the Steelers have offered Okung a contract, haven’t seen any specifics

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      It’s probably less than we offered I bet.

    • STTBM says:

      Steelers have only about 5 million in cap space, and they still need to pay rookies etc out of that. IF they offered him much, it would have to be back-loaded. Im guessing no one wants to give him a long-term deal worth big money, likely due to his injury history. The guy was hurt and not particularly good in 2014 and 2015, and he’s missed a lot of games.

      His best bet seems to be to sign back with Seattle, or try to get a one or two year Prove It deal with Detroit. In Detroit, he will get less banged up, since they pass the ball more than in Seattle and dont run it the same way we do. That could help him stay healthy and earn a big contract down the road…

  14. JT says:

    Rob, I encourage you to take another look at Chris Jones. You’ve mentioned that DT wouldn’t be worth it in the first round if he wasn’t a special athlete capable of getting after the QB. Rankins fits that description, based on tape/measurables, but I may have Jones even higher on my board. I only have access to the draftbreakdown.com tape on him, but imo it is outstanding. He has fantastic burst off the snap to hit the gap, and uses his great size and length to will his way into the backfield from there. He doesn’t have any advanced moves but still found a way to impact the pass & run with his natural athletic ability. PFF graded him as a top 5 DT this season and number 2 as a pass rusher after Buckner. While he didn’t rack up the raw stats (TFL/sacks), you can clearly see why they have such a lofty view of him from the tape. He would be a steal at 56 and worth it in the first for his pass rushing ability. He is more aggressive on run downs than the Hawks currently like, but he has the size, stoutness and awareness to hold his gap well with some coaching. Even so, I think he could be the interior rusher they need next to Bennett in nickel.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I just can’t see them going DT in round one. It doesn’t make sense given the depth at the position and the options at tackle being limited to R1.

      • James says:

        I agree that OL is the more pressing need even if they sign one of the 3 decent LTs, and it’s likely the direction they go in.. I just think Jones is the type of special talent that would be worth it if they really want an interior pass rusher

    • Del tre says:

      I agree Chris Jones looks good his athletic measurables aren’t there is the only problem I could see with him. It would make sense because he can stop the run while still getting pressure he is also a guy that could be coached up to be better. Who wants to see ruin next to amother 6-6 300 pound monster the Hawks could really have a dangerous d line

  15. POB says:

    Of the following options, which would you feel best about as a luxury (i.e. non-need) pick in early rounds and which would you be okay? Obviously, everyone would prefer Derrick Henry in Rd 2 to Rd 1, but would you be okay w/Henry in the first frame?

    1. Treadwell (Rd 1)
    2. D. Henry (Rd 1)
    3. D. Henry (Rd 2)
    4. Braxton (Rd. 2)
    5. Vannett/Higbee (Rd. 3)
    6. Nkemdiche (Rd 1)
    7. Nkemdiche (Rd 2)
    8. K. Neal (Rd. 1)

    • Rik says:

      I’d take Neal in the 1st (though I’d prefer Lee), and Henry in the 2nd. Wouldn’t touch Nkemdiche in any round. I’d take Braxton Miller in the 3rd if he’s still on the board. I’d also grab Joshua Perry if he’s still available in the 2nd. I can’t justify Treadwell in the 1st given our overwhelming needs on OL/DL.

      • POB says:

        Treadwell could provide leverage in negotiations with Baldwin, though., and I think he has a pretty high floor. There are things to like about all of Spriggs/Conklin/Ifedi/Clark, but it also wouldn’t shock me if at least one of that group is out the league in four years for performance reasons. Trreadwell, on the other hand, I think is desitned to have a productive, if not quite star-quality career.

        Also, I think the “wouldn’t touch Nkemdiche in any round” stance is a bit harsh–he didn’t kill anybody.

        • Rik says:

          Rob posted some links to stories about the Nkemdiche brothers a few days ago. They don’t sound like anyone that PCJS would pick up. I like Treadwell, but it would shock me to see the Hawks grab him in the 1st.

          • matt says:

            If we hadn’t resigned Kearse I’d a Treadwell or Doctson would be an option. WR is pretty well stocked with Baldwin, Lockett, Kearse, PR, Smith and Williams. Out of your options I’d go with Vannett in the 3rd.

    • cha says:

      Well I was stumping for Miller in the 2nd above and I like him a lot as a prospect.

      Neal would be a real interesting addition in the first. It would be really hard to dislike that pick.

  16. Wall UP says:

    Thanks for the post Rob. You present a lot of good viable options to choose from. With free agency still in progress, it would be interesting to see how the final list of players stands after the FA process has concluded.

    Presently, Sweezy & Bailey are the only departed OL players. Yes, Okung appears to be poised to become a “dearly or not so dearly” departed, depending upon your perspective. He just may be gone to the Lions.

    Watching JS & PC from afar, I’ve never seen them in a position with no option. I guarantee that this FO will not go into the season without suitable replacements for all of the departures from the OL. This will come from seasoned players, not rookies.

    Glowinski is the foregone conclusion to replace Sweezy. I wouldn’t etch that in stone so quickly. We had the same opinion about Lewis becoming the new center after the loss of Max via trade. We know how that eventually worked out.

    To hedge complacency and promote competition, I see an alternative, with J’Marcus Webb, to enter the mix as an experienced player to compete at both guard positions, as well as RT. Any rookie picked in the 1st or 2nd Rd would be added to the mix of competition for RT & LG.

    Obviously, Webb hasn’t signed on with the Hawks. Thus, it may be premature to come to this conclusion. But, judging from the visits that have occurred and those planned, you can deduce that JS is always a few steps ahead, realizing all of the departed need suitable replacements. Not solely relying upon rookies.

    I would not be surprised if both Webb and Beachum are signed, if Okung does become a Lion. Thereby, they go into the draft with NO preconceived agendas. If there is an exceptional defensive player high on their board, then they might go with the best player and not be locked in taking a lower graded talent just because he’s an OT.

    I just can’t envision JS & PC caught with their pants hanging down. So, what I am saying is, don’t be surprised if they pick someone other than an OT with that 26th pick. The OT just might be their next player on the board in Rd 2, being that they already would have suitable replacements to begin the 2016 season. The rookies would enhance the competition and may even win a starting position.

    • SeventiesHawksFan says:

      We still need a young OT of the future, even if we sign a veteran. And they need an LG right now. The chances to pick one don’t come around that often. If they have a potential future OT / present LG identified and he’s available at 26, it’s a smart move to take him. And arguably fills the greatest present need and hole on the current roster.

      I won’t mind if they take a defensive player at 26. But I expect them to go OL

      • Volume12 says:

        Don’t be shocked if they keep Britt at LG and sign a FA to compete with him.

        • C-Dog says:

          I’ve thought about that scenario. As bad as Britt was at times through out much of the year, there was a pretty abrupt decision to radically shift the line mid preseason. Part of me wonders if, while most are assuming they are looking to do a major upgrade there, they are more willing to keep him in the mix to see what a full offseason of OTAs and minicamps do for him.

      • Wall UP says:

        If what I have stated regarding future FA acquisitions comes to fruition, their need for DT 3Tech or NT would be on par with their need for OL help. I’m sure by now they have a board that would include both sides of the ball.

        Going into the draft not being locked into one specific position, particularly the first, would place constraints upon ultimately picking the best player on the board. You may lose value by compromising a selection because of preconceived needs.

        As it stands right now, the Hawks have one of the youngest OL. Losing your longest tenured members in Okung and Sweezy would leave the group without a Veteran presence. Placing additional rooks in the frey would a recipe for disaster. For that reason alone, Okung would be a welcome sight for sore eyes if resigned.

        He he signs elsewhere as did Sweezy, it would be imperative that the veterans are replaced with vets like Webb & Beachum as replacement starters that will receive competition from the new rookies.

    • Rob Staton says:

      If they wait until #56 for an offensive tackle, they’ll miss out.

      • Wall UP says:

        There 2nd pick does not have to be 56, as you have previously brought to our attention. Trading up to 42 is a very distinct possibility. One of the OT options, if not two may be available for that RT/LG position, namely Coleman and Clark, especially if they don’t go OT with their 1st pick.

        It all depends upon whose the highest rated player available on their board @ 26, and signing Webb and Beachum to replace their 3 departed OL players prior to the draft. I think Webb can fill that RT/LG/RG position they would be getting in the draft. Adding another via the draft in the 1st or higher 2nd will only add to the competition.

        We’ll see. Just saying, their 1st pick does not have to be OL. They still have to find Mebane’s replacement. They may decide to take Rankins, if he falls, and slide Rubin over to NT, which he did last year at times with Bane.
        It could be a surprise skill position player like Neal, Ogbah, Lawson or even a greater surprise to the majority in picking Nkemdiche @ 26. It all depends upon whose rated higher on their board. Filling their needs prior to the draft gives them the levity to go into the draft without restraints, picking the best player on their board.

        FA is not over yet. We’ll see how things pan out in the next 24hrs. I expect the FO to have all their ducks lined in a row before they make their 1st pick. It’s always fun to watch

        • Rob Staton says:

          Let’s be right though Wall Up — look at what they’re doing. Silver, Thomas, Thompson — they’re bringing in guys to replace Mebane. They aren’t replacing a run stuffing one-technique in the first round of the draft. They’re going to sign a cheap veteran like they’ve always done at that position.

          There’s sufficient depth to address the D-line later without needing to risk missing out on a vital O-line addition or feeling like you need to trade up to fill a desperate need.

          • Wall UP says:

            Replacing Bane is a difficult proposition for someone to hold up against double and triple teams as he was able to manage. There going to miss him. They just couldn’t pay 4.5/yr for his services.

            They also have seen the flexibility of Rubin sliding over if the cheaper version of Bane can’t fulfill the task. Rubin is strong enough for the task as long as he stays low and fights his tendency that to standup, as he is often finding himself doing. He’s a beast when he stays low.

            With that as a possibility at NT, would not picking a Rankins or a Nkemdiche that may fall to you as THEIR higher player be a viable pick @ 26? Especially if the options are available @ 40-48 for the RT/LG are there?

            Rubin is 29 yrs old. Finding a starting 3Tech to plug-n-play giving 2-3dn inside push would be just what the doctor ordered. They can still fill their OL inside need @ their 40-42 selection. The caveat there being able to replace the “dearly departed” with Webb & Beachum.

            • cha says:

              “They just couldn’t pay 4.5/yr for his services. ”

              Let’s be clear – it’s not that they couldn’t it’s that they wouldn’t. Big difference and that tells you how they value the spot. They asked Mebane to take a pay cut last year.

              • Wall UP says:

                We’re saying the same thing here. There’s a limit or ceiling and they “couldn’t/wouldn’t” go beyond that.

            • CHawk Talker Eric says:

              “Finding a starting 3Tech to plug-n-play giving 2-3dn inside push would be just what the doctor ordered. They can still fill their OL inside need @ their 40-42 selection.”

              This strategy fights the board. There are (literally) only a handful of OTs that could properly fill a need, and they’re all likely to be gone before the middle of R2. There are handfuls of DTs who can fill SEA’s need for a NT, and they’ll be available in R3 and beyond.

              • Wall UP says:

                Who are the 1st Rd graded 3techs, not NT, available outside of the 1st Rd? Besides Ifedi whose viewed by many to Seattle or Carolina, Coleman and Clark are view as 2nd Rd talents.
                Fighting the board would be picking a lower graded OT than a higher graded 3Tech, especially if they have those needs filled with Webb & Beachum, if Okung is not resigned. If they replace the losses, then by all means OL/OL in their 1st 2 picks. But, I just can’t JS caught with his pants down. Not JS. He’s too good to let that happen

            • Rob Staton says:

              Rankins isn’t a pure one-tech though — wouldn’t be a natural replacement for Bane. They would possibly/probably take him if available, depending on how they view their ability to fill needs there. Let’s be right though — he won’t be there at #26. Nkemdiche won’t be on their board IMO.

              • WALL UP says:

                Sorry for the confusion. I was not inferring that Rankins play one-tech, and I know your distain for Nkemdiche is apparent & so noted. What I stated is that Rubin can slide over to one-tech and the 3Tech that falls to 26 could start there and provide a inside pass rush on 1st thru 2nd and maybe 3rd down at times. That is currently a need in for early downs for that position.

                It doesn’t have to be a 3Tech or OT. Just THEIR highest rated player regardless of the position.

          • Wall UP says:

            Also, trading up for JS is not a desperate move but rather calculated pick that is thoroughly thought out weeks if not months before the draft.

            Case and point would the selection of Lockett with their 2nd pick last year. I’m sure there were conversations with his former employee in DC about that slot. Even I knew they were going to be trade partners, and that says lot. 😉 I just had Lockett as their 2nd pick. I’m glad they still got him.

            I think the same holds true for obtaining that RT/RG player in the draft. You can’t miss out on a potential starting impact player for someone you you can get with the next pick.

            I would rather have Rankins/Nkemdiche & Coleman/Clark than Ifedi & DE Bullard. But, that’s just my opinion. It would be interesting to see what they do, with FA pickups & the draft. We’ll see.

            • Wall UP says:

              Lockett as ‘2nd Rd pick’ not top of the 3rd. They waited and got him. I think they do the same with Coleman/Clark, preferably Coleman.

  17. Volume12 says:

    Good read Rob.

    LB and RB are 2 positions I think they’ll target on day 3.

    Ecspecially when your SAM is only on the field for less than 50% of snaps.

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      And it looks like Clark might be an option there as well.

      • Jujus says:

        No it doesn’t look like that. He is a Leo, a jag will fill the Sam spot.Mike morgan marsh pinkins or a draft guy.

        They are not going to stunt our young pass rusher Clark.

        • Greg Haugsven says:

          That’s what we said about Irvin as well. they wanted the best players on the field.

          • Volume12 says:

            Keep an eye on the pro day for Fresno St LB Ejiro Ederaine-6’3, 230-235 lbs., arms look incredibly long.

            2015 stats: 99 tackles, 16.5 TFL, 9 QB sacks, 2 INTs,

  18. Catharsis50 says:

    I like the thought of grabbing Dom. He’s had some easy drops in college but makes up for them with some spectacular grabs. He had a good pro last last week running in the 4.4s and is athletic. I was thinking of him as possible replacement for Kearse before we re-signed him. Do you think he would be a later round guy or go undrafted? I like him on the roster if the Hawks can make it happen.

    • sdcoug says:

      Dom posted some great numbers, but man was he frustrating to watch. For every great play, there was a critical drop on a routine catch that could have been a big moment. I don’t know if it’s average hands or a lack of concentration, but it’s an issue that never improved at wazzu. His pro-day might push him up, but he would at least be an interesting udfa. Reminds me of kearse. Decent speed (don’t think he plays quite as fast as his timed 4.4), and occasional big plays if you can stomach the numbing drops

      • Volume12 says:

        UDFA. Possibly a 7th.

        • Miles says:

          Dom Williams was a deep threat in an air-raid offense. He is going to be a developmental player stashed on the practice squad in year one at best. He has tools that you can use though. His combination of size and straight-line speed I think is pretty unique. So he doesn’t really fit the Seahawks criteria for a reciever, but at the same time PC always talks about how they want “unique” qualities. Dom is unique.

  19. bobbyk says:

    One thing that nobody seems to be considering…

    Why can’t Kelvin Beachum be the long-term answer at left tackle? He’s 26 years old and in 2014 he was something like the 60-something overall ranked football player in the NFL by Pro Football Focus. He was good enough that the Steelers tried to sign him long-term prior to last season. In that ’14 season, he also did something Okung has never done… play in every game. Seems to me that if he could play LT from the get-go next season that we’d have our LT and RT in Gilliam (who could play LT if anything were to happen to Beachum).

    That would seem to open the door to being able to go with the BPA OL in the first round and would open up discussion about Josh Garnett at LG. We wouldn’t need a tackle. We’d have Beachum at LT, we’d have his back-up as the starting RT, and Britt would be the back-up RT (on the bench where he belongs). I’m sure Britt would back-up both guards and RT in that scenario and if he were riding the pine, I’m sure Cable would give him a loot as a back-up Center, too).

    I know his market is cool right now because of the knee, but does anyone really worry about ACL surgery anymore? That’s an injury where guys simply come back from now days. He tore it early enough in the year where he should be ready.

    Sure, AP is a freak of nature, but he shredded his knee in the last regular season game one season and ran for over 2,000 yards the next. No reason Beachum can’t have a few extra months than AP did and be ready to start the season. Judged on when Lane was hurt last year, he would have pretty much been ready to open the season if he’d been hurt at the point in the season Beachum was, too.

    Sometimes we think too hard and there are other options out there for us that make plenty of sense. I’d be fine with Beachum with a short term deal or a four year type of contract.

    • sdcoug says:

      I’ve stated in previous posts, I’m really intigued by beachum. He was very solid two years ago and has age and upside on his side. I think Pitt wants him back, but is doing a similar thing as seattle…letting their injured tackle wade through the market to determine a value.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think if anyone viewed Beachum as a possible long term left tackle — he wouldn’t still be a free agent.

      • Wall UP says:

        He hasn’t visited Seattle yet.

        • Rob Staton says:

          It doesn’t matter that he hasn’t visited. If they or anyone else viewed him as a long term left tackle he wouldn’t be on the market any more.

          • Wall UP says:

            Steelers do want him back but you know their cap constraints. The same could be said of Okung. These young men are just weighing their options before signing. It’s not that he isn’t worth being resigned.

            • Miles says:

              With the way the Seahawks have managed their cap (re-signed four players at a cap cost of about $6m), it gives me an idea about what they can do with the O-Line.

              Remember when the Seahawks signed Avril and Bennett on short-term, low-cost contracts? Well, with the market for OTs depressed right now, I wonder if the Seahawks could make a similar move here. They could sign Okung, and then try to get Beachum too on a lower-tiered, short-term contract. This way they can lock up their starting LT and LG. Beachum can also play LT. It solves the two most important spots on the line BEFORE the draft. All of the sudden our O-Line would not just have been addressed, but arguably, set. With Okung, Beachum, Lewis, Glowinski and Gilliam, you can go into the draft not worried about taking an OLineman until Day 3 if you see value elsewhere.

              An unlikely scenario but it seems possible. It seems like the very savvy move this front office is capable of making.

              • Wall UP says:

                They would not have the cap space for both LTs Okung & Beachum. Judging upon the offers for Okung, it might push his price up to where he may not be back. Beachum & Webb would be the best option if Okung leaves.

                • Miles says:

                  I understand we don’t have a lot of cap room. At the same time, there was no one on this blog who thought we could get Kearse, Lane, Rubin and Ryan at a total 2016 cap hit of $6m.

                  Make no mistake – it can be done.

                  • Wall UP says:

                    Even if both were to be signed, LG would not be the spot for Beachum. It would be either RG/C positions. Webb with Okung or Beachum would cost less and fill their needs going into the draft.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    Well, we projected Lane and Rubin to return as priorities — only suggested Kearse wouldn’t because of Adam Schefter. The cap hit being low in 2016 wasn’t too unpredictable.

                  • WALL UP says:

                    JS is very shrewd in working around the cap. I’m sure there’s plenty more up his sleeves. I was hoping for Bane to stay rather than Kearse. Bane’s cost was unexpectedly too much to bear. I had hoped he would be around until they drafted his replacement which I hoped would be Mack in 2017.

            • Rob Staton says:

              But he isn’t being prioritised is he?

              That’s the point.

              If he was a long term answer for anyone he wouldn’t be on the market.