Seahawks free agency & draft predictions

March 3rd, 2016 | Written by Rob Staton

Jeremy Lane could be Seattle’s top priority in free agency

Russell Okung moves on
With Cordy Glenn getting the franchise tag and reports of an aggressive move by the Raiders to keep Donald Penn, Okung will be the most attractive free agent tackle on the market.

The Seahawks are in a tough spot. Unless they view Okung as the top priority — they can’t offer him a big deal without risking losing the majority of their other remaining free agents. They have to let this one play out and hope he receives a lukewarm market (which is possible due to his shoulder issue and history of injuries).

If a team offers a deal similar to Jake Long’s four-year, $36m contract with the Rams — he’s likely gone.

The Detroit Lions have $33m in free cap space and need a left tackle. Add another $11m if Calvin Johnson retires. Switching to an offense that isn’t quite as physical up front and is tailored to the passing game could suit Okung and keep him healthy.

Prediction: Okung signs a deal with the Lions

Bruce Irvin gets paid
Malik Jackson could be set to earn a deal worth $13m a year. You better believe Irvin’s going to get some serious offers when free agency begins.

There aren’t many super-athletic edge rushers in the draft. With teams trying to copycat Von Miller — Irvin at least has the athletic capacity to be that type of player.

Expect a ton of suitors. San Francisco needs an athletic pass rusher and they have $55m in free cap room. The Giants are rebuilding their defense and have $58m in cap space. Tampa Bay are likely to focus on their defense and have $49m to spend. Chicago and Vic Fangio need an edge rusher and have $46m to play with.

Then there’s the obvious fits — Jacksonville and Atlanta — because of familiarity with the Head Coaches. Irvin’s preference might be returning home to Atlanta.

Fourteen teams in the NFL have +$30m in cap space to spend. Very few are strong defensively. Irvin is going to be wined and dined and can take his pick.

Prediction: If it isn’t Atlanta, the Giants, 49ers, Bears and Buccs could sign Irvin

Jeremy Lane will be Seattle’s priority
Seattle’s famous ‘Legion of Boom’ was a bit of shambles to start 2015. Kam Chancellor’s holdout and Cary Williams’ introduction made for a few struggles in key games — snatching away Seattle’s prime identity in the process.

It became evident that Seattle’s technique at cornerback and safety isn’t easy to pick up in a matter of months. The Seahawks have trained their guys over time with only Brandon Browner and Earl Thomas starting immediately. Chancellor sat out a year, Richard Sherman started in 2011 only due to injuries, Byron Maxwell and Lane had to wait.

There is a stable of young defensive backs in the clubhouse — but losing Lane would put a lot of pressure on one or two to step up in 2016 and possibly start. Keeping Lane maintains a level of consistency — something they haven’t had over the last few years with Browner, Maxwell, Williams, DeShawn Shead and Lane all starting across from Sherman.

The structure of the deal could be interesting. Lane only turns 26 in July. Maxwell signed his enormous contract in Philadelphia aged 27. The Seahawks could make a convincing case to sign Lane to a one-year deal with a promise not to franchise him — allowing him to start for a full year and enter free agency in 12 months with a lot of momentum.

That would also buy more time for the Seahawks to train and establish an heir apparent.

It won’t be cheap to get such a deal sorted — and if a team is willing to offer $8m APY over 3-4 years it could be game over. Good corners get paid in the NFL and even $8m a year would be considerably less than Maxwell’s $10.5m average.

Prediction: If it’s not a multi-year deal, the Seahawks sign Lane to a one-year contract worth $6m-7.5m in 2016 — a similar amount to Cary Williams.

Jermaine Kearse switches teams
The one thing that really works for Kearse is the way he performed in primetime games. The casual observer won’t watch every Seahawks game — but coaches, scouts, GM’s and owners will have noticed the guy who always seemed to make a crucial play on the big stage.

Any team that has a #1 star receiver will view Kearse as an ideal #2. Tough, reliable, a capable run-blocker and unlikely to complain about how many targets he’s getting.

He’s not going to get paid a huge salary — but he’ll likely get offers that are a little too rich for the Seahawks.

Prediction: The Falcons sign him to provide a no-drama sidekick for Julio Jones after cutting Roddy White this week.

UPDATE: Kearse is gone…

J.R. Sweezy moves on
A year ago it seemed likely the Seahawks would make keeping Sweezy a priority. Pete Carroll regularly sang his praises during the 2014 season. He’s young, one of their homegrown stars and the poster-child for Tom Cable’s O-line revolution in Seattle.

A Twitter rumour recently suggested there was friction between Cable and the Seahawks front office. There’s no way of verifying that — but it’d be understandable.

Cable is regularly asked to create a productive O-line on the cheap. Having had a relative success story in Sweezy (a 7th round D-line convert) — to then lose him in free agency must be galling. If they’re asking him to rebuild the line again because Okung is also moving on — his reputation is constantly being scrutinised.

Offensive lines are built on consistency, familiarity and cohesion. Cable’s almost never had that because of all the changes up front. His ability to improve the performance in 2015 from wretched to passable is perhaps his greatest achievement to date.

Unfortunately this is life in football. The Seahawks have chosen to prioritise the defense and their quarterback. Sweezy is a good age and doesn’t have much competition at guard on the open market. He likely commands an offer that is too expensive for Seattle to match. If he’s only getting offers in the $3.5m-4m range — he could easily return.

Prediction: A handful of teams show interest and he ends up in Oakland, San Francisco or Tennessee — unless the value keeps him in Seattle.

Brandon Mebane and Ahtyba Rubin remain — maybe
If the only move the Seahawks make is to prioritise and ultimately keep Jeremy Lane — they’ll have plenty of cap room to keep both Mebane and Rubin.

The question is — can they find a better option?

A year ago they swapped Tony McDaniel for Rubin and it seemed like a questionable decision. Carroll later praised Rubin as the best three technique the Seahawks have had during his tenure.

It wasn’t an obvious upgrade at the time. Rubin mustered minimal interest as a free agent and was a bit of a surprise signing. It might not be obvious right now but the Seahawks might be able to find alternatives again to save a bit of cap space.

That said, it’s unlikely both depart. They performed very well in 2015, preventing any 100-yard rushers during the regular season.

They likely place a limited value on what is essentially two base run-stuffing DT’s. If Mebane or Rubin get offers beyond the limit, Seattle probably just moves on.

They didn’t go anywhere near Terrance Knighton before he signed a one-year, $4.45m contract in Washington a year ago. Their limit might be $3.5m-4m for this position moving forward. Maybe less.

Consider this as well — the draft is loaded with run stuffing defensive tackles. The Seahawks might be able to find a replacement in the middle rounds for either player. Alternatively, the extreme depth at DT could weaken the free agent market considerably. That could impact the demands of both Rubin and Mebane — and other potential free agents too.

The Seahawks can go hunting for the best deal — without any real pressure.

Prediction: Rubin signs, we’ll see on Mebane.

Any outside free agents?
If Lane, Rubin, Mebane (or another DT) re-sign, the total outlay could be approximately $13-14m. Based on the brilliant Davis Hsu’s calculations, that would leave around $3-5m to spend on any extras.

They could look to add some D-line depth — especially if there’s a cold market due to the strong draft class. They’re unlikely to be able to afford Mario Williams or any other big name.

They could also look to sign a veteran offensive lineman.

Again, it’s unlikely to be a big name. Not even a backloaded deal starting at around $4m is going to tempt Alex Mack, Alex Boone or Kelechi Osemele.

Mack could sign with the Rams (he went to Cal, they have the cap room to offer him $10m APY).

Minnesota is likely to cut one of Phil Loadholt or Matt Kalil. Loadholt is the favourite to go and could be had at a minimal cost after he missed the entire 2015 season. He’s familiar with Darrell Bevell, specialises in run blocking and has the size plus tackle experience the Seahawks love at left guard.

It also wouldn’t impact Seattle’s compensatory picks in 2017 with Loadholt having been cut. Some of Loadholt’s perceived issues versus speed won’t be a problem if he plays guard.

It’s also a nice hedge. If the top offensive tackles are off the board by #26 (including Germain Ifedi for example) — they can look to start Loadholt at right tackle and draft a left guard possibly in round two (with a DE like Emmanuel Ogbah becoming an alternative pick at #26). It gives them flexibility.

If the contract is low enough it could leave enough room to add a veteran backup quarterback at a minimal cost and some second or third tier FA’s to add depth.

Prediction: Phil Loadholt signs a 1-2 year deal, a veteran quarterback is also added (possibly Tarvaris Jackson after a long wait).

How would this set up the Seahawks in the draft?
The #1 priority would be to fill the hole left by Okung at tackle. The draft is stacked with defensive players so they can wait until rounds 2-3 to address that need. They won’t get a starting tackle after the first day.

Germain Ifedi, Shon Coleman, Jason Spriggs or Le’Raven Clark at #26.

In round two they would need to add to the defense with an impact player. We projected Travis Feeney this week to replace Bruce Irvin and it’s an ideal fit if he checks out medically. Alternatively they could add the best available defensive lineman, linebacker or ‘deathbacker’ (aka the role played by Deone Bucannon and Mark Barron).

The Seahawks have three picks in rounds 3-4 and could target a running back partner for Thomas Rawls (Notre Dame’s C.J. Prosise makes sense) an interior lineman (competition at center — possibly Connor McGovern, Joe Dahl, Christian Westerman, Graham Glasgow) and a defensive lineman..

Receiver, cornerback and special teams (punter) to be addressed on day three.

Prediction: R1 — Germain Ifedi (T), R2 — Travis Feeney (LB), R3 — Joe Dahl (C) R3 — C.J. Prosise (RB), R4 — Best available defensive lineman (DT), R5 — Marquez North (WR), R6 — Deandre Elliott (CB), R7 — Nick O’Toole (P)

Tony Pauline’s draft rankings were used to determine who was/wasn’t available in the mid/later rounds. Concentrate on the positions/rounds more than the players.

If you missed this weeks podcast, don’t forget to check it out.

320 Responses to “Seahawks free agency & draft predictions”

  1. Steve Nelsen says:

    That is a solid draft.

    I would take the money for Lane and Loadholt and sign Okung. I’d rather go into next season with a new LG instead of a new LT. That would also require a young DB to step up so it is not without risk.

    With the OL obviously needing help, I worry about the risk of getting rid of their two most experienced guys and hoping a bunch of rookies, free agents and guys with no experience at the position manage to gel in a couple months and perform well.

    The line in the second half of the season was trending the right way. I’d rather build on that instead of blowing it all up and starting over and risking a lost year in our Super Bowl window. But, that may not be possible depending on the market.

    • Rob Staton says:

      It would be a significant risk Steve.

      1. Okung would have to stay healthy to warrant an enormous contract.

      2. You’d be relying on a cornerback stepping up to fill a void that wasn’t insignificant when Lane missed the start of the season.

      • Agree with just about everything Rob, continuing to bang out fantastic articles. While you could be right I take issue with this bit:

        >If he’s only getting offers in the $3.5m-4m range — he could easily return.

        That just scares the hell outta me. That is grossly over-paying for Sweezy’s quality of play IMO. I would MUCH rather we roll with Glowinski and use that $3-4mil on a LG in FA. Glowinski in his first game his rookie year looked as good as Sweezy looks in his 4th year after 69 games played under his belt. That should tell us something.

        I love that Pete said they call him (Glow) a “technician.” The idea of getting Sweezy’s level of play as Glow’s basement is fantastic. Glow has all those years as a real O-linemen under his belt (college, maybe even O-line play before college). He can develop and improve and get better where as I don’t know how much better Sweezy is realistically going to get under Tom Cable. Maybe on another team with a great O-line coach (in terms of teaching technique) Sweez can improve but he got worse in ’15 IMO, not better than he was in ’14.

        ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

        >Prediction: R1 — Germain Ifedi (T), R2 — Travis Feeney (LB), R3 — Joe Dahl (C) R3 — C.J. Prosise (RB), R4 — Best available defensive lineman (DT), R5 — Marquez North (WR), R6 — Deandre Elliott (CB), R7 — Nick O’Toole (P)

        – I would absolutely LOVE this draft. Replacing Okung with a OT in the draft is a must, it is just a matter of getting the right guy between Coleman, Ifedi, Clark or Spriggs. God I hope we choose right if we draft OT in the 1st. Please this one time let us draft the right O-linemen high and he turns out to be a solid player.

        – I am high on Feeney as a replacement for Irvin as long as he clears medical and obviously the FO is okay with his injury history. I take it from a previous piece Rob that you think he can rush the passer as well as being a LB?

        – I am so high on Joe Dahl. He seems like he could be the Tyler Lockett of this draft class. Such a quality player, so versatile, fits perfectly with our type of O-linemen…he is the must pick for me.

        – I don’t know anything about Prosise but a RB with our second 3rd round pick sounds smart. Again I hope we pick right there. Please give us more than what we got in our Turbin pick.

        – Best DT available in the 4th round sounds just right assuming we sign quality DT’s this off season. Re-sign Rubin, the best value DT on the market (Mebane? or someone else?) and then draft who we like most in the 4th. I dig it.

        – Marquez North (WR) Love this pick. I realize he could bust and if we let Kearse walk and Doug or Tyler or PRich gets hurt we could be kinda screwed at WR…but I love us letting Kearse walk (spending that $ elsewhere) and grabbing a high talent ceiling project wideout and relying on our guys like Kasen, Kevin, PRich etc to step up in 2016.

        – I don’t know anything about this CB (Deandre Elliott) but given what we know about our CB development (takes a while) it makes sense to go for the prototypical body types and athleticism and personality and then put them through the Pete Carroll DB school for 2+ years, with them coming out (hopefully a starter). Given the talent on the roster already (Tharold, Seisay, SJB, Farmer, Tye Smith) we just need to continue to add guys to the CB room to be developed. We don’t need a 2nd or 3rd round CB, so one in the 6th makes total sense.

        – >Nick O’Toole (P) So I take it Jon Ryan’s average 2015 season along with the idea of paying a punter $3mil APY doesn’t interest you?

        • Damn, posted this in the wrong place, 🙁 oh well. (Still meant to post it in this articles comment section though).

        • Rob Staton says:

          Thanks for the thought Nathans. On the punter — I love Ryan like everyone, but they need to make a saving somewhere and he’s 35 in November. He didn’t have a great 2015. It might be time to move on at a much cheaper cost.

          I do believe Feeney can rush.

          • Yeah I agree about Jon Ryan unfortunately. Love him but that cost for a Punter at his age and he just had a sub-par performance in his contract year. Let alone how cheap punters are now in terms of draft pick cost.

            Good, it would be awesome to replace Irvin with a 2nd round pick.

        • Bill Bobaggins says:

          Not sure I agree with your reasoning on Sweezy. You mention saving the $3 to $4M that we’d spend on him to go get a LG in FA. If market value for Sweezy is $3 to $4M and you go LG at that value instead, aren’t you essentially getting the same caliber of player? If you’re going to swap a $3M per year RG for a $3M per year LG, I say stick with Sweezy as he’s familiar with the system, etc.

          My biggest fear with this team right now is that we start the new season with a brand new OL and we watch RW get sacked every 5 drop backs again. Longevity can be the key to consistency.

          • >Not sure I agree with your reasoning on Sweezy. You mention saving the $3 to $4M that we’d spend on him to go get a LG in FA. If market value for Sweezy is $3 to $4M and you go LG at that value instead, aren’t you essentially getting the same caliber of player? If you’re going to swap a $3M per year RG for a $3M per year LG, I say stick with Sweezy as he’s familiar with the system, etc.

            Not necessarily. First of all RG and LG aren’t identical. LG and RG are different in our system. Think about how much we paid for Rubin and then think about how great he played in ’15. Just because we paid him $2.6mil doesn’t mean we didn’t get $4-5mil level of play from him in 2015. Someone will be over paying for Sweezy if they pay him $3-4mil, but if we pay the same for a FA LG we could be getting a bargain (quality player).

            There can be a guy on here: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/guard/ or someone who isn’t on there yet (I’m sure more O-linemen who can play LG for us will be cut and hit FA) that we can sign that will right away be a upgrade over Britt.

            >My biggest fear with this team right now is that we start the new season with a brand new OL and we watch RW get sacked every 5 drop backs again. Longevity can be the key to consistency.

            You need to read my comment on here from yesterday, so here:

            March 2, 2016 at 1:40 pm
            Fans really really REALLY need to understand what happened in 2015, so here let me break it down:

            We moved the worst RT to a new position (LG) in Britt, we did this with two weeks left before week 1 of the season. We moved a TE-to-OT convert (learning LT) to RT with two weeks left before week 1 of the season. We started Nowak at Center, a guy clearly not ready and lacking in the experience/knowledge/technique to start at Center in the NFL.
            As a unit, they had TWO WEEKS to build cohesion.

            Okay now compare that to what can happen this off-season; we can draft a RT, move Gilliam to LT (where he was originally developing for), have Glow compete for RG with someone, and have a draft pick (Dahl? Glasgow? McGovern?) compete with Lewis at Center.

            This competition can last a bit in camp (few weeks, 2 maybe?) but then we should learn from last season and as early as possible lock the starters in. Announce the 5 starting O-linemen, and get them working together as a unit for weeks and weeks and weeks + all 4 preseason games.

            So while Glow at RG would be new, the LG vet (I hope) we get would be new, the LT would be new-ish, the RT new, the C potentially new…they aren’t players who have never played at that position before, they aren’t players with just 2 weeks of time as a unit to practice before Game 1 of the season…and best of all their talent levels should be higher than Lewis/Britt/Sweezy.

            ————————————————————————————————

            We can’t go long term with sub-par talent. In search of long term cohesion we can’t lock down Britt, Sweezy, or Lewis as our franchise LG, RG and Center. We still need to upgrade our talent. Draft a quality O-linemen to compete with Lewis for Center, start Glow over Sweezy, and bring in a vet to replace Britt.

            • Bill Bobaggins says:

              “So while Glow at RG would be new, the LG vet (I hope) we get would be new, the LT would be new-ish, the RT new, the C potentially new…they aren’t players who have never played at that position before, they aren’t players with just 2 weeks of time as a unit to practice before Game 1 of the season…and best of all their talent levels should be higher than Lewis/Britt/Sweezy.”

              Your “all new” OL is what is scary. You’re also moving a converted TE to LT. There’s a reason LT’s go #1 in the draft very often…you can’t just convert people to play this position very easily. Even with some time to practice together, the proposition of an almost entirely new OL doesn’t feel right.

              I do agree that you have to upgrade talent and that Britt, Lewis and Sweezy aren’t long term options. But your OL can’t be a revolving door every year (which it has been since PCJS took over).

              • Gilliam was already being developed as a LT (Okung replacement) before we had a big need at RT and that is where he went. So we are converting a RT (who was training to be a LT) to LT. Not so much a “TE to LT”, that is misleading.

                >the proposition of an almost entirely new OL doesn’t feel right.

                So you are fine with Sweezy, Britt and Lewis being on the line the next 3 years? Too many fans are over reacting and have PTSD from last seasons shit show O-line performance the first 8 weeks of the season. Just because we replace a lot or the entire O-line doesn’t mean it will happen again, and even if it does we got to the NFCCG, almost the Superbowl for a third straight year.

                >I do agree that you have to upgrade talent and that Britt, Lewis and Sweezy aren’t long term options. But your OL can’t be a revolving door every year (which it has been since PCJS took over).

                You either agree or you don’t though. Your first paragraph is of you being scared of a “all new OL” and it “not feeling right” but then you agree that Lewis, Sweez and Britt aren’t long term options.

                ——————————————–

                Here’s the deal, 1-10 the talent level of Britt is like a 2. We NEED to upgrade away from him. Okung might be gone no matter what we do. And Glow’s talent level of say 6 out of 10 in his first game his rookie year was the same as Sweezy’s entire 4th season with 60+ games under his belt. Over paying for Sweezy to stay just for continuity is stupid, especially when there is a player right behind him (Glow) who looks just as good as him and is ready to play (for cheap, on a rookie deal). Lewis is a 4.5 out of 10, what Pete calls “solid”, if we don’t upgrade at Center I won’t be worried, but given the depth of Center talent in this draft (and Guards who can possibly play Center well) why wouldn’t you go there?

                We need to upgrade away from Britt (best option a Vet LG, need a vet presence on the OL). We need to let Sweezy walk and start Glow. Okung could easily be out of our price range, and in that case we need to draft a OT in the 1st round (our pick is too low to get a LT, so we will get a RT and move Gilliam to LT). Right there that is 4 of the 5 OL spots with new players on them and there isn’t a thing you can do about it. You might as well upgrade the Center spot by drafting Glasgow or Dahl in the 3rd round.

                Then we can have a OL competition for 2-3 weeks, and LOCK DOWN our starting OL. Why so quick? We want to lock them in as starters so they have all of the remaining preseason time (weeks and weeks and weeks) to work together and build cohesion. Try to avoid the shit show that was 2015 (competing for starting jobs way too long, changing two OL spots with 2 weeks of preseason left).

                At that point even if we do have growing pains, at least the talent on the line is higher. At least they are on rookie contracts and they can be our franchise starters for the next 3-4 years. Glow might have growing pains but at least he can be our starting RG until 2019. Our new Center might have growing pains but at least he will be our starting Center until 2020. Our new RT might have some growing pains but at least he can be our starter until 2020. The Vet LG can be here for just a year, or who knows maybe two. Draft a LG in 2017 and either start him in 2017 or let him red shirt his first season and develop behind the vet.

                ————————————————

                If we are going to lock into offensive linemen long term, I want them to be quality players who has a bright future, not Britt, Sweezy or Lewis. Those aren’t long term solutions. I’d rather deal with some growing pains with a new line that is packed full of long term talent than endure through 2016 with Sweezy, Britt and Lewis on the line.

              • 75franks says:

                that’s why you take advantage of this draft. we can get 2-3 new starters(that are much much better) that can grow together and then next year we wont be having this discussion. if you keep the same guys you prolong the inevitable.

                • EXACTLY!!!

                  (It breaks my heart you can sum up my opinion in 3 sentences when my post is a wall of text lol).

                  • Bill Bobaggins says:

                    “You either agree or you don’t though. Your first paragraph is of you being scared of a “all new OL” and it “not feeling right” but then you agree that Lewis, Sweez and Britt aren’t long term options.”

                    I agree that they aren’t long term options, but I disagree that putting an entirely new OL in place (with rookies, redshirts and converts) to start the season is the best idea.

                    You’re banking on the idea that a new OL with some time together in training camp is going to be much better than last years (which was essentially the same experiment). I’m not as confident.

                  • >I agree that they aren’t long term options, but I disagree that putting an entirely new OL in place (with rookies, redshirts and converts) to start the season is the best idea.

                    >You’re banking on the idea that a new OL with some time together in training camp is going to be much better than last years (which was essentially the same experiment). I’m not as confident.

                    Just like 75Franks says: “if you keep the same guys you prolong the inevitable. that’s why you take advantage of this draft.”

                    I’m banking on the idea that a quality 1st round OT, that a quality 3rd round OG/C, and that a vet LG will be better than Britt (arguably one of the NFL’s worse Olinemen) and Lewis (at best is “solid”), and that Glow is already as good as Sweezy is now.

                    Don’t forget that a big part of last year’s problems were having just 2 weeks to build cohesion and us starting with Nowak at Center. Nowak is a former DT with very minimal O-line experience in the NFL and before coming to us, no Center experience at all. While Dahl would be new to Center, he is a really good (& smart) college OG. It would NOT be Nowak all over again.

                  • Darth 12er says:

                    I get what you’re saying, but you do have a tendency to say the same thing in 10 different ways. You’re both right, really.

            • franks says:

              Lewis is a place holder, he’s not the long term guy. Hopefully that will be Sokoli or eve Novak. And we’ll have a competent, experienced backup.

      • Willyeye says:

        I have a question for you Rob: don’t the Seahawks also have another 7th round pick? I’m pretty sure they get the #4 pick of the 7th round in the Christine Michael trade with Dallas.

  2. cha says:

    I think the veteran hedge against the uncertainty of Okung/Gilliam to LT & draft-availability at the RT position is a smart move. There’s lots of ways it could pan out but I like the idea of having it covered.

    So this scenario would likely have the Hawks maxing out in comp picks. So they’d have 11 to play with in a presumably strong 2017 draft, and they can let the board come to them and go get a pass rusher or two.

  3. Nick says:

    Rob, amazing write up as per usual. Would you mind writing an article about that could help explain the internal process of scouting and drafting? We always talk about the Seahawks monolithically, but do they have weekly meetings with their scout teams where they sit down and talk about their Big Board? Or specific players?

    I understand you may not know, but I’d be super interested to hear how they set-up for the draft. Is Pete involved in the entire process or does he jump in right after the season ends? Similarly, is JS hand holding scouts throughout the entire year?

    Once again, thanks a ton.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I would love to write that piece Nick but unfortunately — I have no idea! Never spoken to or been close to a NFL front office.

    • manthony says:

      The only tid bit I remember hearing,(maybe on this blog last year) was how they set up their big board with perspective to how they project against the guys already here.

      So if we use Feeney as an example they would compare him to Mike Morgan, and compare a Nick Martin to Patrick Lewis and whoever provides the bigger upgrade is who they’ll target. I think having our own depth chart on the big board is unique, but I’m not certain.

      I know they hone in on guys they think are special “cant miss” types and get a little tunnel vision at times.

      PCJS has also been just about as unpredictable as any FO this time of year. How we’re sitting here discussing and planning for the draft. One phone call about a trade inquiry and we end up with a Harvin or Graham.

      I just feel that this current regime is very determined to get talent in here, and will go against the grain sometimes, but they leave no stone unturned.

      • Rob Staton says:

        This is an excellent review by manthony.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        I’d add to this:

        Let’s use the OC example.

        They’ll have a grade on the guys they have. And they’ll have all of the grades on the guys in the draft who are better.

        Martin may have the best grade. But you could also have a situation where you have 5 guys with a superior grade. At that point, you have options. As I understand it, this is one of the means Seattle uses to get value up and down the draft. Yeah Ryan Kelly may be better than say Jack Allen.

        But if you look at your big board, and you see that there aren’t but a handful of guys that can compete with the likes of Morgan at LB — then that shapes the overall discussion. If you want to get better everywhere, you have to sometimes sacrifice the empirically better prospect for a lesser upgrade in order to ensure competitiveness as another.

        • Robert says:

          They also probably create some sort of hierarchy on which positions they want to improve most. Team control of veterans who are declining or nearing Free Agency certainly enters into the analysis. I am hoping LG is very high on the list!

  4. LantermanC says:

    Would be very happy with that draft. With Loadholt and Gilliam, would Ifedi be used as a LG in the first year? Also would Dahl be expected to take a redshirt year in year 1?

    • Rob Staton says:

      Ifedi would be the RT but could slip into LG if it didn’t work in camp.

      On Dahl — depends how he makes the transition. Smart guy. Could compete with Lewis.

  5. Volume12 says:

    I like that draft.

    And this is just me talking, but I’d target a WR in round 4 and a DT in round 5. Just based purely off of draft model.

    Like McGovern or Dahl as options for C. Westerman, Kelly, and Martin too, but IMO they’ll be gone by the time we pick in the 3rd.

  6. KingRajesh says:

    Rob, what do you think about trading back from the 1st into the 2nd, and then trading up from the 3rd back into the 2nd to get 3 quality players in the second round?

    Perhaps we could get Whitehair for LG instead of settling for Dahl at C, while still getting a quality tackle and Feeney?

    It might cost the 2017 2nd, but I feel this team needs to re-load this year to gear up for another run at a title while the team is still relatively intact.

    • Rob Staton says:

      It’ll be hard to do. It seems a bit convoluted. If they move back into round two they run the very real risk of missing out on all of the top tackles.

  7. Sean says:

    No way we draft a punter is there?!

    • Rob Staton says:

      If Ryan walks it seems very possible.

      • Sean says:

        UDFA? No? I would love to see that 7th rd spent on a developmental QB…

        • Rob Staton says:

          It could be an UDFA option. To be honest, a QB in the 7th round is probably going to be a crappy option. But it’s generally where the top punters go.

          • Sean says:

            Cool, thanks Rob! BTW…Charles Davis just released his 2nd mock w Derek Henry going to us at #26…

            • Rob Staton says:

              Eventually someone will mock an offensive tackle!

              • Del tre says:

                Rob do you think there is any chance the Hawks actually decide to take henry? He is a physical freak and honestly he plays faster than his 4.5 fourty. He had a similar combine to c mike and by the time the Hawks select he could be the most talented player on the board. Also it would be a good situation because he wouldn’t be given all of the reps right away he would get 5 to 10 a game and rawls would likely see 10 to 20. It could be a great combo threat rawls is punishing and so is henry and Michael is a change of pac3

            • Volume12 says:

              If the could re-sign Okung, I’d love Henry in the 1st.

              Kind of a weak RB class.

              • Matt B says:

                Don’t forget that next year’s running back class looks much stronger if we can make do until then..

          • sdcoug says:

            Gotta keep our eye on Jax. They prefer to take the top punters in the 3rd round

    • Alicamousa says:

      Tom Hackett please and thanks.

  8. bobbyk says:

    Bold Prediction: Seahawks sign Greg Hardy to low-cost 1-year “prove it” deal with the promise not to franchise him after he has 17 sacks next season. Hardy then will get Seahawks a 3rd round comp. pick in 2018.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’ll offer a counter prediction: Hardy never plays in the NFL again.

    • Trevor says:

      I really hope not. If there is one player in the league I would not want on our team is Hardy. Based on what I have seen he has serve mental issues. Not worth the risk no matter how great the talent.

    • Scraps says:

      If Hardy signs with Seattle I’ll wait until he’s gone until cheering for the Seahawks again. There’s only two or three players that I can say that about. I would feel sick every time I saw him in a Seahawks uniform.

      Fortunately I don’t think I have to worry about that.

      • Rad man says:

        I’d be completely shocked if Hardy was ever a Seahawk, given what the FO has said about DV.

  9. SunPathPaul says:

    I would so take that draft…maybe switch out Dahl for Glasgow, but man, that would be a solid haul.

    One pattern seems to be emerging that sometimes Seattle drafts players, and signs FA like Cory Williams thinking THEY (the coaches) can mold the player. I feel while the Hawks hit on certain players, many of their misses are do to overconfidence in the coaching aspect. Raw talent is sometimes just superior…

  10. Greg Haugsven says:

    It really interesting how rests on whether Okung comes back or not.

  11. Lewis says:

    The only thing you’ve suggested I’d rather not come to pass is Sweezy leaving. I don’t see him getting superstar-type money, and I think bringing him back is vital to a line that saw so much inconsistency last year. Even if they do keep him, you are potentially looking at changes to every other position along the line. If Sweezy is gone, you are rebuilding the entire thing from the ground up.

    My priority in terms of re-signing FAs would be:
    Sweezy
    Lane
    Rubin/Mebane

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m open to Sweezy staying for consistency’s sake — but I’d put him beneath Lane on the priority list.

      • rowdy says:

        Same here, I find it kind of odd that a lot of people here seem to be happy starting 3 rookies on the line next year

        • Rob Staton says:

          I think it’s likely two rookie will start whatever happens. Equally can’t see three starting in any scenario. In the scenario here only one might start if Lewis wins a camp battle at C.

          • Bill Bobaggins says:

            And isn’t that as terrifying as last year’s OL debacle? 2 or 3 rookies protecting the franchise?

            • Rob Staton says:

              No — I said I don’t see any scenario where three rookies start. It’s likely one or two — depending on whether Lewis or a rookie wins the center gig. One rookie starting on the O-line is inevitable whatever happens.

              • Bill Bobaggins says:

                Sorry…misread that.

                2 rookies still scares me though. Especially with the Gilliam to LT scenario.

                You’re thinking potentially Gilliam-Rookie-Lewis-Glowinski/Sweezy-Rookie?

                Not sure if that’s what the OL would look like in your scenario, but that would make me nervous.

                • bobbyk says:

                  Two rookies don’t scare me if they are with picks 1-2 and actually good. Three is getting a bit up there though.

                  • rowdy says:

                    Same, and Gilliam looked good to me LT. I think rt will be a rookie regardless but the rest isn’t settled. I say give Lewis the nod til someone beats him sign sweezy if not to much and get a rookie lg. Not the highest on ifedi but I like him and think he could be the best option because he could play rt or lg. Basically just get Britt out of there.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  I think Gilliam-Veteran-Lewis or rookie-Glowinski or Sweezy-rookie.

                  And to be fair, that would potentially be 3/5’s consistent from 2015. Some change is inevitable.

                  I have almost no fear for Gilliam at LT. His skill-set suits that role better than RT.

  12. ulsterman says:

    coming round to the idea of ifedi in the 1st, though probably prefer Coleman, hope they don’t go Clark.
    still don’t think feeney will go as high as round 2 because of his shoulder surgeries. don’t see how that can’t be an issue, especially for a linebacker.
    rob what do you think of Anthony vettel as a later round d lineman?

    • Rob Staton says:

      The shoulder injuries are a possible issue but until we hear otherwise I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ll keep using the Gronk example — back injuries were his thing and there was concern he’d never play. Look at him now…

  13. ulsterman says:

    really hope they draft Dahl too, if we could keep okung I’d love to see josh garnett and Ryan Kelly to solidify interior for years to come

  14. AndrewP says:

    Rob…

    So, in this scenario, are Gilliam and Loadholt battling it out for RT? I don’t object, I’m just mildly surprised. Come to think of it, the OL is an intriguing group next year… with a six months of FA, draft and progression, it could be a fascinating collection of spaghetti to throw at the wall.

    Still not wild about Dahl for this offense. As a Coug, I love Dahl, just not sure I see him in this rugged, run-first system.

    No prediction on Kam? I assume you think he’s staying, based on the fact that you’ve said it multiple times and you didn’t address it here, but I think there’s a non-zero chance he’s gone.

    • Rob Staton says:

      No, Gilliam moves to LT (which has been projected and seems destined) and Ifedi would start at RT. Loadholt at LG.

      You’d always have the option to switch Loadholt and Ifedi if needs be.

      I do expect Kam to return.

      • AndrewP says:

        Ohhhhh; that makes sense.

        OT: Even though you don’t think it’s going to happen, can we get a ‘What if Kam is Traded?’ hypothetical between now and when FA begins next week? Maybe not an entire article, but a sub-section of one?

        • Rob Staton says:

          I can’t do it man — my heart wouldn’t be in it. I’d be writing something I had no faith in. I think it basically comes down to this — if he was traded, Kelcie McCray starts in 2016.

          • AndrewP says:

            Or Keanu Nelson does after they take him at 26.

            • Rob Staton says:

              I really like Keanu Neal but don’t expect him to be there at #26 and I’m pretty sure they go O-line (they almost have to).

              • Michael M. says:

                They do almost have to… Which is why I’m convinced that they won’t.

              • EranUngar says:

                Rob, you are doing it again.

                You find a gems for us. You fall in love with them. They are on your mind. Once you start your complete mock drafts they pop up constantly when you look at other teams. As a result, by the time you get to our pick most are already gone.

                Did you see Neal in the top 26 picks of any other mock draft?

                • Rob Staton says:

                  Not true Eran.

                  I don’t ‘fall in love’ with prospects. That’s silly. I find good players and write about them. That doesn’t mean because I think they’re going to be really good that I have to spend the rest of the draft season mocking them to the Hawks. Keanu Neal has legitimately linked to the Steelers at #25 by Tony Pauline.

                  The fact others aren’t mocking him in that range doesn’t concern me in the slightest. Neal is a perfect fit for Pittsburgh.

                  • EranUngar says:

                    It’s not just Neal and not just this year. It has to do with your evaluation of talent overall. If you see player X as better than player Y and you come across a team needing a player at that position, you predict that they will pick player X.

                    It’s the right thing to do if you are true to your view.

                    However, it makes your overall mocks more of a worse case scenario. In reality, when you check other mocks from people you respect, you find out that some players that you believed will surely be gone, are still there at 26. Just a day ago Neal and Spriggs were both available on both mocks we looked at.

                    I still think the best way to run a Seahawks mock for us is to take other mocks by respectable authors and predict who we’d pick if faced with that draft rather than mocking all picks to other teams.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    Sorry but this simply is not the way I approach things. For example, I regularly mocked Joel Bitonio to the Seahawks in 2014 including my final mock. That year I also regularly had Domonique Easley available at #32. Two players I liked a lot. In the 2012 draft I basically had the same guy going to the Seahawks every week.

                    For the last four drafts the Seahawks have either picked in the late first or traded their pick well before the draft. It’s hardly a stretch to think the best players in the draft will be gone by the time they pick. As for worst case scenarios — my last three mocks have been almost identical to Daniel Jeremiah’s with regards to who is available at #26.

                  • EranUngar says:

                    OK.

                    You said “I really like Keanu Neal but don’t expect him to be there at #26”.

                    Jeremiah doesn’t have Neal in the first round. I have checked over 20 mocks after the combine. Other than Lance Zierlein, nobody has Neal in the first round. Hence, it is your opinion based on “I really like Keanu Neal” and not based on any common opinion.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    Not true at all.

                    Tony Pauline has repeatedly reported from his insider sources that Neal has interest in round one. Last week he quoted Pittsburgh and Arizona as being possible landing spots.

                    Here’s Lance Zierlein’s new mock draft today with Neal gone at #25 http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/mock-drafts/lance-zierlein/300603?sf21988356=1&sf21993062=1

                    Why are we even having this conversation?

      • franks says:

        That’s why I would go with Coleman. Like Conklin, you know what you’re getting, he’ll win the starting job outside and hold onto it, health permitting, for years. I don’t think you can say that for the combine guys Spriggs and Ifedi. Their risk to me outweighs their ceiling, which if we’re talking about right tackles, it doesn’t need to be that high. Can’t get that much higher than Coleman’s. He’s exactly hat you want in a rookie right tackle late first round.

  15. RealRhino2 says:

    Rob, great work, favorite website this time of year, thanks.

    Ran my own mock using those same soft parameters (need OT in the 1st, limited by Pauline’s rankings (adjusted slightly so guys who had really big combines aren’t allowed to be my big steals)). Came up with:
    1. Coleman, OT – Think he’s more likely/ready to stick at LT than Ifedi.
    2. T. Boyd, WR – Curveball, BPA. So many decent tall WRs, but he ran well enough, gives us that big target Pete’s always looking for, and is regarded as a very good blocker, I think.
    3. C. Jones, DT
    3b. Perkins, RB
    4. Striker, OLB – added a little weight
    5. Bradberry, CB
    6. Judon, DE
    7. J. Simmons, S. or Fahn Cooper, OT (if Simmons’s combine makes him go earlier).

    Don’t like that I didn’t get another inside guy. Guys like Dahl and McGovern were there late, that it would have broken my rules. Counting on Glowinski to be ready.

    • stregatto says:

      Nice draft – with so many Hawks hitting FA it’s not easy to square up on 100% of our needs this year.

  16. LandofBoz says:

    Seahawks are going into 2016 with almost $10mm more tied up in the Defense than Offense. We also know that Pete wants to solidify the Oline. It seems that keeping one of Sweezy or Okung is almost necessary and it makes more sense to me to add more Payroll to the Offense then give Lane the money he might be able to get.

    • Rob Staton says:

      This is how the team is built though — through the defense and run game. They’ve always had that imbalance.

      • LandofBoz says:

        That is totally fair and the data backs that up. I just hate starting each year with a new version of a patchwork line that takes half a season and countless Russ-Hits to play competently. Continuity would be my dream (but that probably goes for every NFL team’s wishes).

    • sdcoug says:

      Russ will soon be closing that gap

    • franks says:

      Sweezy is really good at getting to the second level and hitting guys, good-but-not-great at run blocking on the “first level” and he gets beat like a drum on pass plays. The occasional big run is good to have him running along for sure, but is it worth having an unstable line on all the other plays? Considering our situation, I wouldn’t bring back Sweezy for the minimum.

      • Robert says:

        I completely agree. The jubilation over 2nd level blocking prowess is insane when he is abysmal at pass protection. Ironically, Beast never needed any help once he got to the 2nd level and Rawls doesn’t either. I want more guys like Glowinski that have a decade of blocking with their knees bent. Watching Sweezy and Britt stand up and get swatted aside is outrageous. Tom Cable and his ragged collection of amazing projects is our weakest link.

        • franks says:

          That bears repeating, he has a decade of experience blocking, as do the other guys in the draft. Cable thinks he can get a D-Lineman up to that level in a training camp? He’s been working on Sweezy for four years and the guy still can’t pass block.

  17. no frickin clue says:

    how much do you think Wisniewski fetches in free agency, and would he be a useful addition at center? Assuming we lose both Okung and Sweezy, our most experienced offensive lineman is – who? Britt?

    • Greg Haugsven says:

      I’ve heard the knock on him is he’s weak in the run game which doesn’t really fit here, but then again he was here for a visit.

    • lil'stink says:

      I go back and forth on Wis. He was ok last year, but I wonder if we couldn’t re-sign Lewis and LJP for less than the cost of Wis.

      • franks says:

        Yeah I’m not sure how much better he is than Lewis. Last year he drove a hard bargain, for the kind of player he is.

    • Trevor says:

      I have been thinking Wisnewski might be a good fit as well and he is still young. If the Jags sign Mach he will definitely be available at a reasonable cost.

  18. Clayton says:

    Rob,
    I was wondering what your thoughts are on Carl Nassib… I did a little research that was kind of surprising when you compare him to Joey Bosa.
    Combine Measurables:
    Bosa – HT: 6052 WT: 269 40: 4.86 10YS: 1.69 VERT: 32 BROAD: 10-0 3CONE: 6.89 Bench: 24 ARM: 33 3/8
    Nassib – HT: 6067 WT: 277 40: 4.84 10YS: 1.62 VERT: 28.5 BROAD: 9-6 3CONE: 7.27 Bench: 21 ARM: 34
    Production:
    Bosa – Sacks: 5 TFL: 16
    Nassib: Sacks: 15.5 TFL 19.5
    Bosa’s measurables could be viewed as arguably a better, but not by a big margin. But the production is where Nassib really stands out. It turns out, according to CFB Stats, Nassib had the most sacks and TFLs in college football. And the lack of competition argument doesn’t hold because they are both in the BIG-10. Just food for thought.

    • Rob Staton says:

      He’s a difficult projection. Pretty one dimensional at times — but did get the job done. Size and split is intriguing but wonder if better OT’s will just cover the edge and ride him out. Not a power guy and doesn’t do much other than attack the edge.

  19. ulsterman says:

    Btw know it’s said a lot, but this site has been exceptional recently – a must visit every day.

  20. LikwidIce says:

    Any thoughts on some of the cuts today? Zane Beadles, Charles Johnson, Chris Clemons.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Personally — pass on the lot. All bad, all passed their best.

      • Michael M. says:

        Aww… I wish Chris Clemons still had anything left in the tank. Love that dude. He’s literally my ideal LEO. A guy that doesn’t quite have a place anywhere else in the league, so we can pay him very little, but the genius of Pete Carroll is able to get double digit sacks out of him every year.

      • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

        AGREED!

  21. Trevor says:

    Rob great write up as usual and makes a ton of sense. I know the Okung shoulder and injury history is an issue but I think our coaching staff has shown they are much better at developing CBs than OL.

    I would much sooner spend the cap room on Okung than Lane and Loadholt.

    I think there is a far greater chance SJB, Seisay, Smith or Simon steps up to play quality CB opposite Sherm than there is switching Gilliam to LT and drafting a quality RT who can start day #1.

    Does that make any sense?

    • Rob Staton says:

      It’s certainly a theory — but when you’re talking about paying Okung about $10m APY the dynamic shifts a bit. It’d be a significant outlay for a guy with a track record (consistently) of injuries. And while it’s true they’re good at developing CB’s — they’ve also paid three key DB’s and might not be that interested in another Cary Williams situation.

      I suspect the only chance Okung stays is if his market is lukewarm and he can return on a one-year cost-effective contract.

      • GeoffU says:

        I think Okung may get a massive deal. The thing working against him: the number of tackles set to go at the top end of the draft. The thing for: there’s pretty much no tackles of his caliber available in free agency. I see a bidding war coming, especially for teams that want to go a different direction in the draft.

      • LandofBoz says:

        Hey Rob – What APY would make you comfortable for Okung? I keep seeing a Market Evaluation of around $8.5 to $9.5mm. I think if we could get him at the low side of that, it would make too much sense.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Here’s what I’d do.

          Go about signing Lane and sorting the DT situation out.

          Then I’d see how much is left and go to Okung (providing he hasn’t already moved on).

          • Ground_Hawk says:

            Let’s say that it plays out that way, but what they offer Okung isn’t what he is looking for. Do you think that they would then try to bring in someone like Loadholt? What do you think?

    • franks says:

      I don’t know about that Trevor. There look like a number of good RT prospects will fall to our range in the first. As far as LT, Gilliam was being groomed for LT already. Larry and Pete think he can do it and he had a good start last year.

      If you go with Okung, you risk starting Bailey in the playoffs. Before the cap issues.

      Simon and possibly Smith could lock down CB2 if healthy though ‘ll agree with you on that. Hopefully if we add a FA or rookie it’ll be someone healthy. Not WTIII. If you keep Lane and replace Okung, you don’t have to worry about you’re starting CB or LT getting hurt.

      • Trevor says:

        Agree with a lot of your points Frank but in the NFL all players can get hurt. Lane has missed a lot more games than Okung the last 3 years. Both guys injury history is why they will not get as much as they should on open market and the only reason we may be able to re sign either of them.

        • franks says:

          That’s true, but Okung has had so many of them, one after another that I just don’t think he can be counted on. Even if he signs for cheap, you’re paying him 7 or 8 million and if he’s not in the game when we need him most, for example the Panther, that’s dead money and we’re going into a season without a starter for literally-must-win-games. If we’re overpaying a LT because there aren’t many that’s ok, but let’s pay one who can make it through the season.

  22. GeoffU says:

    I go back and forth on Lane, not on whether or not me or the Seahawks want him back (we both do), but on his value. He doesn’t make NFL.com’s free agency 99 list (not sure that matters) which makes me think his market may be lukewarm. Teams see how Maxwell and Thurmond did after they left Seattle and might think it’s more scheme, plus he’s played mostly inside than outside. It wouldn’t surprise me if he gets massively overlooked. It also wouldn’t surprise me if some team offers him a huge deal. I think it’s going to be one or the other.

    We could also get Thurmond back too. Or has he gone full safety?

  23. Rob Staton says:

    Kearse is gone.

    Updated the post with an Adam Schefter report.

    • D says:

      “Looking forward to finding a new home”. Almost sounds a bit bitter, I hope he’s not trying to burn bridges.

    • Bill Bobaggins says:

      Kasen Williams is better. He’ll get his chance now.

      • D says:

        I like Kasen too (even though we went to my rival HS). However, its premature to say that he’s better than Kearse; there is a reason he spent most of the season on the PS and only had one catch. Lets be realistic with our expectations 😉

        • Bill Bobaggins says:

          He’s a more talented receiver. Better?

          • Bill Bobaggins says:

            By the way…he spent most of the season on the PS because he was an undrafted rookie coming off a broken leg the previous year. I think it had less to do with talent than experience.

          • D says:

            Ha works for me. The one thing that concerns me is his speed and quickness. He was never much of a burner, even back in HS where athleticism shows up even more, and then had some injuries that slowed him down even more. He does have plenty of natural talent, should be exciting to see what he can do with more opportunities.

            • Bill Bobaggins says:

              Agreed and agreed. Definitely a possession guy.

              • Landhawk says:

                If he’s available in round 4 or 5, I’d like the Hawks to take Stanford WR Devon Cajuste. He could be that big possession and red zone guy.

                • Volume12 says:

                  Cajuste wears 89 because of Baldwin. Says Baldwin gives him tips on how to run routes.

                  Some of the numbers he put up at his size, were impressive. I think he beat Kelvin Benjamin in all but one drill.

                  And no, that doe not mean that he’s a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounder. But, a very appealling option on day 3.

                  • oz says:

                    I like Cajuste a lot. I am hoping the Hawks make the selection. And I believe they will.

                  • Landhawk says:

                    I agree. Cajuste is not a day 1 or 2 pick but we might be able to get him in round 4 or 5. Sometimes you watch a guy and he just looks like a player. I didn’t realize until recently how athletic the guy is. He had the 4th highest sparq rating amongst all of the wide receivers at the combine. He was also the biggest receiver at 6′ 4″ and 234 pounds with 33″ arms and 10 3/4″ hands. He ran a 4.62 40 (which he may improve at pro day) with a 1.61 split. He had a 36″ vertical and a 10′ 3″ broad jump. His 3 cone time was the fastest at the combine at 6.49 which Zach Whitman (3sigmaathlete.com) cited as one of the fastest ever recorded at the combine.

                    So you have a big, quick possession receiver that can threaten the middle of the defense and with his size and leaping ability, should be a good red zone threat. Also a smart guy (Stanford ) that looks like a pretty good blocker as well. I could see him and Wilson forming a good connection.

                    On another note, how about grabbing his teammate Josh Garnett (OG) while we’re at it. A big LG that won the award for the nation’s top interior O-lineman? He’d be a day one starter. That would work for me!

        • rowdy says:

          You went to clover park? Same here

  24. Attyla the Hawk says:

    I do think Sweezy is gone. Not merely because of cost. But for the fact that Seattle already pre drafted for his expected departure. I think it’s part of the 3 year plan they have cap wise. And while I don’t think his one start means he’s a known quantity. I do think it was the long term plan.

    Figured I’d add another interior OL prospect to the list (buried on the last article comments). This was in regards to Joe Thuney.

    Man this list of R3/R4 guys is getting big. At this point, I’d be disappointed if we go interior OL before 90:

    For comparison’s sake:

    Spriggs (hands down combine winner?)
    Thuney (day 3?)
    Glowinski (R4 in 2015)

    4.94 40 | 1.75 10y | 31 bench | 31.5 Vert | 9’7″ BJ | 7.70 3C | 4.44 SS
    4.95 40 | 1.70 10y | 28 bench | 28.5 Vert | 9’2″ BJ | 7.47 3C | 4.54 SS
    5.20 40 | 1.83 10y | 31 bench | 29.5 Vert | 9’5″ BJ | 7.56 3C | 4.58 SS

    If you are of the mind that Spriggs was a Combine warrior who vaulted his way to R1, then Thuney is (at least testing wise), a player who should be gone by the first half of R2. If he’s on the board by 90, that’s a great athletic prospect.

    Guess we could add yet another really solid name to the list of probable interior OL prospects at 90 and 96.

    I think it’s almost a given that we’re not picking a Kelly/Martin in R2. Not with the glut of super prospects in R3/R4.

    • GeoffU says:

      Just want to throw out there Sweezy’s combine performance for comparison:

      5.01 40 | na 10y | 21 bench | 36 Vert | 9’5″ BJ | 7.40 3C | 4.41 SS

    • Volume12 says:

      Spriggs has been a borderline 1st rounder all year long.

      Thuney is a day 3 prospect. Have a tough time seeing a sub 295 lb prospect that was widely viewed as a 5th-7th rounder going anywhere in the top 100.

      Yes, he had a great combine and is an interesting prospect, but there’s gotta be some guys that go later than the 2nd or 3rd. Even with a good combine.

      • rowdy says:

        And feeney was 7th round prospect before the combine, now he’s a 2nd? I mean I agree with you but that’s why I wouldn’t draft feeney in the top 100 either

        • Ground_Hawk says:

          Depending on the medical evaluation I think round 3 would be where I would be comfortable drafting him. Four shoulder surgeries before making it to the pros presents quite the risk. If not for the medical flags he would warrant a first round grade IMO.

          • rowdy says:

            Look at pulk, better college player but teams said he had knee issues and went undrafter. Like you said , 4 shoulder injuries in college. Even he passes medical checks it’s a risk. I’d draft jaylon Smith before feeney personally.

            • Ground_Hawk says:

              If not for their injuries I think that they would both be going in the first round.

              • rowdy says:

                Smith for sure, and if it was 1 or 2 surgeries id have a different opinion and him not doing the bench at the combine makes me think it’s still an issue. Rob said he gives him the benefit of the doubt till he hears other wise and I agree with that train of thought. I just don’t think his issues around going away.

        • Volume12 says:

          Feeney was not a 7th rounder.

          His talent was always a 3rd or 4th rounder. I said he goes in the 7th if his shoulder injuries are a concern, and right now, they don’t look to be.

          He didn’t have scouts almost crying like Jaylon Smith did. Smith might not ever play a down in the NFL. Nerve injuries are career killers.

      • Attyla the Hawk says:

        Thuney tipped the scales at 304 at the combine. That’s more than adequate. Probably got some old info. A sub 290 lineman in the NFL is going to have trouble. I totally agree there. Would have to be special in other ways.

        Still watching his tape. Doesn’t look like a 5th/6th round guy. If he’s there at that range, I think he’s a priority kind of guy.

        It’s early in the process. You and I both know that there are always a lot of guys who emerge late because — well they either had inaccurate measurement info or just were a bit obscure to start with. I’d give him a look before rubber stamping a late day 3 grade.

        He’s not a tackle in the NFL. Too short of arms.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Here’s the thing though — nearly everyone seems like a top-three-rounds pick at the moment. Same thing happens with javon Hargrave. A lot of these guys (I’d include Thuney and Jack Allen) are more likely to last until day three IMO.

        • Volume12 says:

          Your right, it was old info.

          I didn’t say late day 3, day 3. I just don’t see a top 100 kind of talent. He’s not a bad player by any means, and is intriguing for sure.

          Yes, guys emerge late all the time. But, at the same time, not every guy that kills the combine is a top 100 talent. He’s a C in a pretty deep class, considering you got LTs and G’s that will and can play C for most teams.

          • Attyla the Hawk says:

            Totally agreed.

            Maybe it’s the verbiage. When I say R3/R4 type, that to me kind of means 90-150 overall. R5/R7 seems like it’s 150-225 range.

            Today, he’s going to be considered in that 150-225 overall. I think he will rise. There are plenty of teams that draft like we do now. A guy with that kind of testing is going to be examined more closely if that athleticism was a shock. If not, then they already had him somewhere on their board.

            I think from the outsider perspective, we see him in that 150-225 range. I don’t know that jives with what teams see. I’m seeing a guy who looks pretty impressive as far as tape goes. Normally, you’d see testing numbers like that and say, “late round, raw but athletic”. Instead I’m not seeing a guy who is particularly raw.

            I do agree that there is a combine inflation phenomenon where guys get too much interest relative to their actual grade. I won’t pretend to think I know it all because I don’t. But I’d invite you to look at Thuney and give me your opinion. Based on what I’m seeing thus far, I think Thuney is a legitimate candidate to rise in profile because he’s just a good player on tape. The measurables at this point to my eye are immaterial.

            If you’d have asked me what I thought of Joe Thuney before the combine, I would have said I have no clue who he is or where he played. I didn’t even consider him worthy of investigating until I sifted through the combine scores. It took a fair bit of digging to even find tape on him but hit the mother lode with Brissett tape.

            I don’t see him as a top 100 talent. But I do consider, that Seattle has a pick at 126. I think their next pick isn’t until something like 170. He is a guy who is athletic at a position of need. And should be there at 126. It’s worth considering that Seattle could ‘reach’ for a guy that they expect won’t be on the board when they pick next. Particularly if it means they pass on the likes of a McGovern or a Westerman in the R3 ranges in order to address other needs (RB/Edge).

            It seems very much like something Seattle would consider. Both need, and athletic profile. I’d put skill on that list too at this stage. Maybe they like Blair a lot? Maybe they go Ogbah and trade up for an OT and don’t have 4 picks in days 1 and 2 anymore. Thuney could well be in our mix early on day 3 by the virtue of us picking very late thereafter in R5 and R6.

            To me, seeing a guy like Thuney later really gives you some flexibility to spend early draft stock on other needs. Instead of taking the obvious. Seattle is pretty good at doing that.

            End result: I think Thuney is a legitimate player who should outperform his draft position. The exception to the norm in this range. He should be immediately competitive on our OL. And a very attractive Plan B/C if we end up getting a bit greedy in the draft.

        • purpleneer says:

          “He’s not a tackle in the NFL. Too short of arms.”
          Isn’t this a logical reason for a big discrepancy between his draft range and Spriggs’, without hypocrisy over combine numbers?

  25. Dan says:

    I can’t believe I hadn’t thought about this earlier (and I’m guessing someone has already suggested it), but what about a 1-year prove it deal with Jason Pierre-Paul? We could always use more pass rush and with his current situation, he is a candidate for a prove it deal with someone.

  26. Trevor says:

    The Jags cut Chris Clemons and couple of other guys. They have almost $90 mil in Cap Space. That is crazy!

    Can you say come on down Bruce Irvin, Alex Mack and Doug Martin. They could sign these 3 guys and still have more cap room than 75% of the league.

    • Trevor says:

      If Gus can’t figure out a way to get a team with that much young talent and the ability to add whatever Vets he wants in free agency then I don’t think he will get another year. That being said I think they are set up nicely to win the AFC South in 2016.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Spend wisely young grasshopper. Rarely does the biggest FA spender get the SB worm.

  27. Bill Bobaggins says:

    By the way Rob…you know what would make this blog MUCH better??? Getting Johnny Manziel off the header on top.

    Thanks for the blog man…it’s daily reading for a lot of us.

  28. Steve Nelsen says:

    Rob,

    The more I consider Noah Spence’s performance, the more I think he could slide to 26 (or into the 2nd round like Gregory last year). Leonard Floyd has leapfrogged him in your mock and I wouldn’t be surprised if Emmanuel Ogbah starts getting mocked above him as well.

    How much does the disappointing combine cause you to reevaluate his tape?

    • Rob Staton says:

      A 4.80 at 250lbs won’t cut it for the Hawks off the edge. Didn’t get a 1.5 split. Disappointing.

      • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

        This was actually one the the more surprising outcomes of the combine…. how slow Spence looked. After hearing so much about him possibly going in top 5, now I have a hard time seeing him go in top 25.

  29. Michael M. says:

    I just can’t imagine the ‘Hawks ever spending a pick on a punter. I wouldn’t be against it because it would save some coin, and how badly can a bad punter really hurt you? I just don’t see it happenning.

    • Volume12 says:

      It’s a 7th rounder.

      • Michael M. says:

        Yes, it is a 7th rounder. Is there a team in football that values 7th round picks as much as the ‘Hawks do? They love to go with great athletes with huge upside and see what they can do with ’em. I just think they’d rather find a guy on the street. They were without a kicker (more important position I think) after 2010 and grabbed Hauschka off waivers.

        • Volume12 says:

          Might be right, maybe they do grab one off the street.

          Do they value 7th rounders, or do they grab athletes and see what sticks?

          You could also make the argument that they place a premium on STs.

          And for a team that’s gonna up against the cap, even for a P, grabbing one late or in UDFA, which is no risk/no cost, it makes sense.

          • Darth 12er says:

            What is the difference in the contracts between a UDFA and a 7th rounder? I imagine they go with the smaller cap hit.

            • Miles says:

              Actually Pete loves field position. The difference of 10 yards of field position can be the difference between the opposing offense running at you downhill or sputtering.

    • D says:

      The Jags took a punter 5 picks before Russ in 2012 so theres value in having a good punter (maybe overvalued in that situation). Also, google Nick O’toole. Dude’s facial hair alone is worth a 7th rd pick.

  30. CharlieTheUnicorn says:

    Rob, I’m glad to see you have jumped on the Nick O’Toole punter bandwagon in the 7th. Heck, they should draft him just for his beard. 🙂

    • rowdy says:

      Ryan posted a tweet a month ago thanking fans and I figured it meant he was gone. I’ve been on the wagon sence

  31. matt says:

    “There is a stable of young defensive backs in the clubhouse — but losing Lane would put a lot of pressure on one or two to step up in 2016 and possibly start.” Rob

    Shead played pretty well starting opposite of Sherman. I’d feel comfortable plugging him into the base D and shifting him inside in nickel. It’s clear it takes CB’s a year or 2 to learn the technique. With a stable of CB’s getting significant training time, it’s not a stretch to expect one of 5 big, talented CB’s step into the rotation or even win the starting nod. SJB, Seisay, Simon, Smith and Farmer…a ton of talent waiting in the wings. I’d like Lane, but feel like JS has been loading the roster up with CB’s to prepare for losing Lane.

    • Trevor says:

      That was my thought as well Matt.

    • Ed says:

      I thought Shead was fantastic. I’m ok with pretty much all FA leaving (Rubin being top priority for me). It would be great if Okung/Irvin/Lane/Sweezy/Mebane/Kearse all get pretty good deals and add to the draft capitol of the Hawks.

      As for draft, I just want them to come away with 2 starting OL and a nice rotational inside pass rush. Don’t care what round, just some plug and play actual OL with OL experience.

      Martin/Kelly/Allen/Tretola/Westerman/Spriggs/Shell/Whitehair/Dahl

      • Greg Haugsven says:

        I’m pretty much with you Ed. Would like an Irvin replacement as well. (Feeny)?

  32. Greg Haugsven says:

    http://www.nfl.com/labs/rr/pathtothedraft/treadwell
    Interesting piece on Laquon Treadwell.

  33. C-Dog says:

    It’s funny. I look these free agents, and I think they have to keep this guy, or that guy, but really, I’m not sure there is any of them that is a must keeper. Lane makes a lot of sense, but then I keep thinking that with the stance of young corners, with a full offseason of OTAs, someone stands the chance to pop, maybe a couple. Conventionally, Okung should be a priority, but he contract is going to eat up a bunch of space. It’s pretty conversational that they should sign at least one the DTs, but I still have to think with this depth of DT in this class, JS/PC were probably factoring that over a year ago. Obviously, they are going to keep some of their players, but honestly, I can’t really give a prediction.

    The only thing I think I can predict is that they will probably be pretty slow moving in free agency in lieu of the compensatory picks they will look to acquire next year. They may not even tap into it until after the draft.

    That said, watch them make some crazy trade.

  34. Donald says:

    With Kearse likely gone, that leaves Baldwin and Lockett as the only proven receivers left. I like Paul Richardson but with two knee surgeries his health is a question mark, and anything he does would be a bonus. I would put a WR as much of a priority as a OL and DL/ LB pass rush.

    Therefore I would like to see:

    1) Coleman/ Ifedi
    2) Doctson/ Boyd (most likely gone by 56) (Best WR)
    3) Dahl
    3) Deion Jones/ Feeney
    4) Best RB

    • Rob Staton says:

      Let’s not forget, Kearse and Baldwin were UDFA’s. So they might be able to replace Kearse in the same way.

      • C-Dog says:

        Kasen Williams was once thought of as a potential high round pick. Kevin Smith is two years into the system now, and there are those who think he shares a lot of the traits Kearse did when he was developing. I’m interested to see what Deshon Fox, and Antwan Goodley this year. WR is one of the positions I’m least concerned with.

  35. Poweroflogic says:

    I actually agree with most of the UFA predictions above, with the exception of Okung who I think will be, and should be, prioritized somewhat more than is implied. The breaking point for Okung is difficult: of course a 5m one-year prove-it deal will be a no brainer to most people; even a 7m one year might even be to many; but 8m multi year? It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if the Seahawks take this if the market dictates that price for Okung.

    I personally can think of no better use of cap funds given team needs, especially since they could still sign Lane, who I think could be priority #2, and at least one if not both of the DTs. No middle class FAs would be signed in this scenario but I have seen no such FA scenario, including the one above, that leaves the hawks in better shape than the UFA only scenario which includes Okung.

    Things brings me to the cap assumptions above. They are wrong if they are meant to reflect hard salary constraints, as opposed to a set of subjective judgements. But this has already been demonstrated multiple times by different posters on this website. It is a subjective judgement, not an objective calculation, that Jon Ryan should be resigned BEFORE calculating that 18m is left over for UFAs, which is how Hsu came up with his number.

    Furthermore, Davis’s 18m was always intended as a one-year window on the cap, which is fine. Schneider has publicly stated he does not use a one year window. Lynch’s retirement frees up 9m over two years and if Lynch gets the post-June designation, this 9m will be entirely freed up this year. This is not figured into an 18m figure.

    In addition, back loaded contracts and the proper cap accounting of new contracts (each one counts -500k against the cap) means that there is significantly more contract flexibility than is indicated above. Yesterday’s discussion had more than one estimate, from this broader perspective, which allowed the Seahawks to sign players to 22m-25m+ APY.

    I’m pretty sure Davis would recognize each and every one of these points so these comments are not a critique of his original estimate, for it’s particular purpose. But that number should not be misused to state that the Seahawks cannot possibly sign more than 18m worth of salaries this offseason. That is patently false.

    Anyone who wants the irrefutable starting point for the math should begin with $24.79m cap space after PS/IR/Draft and before RFAs as shown here: http://www.fieldgulls.com/2016/2/23/11081186/nfl-salary-cap-seahawks-russell-okung-bruce-irvin-jermaine-kearse#361122155. If anyone finds mathematical or other error here, please, do tell.

    On the pure cap math with a two-year horizon, the Seahawks could likely sign all of Lane, Rubin, Mebane (if the assumption is 14m APY salary for these three) *and* Okung. Even Okung at 10m! Shocking perhaps. Not likely perhaps. But this is the real upper limit of a salary constraint. Of course, in this scenario the Hawks might let their punter go, but this consideration should be in the mix of discussion not assumed away.

    • rowdy says:

      As far as okung goes, I think the hawks enter the draft with the thought they won’t have him. With his injury he probably won’t be signed at draft they will have to prepare for him not being there.

  36. Miles says:

    I heard it suggested on Danny Dave and Moore that Jermaine Karse could get somewhere between $7 and $9m. That sounds ridiculous at first but consider the dearth of WRs available in free agency and the draft. Kearse is arguably the best one available of all of em.

    So if Okung signs for $10m+ and Irvin signs for $10m+, and Kearse signs for $8m+, that means we’d be comp’d two 3rds and a 4th …

    What what.

    • Ignorant says:

      Very bad news for us if we want to extend Baldwin.

    • Poweroflogic says:

      Woah! That seems on the high side for Kearse. I would have put his ceiling price at ~6m APY without a ton guaranteed. But who knows with $700m+ sloshing around to spend on free agents.

      That’s a good point and scary thought about Baldwin. What is his potential value and at what point would the Hawks actually let him go? Is a future without Baldwin actually conceivable?

      I am totally guessing here, but I wonder if the front office will give Baldwin assurances for now and see if his numbers come down to earth next season and also hope for the FA market/draft looks more favorable in 2017.

      • Volume12 says:

        I think they’ll get Baldwin taken care of, maybe not soon.

        The cap space they have available next year compared to this year is a night and day difference.

        • EranUngar says:

          “The cap space they have available next year compared to this year is a night and day difference.”

          Not really Vol.

          If you look right now, our top 51 is 133M. Next year it is 112M. However, we only have 21 players on the 2017 list.

          If we assume that the seahawks will use their budget to the limit this year and actually use those 18M for our UFAs than next year starts at 130M or more for 25 players. the rest of the roster – 26 players will cost 13M at minimum wage plus IR, PS and Rookie class and we are over 150M. If we back-load some contracts this year and extend Baldwin, reward Bennett and carry the extra for top round picks this year we are getting close to 160M out of an optimistic 168-170M. We will need to resign Willson and not much else.

    • Davidess says:

      Can we get 2 3rd comp picks? I thought the NFL splits it up. So teams can’t have that happen but would instead would go to another team. Whomever had the next valuable (besides us if course) sorry just confused haha.

      • Miles says:

        Davidess, I am not sure if you can get two thirds. But if that happens why not allow that team to get as many high comps as players they lose? That’s the reward for developing players that become too expensive to keep. Plus I doubt teams would very often get two thirds. How many teams have that many good players that hit the market? Not many.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      4-6M is what Clayton laid on them during his segment. Kearse might be one of the better younger WRs on the market….

    • Trevor says:

      If Jermaine Kearse gets $8mil+ that would be the worst signing in NFL history.

  37. Willyeye says:

    A lot of people keep hammering for O-Line continuity. Then some want to keep Sweezy for continuity’s sake. I’m no football expert, but if you were to start 4 new guys on the O-LIne and keep only Sweezy, how does keeping him make the line consistent? Sweezy will have played with no other guy on the line. How would that in any way resemble continuity?

    • rowdy says:

      Zbs takes a year or two to learn, kinda like cb in seattle. If okung and sweezy leave were looking at a line gilliam/rookie or britt/ rookie or lewis/ glowinski/ rookie or britt. Britt would have the most game experience in this case and Lewis having the most nfl experience . I call the starting from scratch and worrisome.

      • Rob Staton says:

        Okung, Carpenter, Sweezy, Britt, Bowie.. all started quickly as rookies.

        Only rookie who’s started immediately at DB is Earl Thomas. Sherman was forced into a starting role due to injuries.

        • EranUngar says:

          Rob,

          Sweezy and Bowie were forced due to injuries. Britt and Carpenter started and looked the part of a clueless rookie during the first half of their respective seasons.

          Out of those 5, only Okung, a top 10 pick, had a solid rookie season. The rest looked like players who needed that extra red shirt year and did not get it.

          • Rob Staton says:

            Sweezy was not forced to due to injuries. Sweezy legitimately won a competition and started against Arizona in 2012. Britt competed with Eric Winston at right tackle and won the job. Whether he struggled or not is more a review of his abilities than a review of their unwillingness to start rookies early. Ditto Carpenter playing at right tackle. He didn’t look comfortable there and then he got injured before they moved him to guard.

            The point is — they don’t redshirt O-liners unless they have to (eg Sokoli). They have philosophically redshirted cornerbacks.

            • rowdy says:

              My comment wasn’t about them being willing to start rookies my comment was about them starting rookies and them playing like rookies because they need to learn the system just like Lynch did. Britt and Lewis being the veteran leaders on the line is worrisome to me. Browser started right away wt3 was the starter that sherman took over for. We had pro bowlers ever since. We don’t have pro bowl oline men for them to sit behind.

              • Rob Staton says:

                I know rowdy, I just highlighted that the Seahawks don’t appear to share your concern having started multiple young OL’s vs sitting their young DB’s.

    • mishima says:

      Sorry, but I don’t understand this argument. Building cohesion and/or developing consistency means very little if your overall talent is bad (or prone to injury). Right now, Gilliam, Britt, Lewis, Glow are your starting LT, LG, C, RG, respectively, and we have no RT, unless you consider Bailey anything more than an annoying Twitter presence. Okung is high risk, low value at anything over $6 million; Sweezy isn’t a $4 million upgrade over Glow.

      iMO, they have to draft 2 OL in the first 3 rounds, then worry about building a dominant ZBS, which I think some on here equate to learning Mandarin or theoretical physics.

      Ifedi/Coleman/Decker in first; Westerman/Clark/Martin in second.

      • RealRhino2 says:

        Agree with you completely. I believe that OL cohesion/continuity, along with “doing the little things” and “learning to trust your receivers”, is just hogwash; something people say to make excuses for failure.

        I’m not saying it’s as easy as learning your ABCs, but the concepts should all be fairly simple. You’ve got your line call/protection responsibilities. If your guy is lined up here, this is your job. If he shifts to there, then this is your job. If they stunt, here’s how you handle it. Etc., etc.

  38. Brandon says:

    Any chance that San Jose St. RB Tyler Ervin makes it to the bottom of the 4th? Nice change of pace back who could be very valuable in the 2 min drill. Not the tallest or heaviest back, but the dude got speed as well as receiving ability and return experience.

    I’ve been a fan of Prosise for awhile now, but just saw that the dude has 8.5 inch hands? I understand the argument that small hands might not matter (Ex: Lockett), but it still has me worried that fumbling could be a problem.

  39. 503Hawk says:

    Post Combine / Pre Freeagency BOLD PRICTION: STARTING O-LINE WK 1 2016 SEASON

    LT – Okung (Signed to one year “prove it” deal.)
    LG – Britt (Better run blocker than most believe. The film don’t lie.)
    C – Lewis (Stability, smarts.)
    RG – Glowinski (Groomed as a rookie.)
    RT – Gilliam (More consistent in year two.)

    Coleman is drafted in R1 and is groomed just like Glowinski. Will see more playing time than Glow though.
    Dahl is drafted in R4 and is similarly groomed.
    Nowak sees playing time at center.

    FWIW: Although Sweezy is a physical tone setter, he grades out worse than Britt (who is better than most believe).

    2017 would then look like this:

    LT – Gilliam
    LG – Britt
    C – Dahl
    RG – Glowinski
    RT – Coleman
    SBLIIMVP – Russel Wilson

    Let’s see your bold predictions!

    • Troy says:

      I would absolutely hate it if we did not improve on Britt at left guard, his pass pro is worst in the league, I like my QB upright and injury free :).

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      This would be a a huge disappointment, if they just have a few minor tweaks. They need to bring in at least one and preferably two legit OL rookie prospects or FAs. If not, Seattle will make the playoffs, but be sitting on the couch during SB51…. and that is a missed opportunity to win a SB in a limited window.

      • Greg Haugsven says:

        That line to me has no improvement. Britt gets beat like he stolevdomething. I think we need a long term answer at center as well, stop messing around with projects and get a real center.

    • Rob Staton says:

      If they draft Coleman to ‘groom’ him — he’ll be 25/26 by the time he’s starting.

      As for Britt — the tape certainly doesn’t lie. He was horrendous against Carolina in the playoff game.

      • EranUngar says:

        OK. can you remind us who played good during the first half against CAR? or how did Gilliam fare against Hase when we played the RAMs?

        For me, the ideal line to start 2016 is Okung, Coleman/Ifedi, Lewis, Sweezy/Glow, Gilliam. I assume they can’t keep Okung and Sweezy so it’ll probably be Glow at RG. At least Glow had that year of NFL grooming for his job.

        That line will have both Tackles and Center returning to their positions. In spite of the trend here, Tackles and Center are the key positions for continuity. There is a reason why Tackles are more valuable than guards. The only reason we think that the inside of the OL is THE problem is having 2 decent tackles last year.

        During 2016 we will finish grooming Soko to be the 2017 Center and hopefully groom another 3rd/4th round pick to compete at G/C in 2017. If Coleman works out he will also compete for T in 2017.

        This plan should bring more consistency from day 1 than plans involving multiple rookies or massive changes of positions etc.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Nobody played well but Britt was particularly bad. Go watch the tape. It was a disaster.

          Gilliam vs Hayes… again this was all down to the interior pressure. If you watch the tape, the Rams collapsed the middle forcing Wilson to scramble. All Hayes did was hold position and not rush and he was practically gifted plays. Easy.

          Who is proposing massive changes or multiple rookies? I’ve said two rookie starters maximum in my prediction.

          • bobbyk says:

            Then look at the tape of Britt for the first seventeen games of the season.

          • 503Hawk says:

            We will see soon. If you have a different opinion, let’s see your prediction.

            • 503Hawk says:

              We can update our predictions post free agency, then post draft.

              • Rob Staton says:

                My prediction is:

                Gilliam LT
                New player (rookie or vet) LG
                New player (rookie or vet) or Lewis C
                Sweezy or Glowinski RG
                New player (rookie or vet)

                I would expect at least one rookie starter, possibly two but not three.

                Personally I think it’d be a major, major upset if the line is essentially what it was last year as you projected.

  40. Saxon says:

    No way I’d sign a 3rd corner for 6 – 7.5 million. Lane is a nice player but that money would be better spent on OL and DL. Nickel backs should be gotten in the draft on cheap rookie deals. Pete Carroll is one of the all – time greats at developing DBs so that’s a position where we can save money and still get production.

    • Poweroflogic says:

      Possibly. If we were talking about Burley I might agree more wholeheartedly. But I think Lane played RCB quite well, certainly better than Williams and Shead, and his versatility is real advantage. Williams got that kind of money.

      There are also signs the CB factory is running out of steam. No matter what, as of now there are no proven CBs left under contract in 2017. Tye Smith is but otherwise it is a big unknown.

      Last season’s failed experiment with Williams was costly. CB2 was arguably the second most costly weakness on the team after OL. Combine that experience with a rapid emptying of CB depth and it just feels to me like they have to make a move on Lane or Simon (unless Shead develops fast and far), the in house options that have proven something on the field. It won’t be perfect but the alternative is a lot of uncertainty at right and slot CB.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Lane would be the starter at outside corner.

  41. Rad man says:

    Nice write up, Rob.

    Agree Lane is the top priority. For me, Rubin follows somewhat distantly. I’m ok letting others walk given anticipated market forces.

    I’m increasingly of the mind that the best choice may be for them to draft D line and LB with first couple picks, and draft O line in the mid and later rounds. Find average LG and RT in free agency. Loadholt, Massie, Ramirez, et al. Those types. This team is probably 13 wins with an average O line.

    Gilliam/FA/Lewis/Glow/FA. Draft two or three guys to compete/fill in, develop with 3rd round and beyond.

    Rookie O line are such projects now. Look at Arizona hoping that Cooper, a top ten pick, can start, and Humphries won’t be a disaster. Why spend a high draft pick on guys your own coach thinks they largely don’t even have the basics to play in the league yet? No thanks.

    Find some mediocre, league average 26-28 year old guys that other teams have suffered through with starting experience and hope to get two of them for less than 10M total. Seems plausible to me.

    Draft for impact, fill in with FA.

    • Rad man says:

      ah, I had the 10M in my head when I was pondering 3 FA. Rather, 2 for 6M. How much are guys like Massie, Mills, Stephenson, harris, Jones etc expected to get? 3M per, maybe? Get two of those 27 year old guys who already have 4 years of experience, hope you catch them once they’re already up the learning curve, draft three more to fill in and develop.

    • CharlieTheUnicorn says:

      Cooper was from a draft class that lacked truly elite OL prospects at OT. Actually, the current class might be mirroring this league wide disappointment. It is not to say some of the guys won’t pan out, but the guys in the mid rounds might end up being just as good as early picks on the OL.

  42. CharlieTheUnicorn says:

    Rob (or anyone)

    Do we have any indications as to the strength of the 2017 draft class, which positions look like they are stacked and which look like garbage? I’m trying to look into the crystal ball for 2016 mock draft purposes

    • nichansen01 says:

      Edge rusher, defensive back, offensive tackle and running back are strengths. Extremely good class of running backs. Finally a good class of safeties and corners.

      Wide receiver looks to be a weakness, along with defensive tackle and interior offensive linemen (the last two being strengths of the 2016 class). Not sure about quarterback, the big name is going to be Deshuan Watson at that position.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Way too early to say Charlie.

  43. franks says:

    So I was at Red Robin and I started thinking about the Seahawks…

    Kearse sounds like he’s gone. We’re still deep at WR don’t need another one. I think Mebane follows him, at least they wait to see who they get in the draft. Lane might get the kind of offer that winning teams don’t match. Say he walks too.

    We have 18 million and only 2 FA’s at 2mil+ that we definitely want, and they are Rubin at DT, and TJak or Hass. Say that’s 4 and a half. Leaves us 13.5. Then there’s Loadholdt, say, or a similar OL, for cheap and that’s all.

    That includes raises to Bennett and Baldwin, but we could just as easily give them a raise and structure it to hit the cap later on, and lessen their hit this year.

    We can make a run at Mario Williams.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Hasselbeck?

      Think there’s probably a 99.9% chance he doesn’t return.

      They’ve moved on. Only sentimentality drives that thought.

      Mario Williams will get paid. There’s almost no shot there either.

      • franks says:

        I’ve heard it suggested in a few different places. Why do you think it has a one in a thousand chance? It would make sense to me for Hasselbeck because he’s said he liked mentoring Luck and sharing things he’s learned, and he could do the same thing here with Russell and he has a history here. He’s said he wants to continue playing, shown that he still can when Luck went down and the Colts aren’t resigning him. I think he could help Russell in ways that TJack can’t, and he’s probably still a better qb. He made 4 against the cap last year, which is identical to what TJack had made before he resigned.

        Mario Williams isn’t playing on a discount but who’s to say winning a championship wouldn’t appeal to him? He’s coming off a bad year. I’m tired of calling every one year contract a prove it contract but he could make more, conceivably, after a good year with us than the bad year he just had. He’s voiced his frustration with his role in Rex Ryan’s defense, and the role he’d pay in ours would have to look attractive. Say we make him a competitive offer for one year. He gets 15 sacks and signs his big deal next year, with more bidders.

        Last year he made 14 million after the incentives, original signing bonus was 19M over 6 years. Not sure how much more signable he is as a 31 year old coming off a bad year, vs a 32 y/o coming off a good year. I’m just saying it’s worth a shot and it’s not that unrealistic.

        • Rob Staton says:

          1. Russell Wilson doesn’t need a mentor. He’s a Super Bowl winning quarterback coming off the best season of his career. He’s 28 in November.

          2. If Wilson got injured, you’d have to completely change the offensive game plan to accommodate a 41-year-old backup. Hasselbeck thrived in a timing offense under Holmgren. Now you’re going to bring him to a team that has been built around Wilson?

          3. Carroll and Schneider aren’t going down that road. They’re trying to keep a contender at the top here, not pandering to sentimental desires to see Hasselbeck back in Seattle.

          4. Williams will get big offers. He’s 32 next January. He isn’t signing a one-year deal to make mega money as a 32-year-old. There is virtually zero chance he lands in Seattle unless his market is so bad he’s willing to come here for about $3m. We both know that isn’t likely.

          • franks says:

            The Colts aren’t a timing offense and he had better games for them last year than I’ve seen TJack have for us.

            • Rob Staton says:

              The Colts are a team based on high percentage passes, with multiple WR-sets and a spread out attack. The Seahawks’ passing game is almost entirely built around a point guard, with Pete Carroll admitting he wants the best scrambling offense in the league.

              Surely you understand the complete difference in the two approaches and how difficult it is to place a 42-year-old Matt Hasselbeck into Seattle’s way of doing things?

              I hate to be so blunt, but it’s time for Hawks fans to move on.

              And by the way — even in spot duty Hasselbeck got injured and missed time in 2015. His body just isn’t up to it anymore. Why do people think the Colts released him?

              • franks says:

                All 3 of their QBs got injured last year. That line was even worse than ours.

                Tjack’s scrambling days are over and actually, I thought our offense took on a new dimension when we started throwing more low percentage passes and fewer Hail Bevels. A lo of thee deep passes have been taking us to fourth downs. Pete Carroll likes to go long off play action, I get that, but my observation is that when TJack comes in the game, we start handing off more. Hass can hand the ball off too. I really can’t remember TJack doing much more than that.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  You’re getting desperate man. Come on. Hasselbeck is 42 this year. Do you HONESTLY see him in Seattle’s offense.

                  C’mon.

                  It’s just sentimental fan-talk.

                  • franks says:

                    Hasselbeck was the man!

                    And he wasnt doing spot duty last year, he started half the season.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    Hasselbeck was the man. In 2005. Time to move on.

                  • franks says:

                    8 consecutive starts, 9-5 TD-INTs, 1700 yards, Y/C 10.8 with a long of 57, 84 rating. Could he hand off the ball repeatedly? I think he could.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    Seattle’s offense is about more than handing the ball off. Wilson didn’t hand it off for a record breaking season last year.

                  • franks says:

                    Pete wants a point guard to start but when Russell goes down, he’ll never have that level of trust in the backup. I think he wants a smart, experienced guy to play not to lose. Perfect role for Hass right now i.m.o., and he’ll be better at it than TJack.

                    I think it’s time we draft a QB.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    It’s not happening Frank.

              • franks says:

                TJack’s played 8 games in the R era. Longest pass for 35 yards, in 2013. Last year hit a 17 yarder.

    • Darth 12er says:

      Did you have their fries? I love their fries

  44. Ed says:

    Keep Rubin, that’s it. Rework Bennett. Trade Kam if necessary. Draft 2 OL in first 4 picks. Get Prosise. If that allows a run at M. Williams (who has played LB and DE), great.

    QB Wilson (1)
    RB Rawls/Michael (2)
    FB Tukuafu (1)
    WR Baldwin/Lockett/Richardson/Williams/Smith (5)
    TE Wilson/Helfert/Graham (3)
    OL Gilliam/Bailey/Glowinski/Britt/Sokoli (5)
    DL Bennett/Avril/Rubin/Clark/Hill/Marsh/Francis/ (7)
    LB Wright/Wagner/Louis/Moody/Coyle/Pinkins (7)
    DB Thomas/Chancellor/Shead/Sherman/Seisay/Burley/Smith/Baptiste (8)

    That’s 39 players. Plus P/K/LS brings total to 42.

    Draft needs:

    -2 OL
    -1 LB
    -1 RB
    -2 DL
    -1 WR

  45. Steele says:

    Rob, thank you for another incisive write up.

    If things turn out this way, it does make thing easier, in that the market has already determined that most of the free agents are gone and priced themselves out of consideration anyway.

    In other words, there will be no continuity no matter how much they wish for it. They will just have to do the best they can to replace with starting caliber additions, but the fact is, they may have to suffer another season with similar inconsistency on o-line regardless.

    I question Loadholt. Is he the best option? Is there no way they can get Boone, Mack or Wiesniewski interested? They should at least give it a shot. What about a guy like Joe Barksdale, or Breno, or Donald Stephenson?

    • nichansen01 says:

      Loadholt can play tackle. That is what seperates him for seattle’s interest from Boone, Mack and Wisniewski, who are purely interior guys.

    • franks says:

      Loadholt fits the mold for LG, he’s a roadgrader, and he should be cheap since he’s coming off the injury, and he knows the system. And like Nic said he can kick out to RT. I don’t think signing him pecludes Wisniewski.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Boone will likely command $6-8m I think and Mack $10m. I see no prospect of either signing in Seattle. Wisniewski for me is a bit overrated.

      Loadholt has the size and tenacious run blocking they love at LG. They love a mauler with massive size. I think he’d be a terrific LG — his issue against the speed edge rush will be non existent moving inside. He can just do what he does best — move people off the line.

      Plus he’s a hedge move against the top tackles being off the board at #26.

      • CDub says:

        Not a deal breaker, but Viking fans seem to have nothing but bad things about Loadholt. According to Jacksonville fans, Wisnieski looks to be replaced by another guy that they are more impressed by.

        By the way, good job with the blog. Great insight to the topics discussed. Can’t wait to see what happens in free agency.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Thanks man.

          I think Loadholt will be better if he moves inside. Bit like Carpenter — will limit his weakness against speed and emphasise his ability to maul.

  46. Bigjoe0075 says:

    Hi Rob,
    I come to your site everyday and it has the best analysis and breakdown for all seahawks fans. So thank you for that. I was just wondering if it came down to Ifedi or Spriggs for OT which do you think would be the pick. I know lack of technique is not a huge issue for Tom Cable. I believe he once said all OL coming out of college needed to be molded into an NFL Lineman. I believe with Spriggs athletic profile would trump Ifedi size. Who do you think they would go with given the choice?

  47. line_hawk says:

    What are the options for a veteran pass rusher? I can think of Chris long, Charles Johnson, Chris Clemons. Can we spend 4-5M for a one year deal on a veteran pass rusher who wants a ring(aka last years Jared Allen)?

  48. Volume12 says:

    Vandy had a great pro day, which Seattle was at. Are they at all pro days?

    Tony Pauline said Stephen Wearthley is gonna go much earlier than people expect.. 7.12 3 cone, 4.42.

    And this guy, S Andrew Williamson, 6’0-6’1, 208 lbs., 4.45 40, 35″ inch vert, 10’4 broad jump, sub 7 3 cone, grew up in Germany due to being raised by a military family is a good looking safety prospect.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Weatherly 1.5 split at 267lbs.

      That’s pretty impressive. 34.5 inch arms. Could be an edge guy for Seattle. Seems like an intelligent guy.

      • Volume12 says:

        Yeah- his numbers are impressive indeed. I wonder if this who they went to check out? He’s definetly a guy that makes ya sit up and go ‘hmmm…’

        I also heard Brock Huard say yesterday that Arkansas RB Alex Collins has a sore knee or something.

    • Trevor says:

      I agree Wearthley could definitely be a target as he has ideal size and #s. If Freeneys medicals are iffy then I think he could be the target for sure.

  49. EranUngar says:

    Rob,

    I have some issues with the whole concept. It starts with Okung. If the main area to improve is the OL – Letting the best and most experienced offensive lineman leave and forcing 2 players starting at new positions as tackles seems like a very bad start to reach that goal. To me, keeping Okung feels much more important that keeping anyone else.
    At 36M for 4 years and with some signing bonus, Okung would cost 7M or less against the cap. I can not see a valid reason to let him go.

    Mebane and Rubin – With the depth of the run stuffing rookie class, why spend valuable cap money on both. Hill did better against the run in 2015. Keep Rubin and Hill, add a run stuffing DT rookie and save that money.

    It leaves us with 8M cap space. If Lane is indeed that important, resign him. It would still leave some change to add a Vet minimum DT later if needed.

    The more i look at it, keeping Okung is the key for OL stability and well worth the cost. The rest of the FA moves will follow once that call is made.

    Structure wise – Keeping 4 DBs, 2 LBs and 2 DEs (8 defensive players) with 6M APY plus contracts is not a sustainable model. Especially when some contracts are way more that 6M. On offense, only RW and Graham are 6M+ players. If Lane is indeed that key piece, maybe we should trade Kam and use his cap space. McKrady was solid as a replacement.

    Kearse is probably gone. It makes me feel uneasy. He (not Lockett) was our WR2. I have very little trust in P-Rich and the rest of the WR core. We keep 3 WR on the field over 50% of the snaps, we need that solid 3rd piece. One hamstring pull or twisted ankle for Baldwin/Lockett and things could get very ugly.

    It all starts with the OL. If we keep both Tackles and Center, we keep some continuity that will free us to integrate new guards smoothly. If we care so much about the OL we need to put our money were our mouths are and not place our hopes on draft picks.

    • Rob Staton says:

      1. That’s football though (RE: Okung). However much they want to improve the OL, they don’t have an endless stream of cash. $36m over four years is not $7m. It’s $8-9m on average. That’s a substantial outlay and would significantly weaken their ability to keep other players. Plus there’s the injury issues. Paying Sherman, Thomas, Wilson etc is one thing because they always play. Okung has not been reliable in that regard. He’s injured right now. If he gets offered $10m APY (possible) it’s even more. The only way he stays IMO is if his market is so cold and they get him back on a 1-2 year deal.

      2. Good luck finding rookies capable of replacing two guys who played a key role in preventing ANY 100-yard rushers in 2015. That was an incredible achievement. No reason to risk a step back there at all.

      3. Every time has to place their faith in draft picks every year. That’s the point of the draft. SEA can actually upgrade at OT with the right guy. That’s not a stretch looking at this class.

      • EranUngar says:

        I understand the financial realities of football. Those realities are as far as the Seahawks go are keeping those crucial key core players and managing the rest. Okung is as much a key to the OL as Wags is for the LB s or Earl is for the secondary. He is a bigger key than Lane is for the secondary or Graham is for the offense. A 9APY contract including a modest 6M signing bonus and 5.5M base salary in the first year will send Okung to deposit 11.5M in his bank while counting 7M against the cap this year.
        As for his health, if he was as healthy as he is good ast his position he’d ne a 12M plus players. (Also, you can’t put Lane as a must with his injury history and keep Okung out…)

        Was it really just those two guys that stopped the run so well? Did we not get to SB49 with Mebane missing 6 games? Would it really be such a huge step back with Hill rotating with a big rookie? Is there a better time to refresh this group than with this year’s deep rookie DT class? Would you really let the best offensive lineman go to keep Mebane?

        Draft picks are the life line of any football team. They are a must. They also take time to adjust and become productive. Offensive linemen playing ZBS need that first year as much as CBs. Inserting one high quality intro this line is a must. If he gets to play with an experienced Tackle near him he can survive the first half of the season and may become an upgrade later on. If he becomes a part of an OL with 3-4 new players learning to play together rather than teaching him it will take much longer. If we can get Ifedi/Coleman to start at LG between Okung and Lewis, he has the best chance to be an upgrade. If he plays his first NFL game at RT with a RG playing his second NFL game ever and a Center playing his first NFL game, that side of the line would be very hard to watch.

        • Rob Staton says:

          “Okung is as much a key to the OL as Wags is for the LB s or Earl is for the secondary.”

          If that were true, they would’ve signed him to a new contract a year before his deal expired (as they did with Sherman, Thomas, Wagner and Wilson). The fact it’s got to the point where Okung tests the market indicates they don’t view him in such a way.

          “He is a bigger key than Lane is for the secondary or Graham is for the offense.”

          Not if you think you can adequately replace him in the draft and it’ll be far harder to replace Lane. Or if you believe, as they appear to think, it’s harder to train your CB’s to play SEA’s technique than it is for young O-liners to start.

          “Draft picks are the life line of any football team. They are a must. They also take time to adjust and become productive.”

          Not necessarily. Plenty of rookies are productive immediately (see: Tyler Lockett).

    • H M Abdou says:

      I agree with everything you said, except that I would have no problem seeing Kearse leave.

  50. Trevor says:

    As I have said many times I thought there was going to be more issues with Kam and his contract this off season and my preference was for him to be traded.

    One of the interesting things about that stupid story of the cops showing up when he was trying to look at a gym was this. Why would be be looking at buying a gym in Renton if he thought he was going anywhere. I guess it is time for me to drop that idea.

  51. nichansen01 says:

    Rob,

    What are the chances that Javon Hargrave is avaliable in the fourth? If Mebane and Rubin are both retained, we should target more of a pass rusher than a run stopper at defensive tackle to play a more rotational role.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think it’s possible. Lot of good players going to be left in round three. Some of the guys we’ve discussed will stick into rounds 4-5.

  52. HawkfaninMT says:

    Rob-

    Last year you explored the idea of wingspan vs arm length. Could you look into that again with this years prospects at some point?

    I am still a proponent of re-signing Lane to play the outside, then drafting Eli Aplle in the first to man the slot and eventually transition outside aka Chris Harris.

    Thanks

    • Rob Staton says:

      Sure. Although IMO Apple is ideally suited to work outside not the slot and I’m not convinced SEA ever takes a CB in round one under Pete Carroll.

      • Sea Mode says:

        Have to agree with Rob here. There is just no precedent and it seems unlikely to happen unless a top-10 CB talent falls to them or something. Add to that the Hawks success at coaching up late round CB’s and the greater need at other positions, and it seems all but impossible.

        About wingspan, I like the concept. Maybe it could serve as criteria for a small exception to the arm length requirements for an otherwise very good player (like Eli Apple, for example, with 31 3/8). Not sure though.

  53. oz says:

    To me Okung and Rubin are top priority. I think we can get Okung cheaper than most are projecting. One year deal with an option would be good. I would still draft Ifedi in the 1st. Or maybe Clark in the 2nd. and DL 1st.

    • H M Abdou says:

      There’s no way Okung would go for a one-year prove it deal. He’s probably the most talented free agent LT on the market and will command plenty of interest and a nice contract. And yes, all this despite coming back from significant injuries.

  54. Sea Mode says:

    Just thinking out loud: is there any possible re-structuring of Graham’s contract that could possibly make sense for both sides right now?

    Objectives would be cap relief for us (not $9m for a player who might not see the field or be at his best level a good part of this year) and incentive for Graham some kind of guarantees if he doesn’t make it back. Although zero guarantees as is right now is also nice for the Hawks, but it comes at a significant cap number.

    I know Carroll said last week that Graham is “ahead of schedule”, and I have no evidence that would say otherwise, but we all know Pete tends to err on the side of optimism. And one thing is to be back and medically cleared to play by the end of training camp while another is to get back to a top level of play with higher risk of re-injury (cf. Victor Cruz). Realistically, it’s going to take time even in best-case scenario.

    Once again, I am not so much trying to discuss the injury situation as much as a possible restructure at this point.

    • Rob Staton says:

      It’s certainly possible. It depends really. If they needed an extra $1-3m, maybe they go to him. If it’s not required, they probably don’t go to him.

      • Sea Mode says:

        Right. Here comes a crazier idea. (gotta have lots of ideas if you ever want to have a few good ones! 😉

        If they really wanted to roll the dice they could extend him cheaper now. This could pay off bigtime, although the risk is obviously huge too. 4yrs with first two guaranteed or something. Final two at discount rate. Graham might take it for the guarantees now.

        -Worst case: never recovers/re-injury, never plays another snap. Hawks have $9m dead this year (which is what they seem willing to invest anyway now) and $7m dead next season.

        -Balances out: comes back week 8 this season at a decent level. Plays next year too. Loses a bit of speed and explosion in cuts but still a big factor because of his size. Diminishes effectiveness in last two years due to re-injury, but he is already cheaper on the last two years of the deal.

        -Homerun: returns for the beginning of the season and regains all-pro form by week 8. Stays healthy or reasonably healthy moving forward. Then you get him the next 3 years at incredible value.

        So many unknowns, but we might have a real opportunity on our hands right now. I think the risk is somewhat mitigated because so much of his game is his size and hands/catch radius. Even at 80% of his former speed/suddenness he is still a very good receiving tight end and red zone threat. Seems like the Hawks are willing to bet on him, so why not consider betting big?

  55. Trevor says:

    Rob I have been looking at a lot of the Big Boards etc after the combine and I see very few with Nick Martin rated in Rds#1,2. Any chance he might be on the board in Rd #3? What range do you expect him to go?

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think he’s a top-50 pick. Worse case scenario late second.

    • Sea Mode says:

      I think Feeney might have a better chance to be there for us in R3 due to injury history than Martin.

      It would be awesome IMO if we ended up getting Ifedi in R1, Martin in R2, and Feeney R3!

    • RealRhino2 says:

      I’m not Rob, but I’ve looked into this sort of thing generally (i.e., without referring to specific players or positions). Every year I’ve looked, about 6-8 guys that are pretty consistently mocked in the first round not taken in the first (usually guys mocked in the 20+ range). Most of those guys get taken in the 2nd, but then another handful of guys mocked in the 2nd end up not being taken by the end of the 2nd, meaning about 10-15 guys that almost everybody is sure will be gone in Round 2 aren’t.

      And by Round 3, all heck breaks loose. Not only do you see another handful of guys who were mocked in the 3rd not go, but a few of those guys fall all the way to the 5th, 6th, 7th, for some reason (whereas unless it’s an injury thing that was worse than generally known, the guys that “miss” in the 1st and 2nd usually end up getting taken right near the beginning of the following round.

      So I’m saying there’s a chance…..

  56. Jarhead says:

    I think Rowdy has said this also, but I certainly wouldn’t be pleased with Feeney and Ifedi in rds 1/2. Even Rob himself has stated in previous posts regarding Hawks 1st round picks that they always have something extra. Thomas was the best ball hawking safety in that draft, Carpenter was arguably the best run blocker, Irvin was the most athletic rusher. Ifedi has no extraordinary measurables nor does he have the clear production on tape to warrant a first pick. Hey, you want to harp about age- they gave gave the keys to the franchise to 25 year old Russell Wilson. Give me Coleman with the clear production and adequate measurables. Coleman’s toughness is easily seen on film. He exudes nastiness. Ifedi comes from a soft spread offense, and his toughness is easily questionable on film. Although Feeney is really athletic, Rd 3 just seems more appropriate. I think it is still combine-prison yet, and things will settle in the wash. I hope we double down and go for 2 O lineman. Hopefully Coleman, and maybe Martin/Westerman to play C if by some miracle they are there. If all the pass rushing talent is exhausted and all the really good looking lineman are picked, then yeah Feeney would be an okay consolation. But I just don’t see what most of you all see in those guys. But debate makes this blog great. And all of our opinions are valid. Not just a few who are always posting. There are some new comers with some really solid ideas about things. Coincidentally, I found this blog in 2010 when I did a google search for ‘Tarvaris Jackson is ruining the Seahawks’ just to see if anyone else was as frustrated as me. Thank god I found this site

    • Rob Staton says:

      “Ifedi has no extraordinary measurables nor does he have the clear production on tape to warrant a first pick.”

      Ifedi is 6-6, 324lbs has 36 inch arms and jumps a 32.5 inch vertical. These are the very definition of extraordinary measurables at offensive tackle.

      His tape is also much better than some people will have you believe. I’ll have a post up later today highlighting that point.

      • RWIII says:

        Rob: I saw part of the interview with Ifedi that you linked. I was impressed. I liked his answers. He came across as a real person. He didn’t seem like his answers were rehearsed. Ifedi seems like he is down to earth.
        Humble beginnings.

      • Jarhead says:

        There are other prospects similar to those numbers. I was more going in 10 yard split, vert, broad jump, press. He is not far and away from the rest of the pack in that regard. I would still feel better getting Coleman for out particular style of offense. Age aside. I can see why you would like him, but I would feel disappointed if we chose Ifedi over a couple of other players who could potentially be avaiable in that spot. My other question becomes- if Ifedi is younger and is so talented, why woukd he last until the late first? With Coleman you know you are betting against age and medical history. What would cause Ifedi to drop like that in this tackle starved NFL other than n field performance and his tape?

        • franks says:

          He never really brought it on the field. He’s a combine guy.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Ifedi’s 10-yard split was 1.78, beaten by only a handful of O-linemen at the combine. He’s 324lbs. Nobody at that size ran a 1.78.

          Ifedi’s vertical jump was 32.5 inches, bettered only by 306lbs Connor McGovern. That is freakish for Ifedi’s size.

          Ifedi had the 6th best broad jump at the combine amongst OL’s, again at 324lbs not 305lbs.

          He had 24 reps on the bench press despite having the disadvantage of 36 inch arms in what is a totally pointless exercise anyway.

          Quite frankly — he WAS far and away from the rest of the pack. He’s a physical freak of nature. An absolute monster.

          As for why would he last until the late first — he might now. He could go much earlier. Why did Joel Bitonio last until round two? Sometimes these things happen. If every great player went in the top ten teams would never make a mistake.

          • Jarhead says:

            I disagree with him being far and away. Far and away means he dominates near all of the combine activity. You said it yourself- he has very little bad weight, so being in shape helps. Trust ne as being a large man- there is very little difference between 305 and and 324 when it comes to moving the wieght. Not the same difference between 205 and 224. While you could say he is an elite athlete and has good measurables- he didn’t reinvent the way we look at Olineman. He did good- but other guys were in the similar zone has he. Joel Bitonio was always going to be a pure guard. And pure guards just go in the 2nd round unless you are Hutch. Ifedi may not even make it at tackle- he may play guard. In the 2nd, he would have value. I just don’t like him in the first.

  57. lil'stink says:

    You’re not the only one who wouldn’t like us to go Ifedi and Feeney in rounds 1/2. But that’s part of what you do during the offseason; speculate, discuss, rethink, and maybe come to a new conclusion.

    As for Feeney, if he didn’t have a 2nd round grade before the combine he probably shouldn’t have one after. But maybe that’s just me.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Maybe he did have a second round grade?

      Maybe we, as outsiders to the NFL process, just needed to see exactly how freakishly athletic he was to catch up?

  58. reggieregg says:

    Rob Do you see a scenario where we double dip into this deep d tackle class? Even if we resign Rubin and Mebane they are both pretty long in the tooth. Maybe Ogbah in the 1st and best available in round 4??

    • franks says:

      I think we’re looking at replacements for Mebane and Hill. Interesting options at both in rounds 1, 2 and 3.

  59. Nick says:

    If Darron Lee drops to 26, I wonder if the Seahawks take him and then address OL in Rounds 2-3.

  60. LLLOGOSSS says:

    Man, I would be ecstatic about that draft… We still need a Center in this scenario, but in terms of maximizing draft capital to fill needs, this would reload the roster very nicely. Of course they wouldn’t dare take the approach that makes sense to the rest of us, but one can hope. Marquez North would be a pleasant surprise.

    I do worry that we wouldn’t make the most out of a deep DT class if we wait until the 5th round though; I could do without a mid-round RB (Prosise) in exchange for an undervalued (due to abundance) DT there. Who might be available that would interest us in the 3rd-4th rounds at DT?

    In terms of edge rushers, I noticed that Ronald Blair III used to be talked about as a possible late-round steal—is he more in the 4th round range in your projections now?

    Thanks for your great work, Rob, it’s making the offseason fun.

  61. Jason says:

    What are your guys thoughts on Worley out of West Virginia?

    • Volume12 says:

      Probably on their board somewhere. Meets l their thresholds. He’ll improve his 40 time at his pro day.

      A bit inconsistent on tap, has some off the field red flags.

      It wouldn’t surprise me to see a rookie CB not even make the team this year.

      Keep an eye on Nebraska CB Daniel Davie. Already knows the kick-step technique having played for Bo Pelini,

  62. Soggyblogger says:

    I love Lane, and if he is cheap…sure. However, with Simon and so many others in the wings, I doubt you are correct.

  63. Ukhawk says:

    Amazing to think that RW will make about the same as Lynch and Okung cap hit last year

  64. franks says:

    Mock Draft scenario:

    We lose Lane and Christine Michael, keep Jon Ryan, get an edge rusher in F.A.-

    1-Coleman or Ifedi. Not Spriggs.

    2-Kenneth Dixon RB. Tremendous after-contact runner, good hands and routes. Killed it at the combine so he might not be available this late.

    3a-Javon Hargrove DT. Nice combine like Dixon,could be the next Geno Atkins, not sure he’ll be here this late. Might be worth trading up for one of them. Lotta picks next year.

    3b-Jalen Mills CB/Safety. Four year SEC starter. Came back from broken tibula and torn ligaments in ankle to start 6 games. 6′ and well-built but 31″ arms. Physical and veratile, can cover big wr’s or the slot and had starts at safety. Playmaker who makes INTs consistently, something we could’ve used last year.

    4-Vadal Alexander LG. I don’t think F.O.’s will rate him as high as the media. Powerful but needs to finish his blocks and had bad combine, good pass blocker for being big and slow. His potential this late would be hard to igore i.m.o. and he has the talent to challenge for starts if Cable can push him.

    5-Vincent Valentine DT. Powerful with room to add muscle. Big presence in the middle, pushes the pocket and got a few sacks. Competes with Jesse Williams for Mebane’s snaps.

    6a-Stephane Nembot OT. Mauler, project RT.

    6b-Nile Lawrence Stamples. Strong, active run-stuffer, no pass rush. Didn;t get invite to combine or didn’t go. Good motor, good leverage, leader, Red Bryant type.

    7-Cardale Jones QB. Pulled hamstring and didn’t finish the combine and everyone will overreact to this. Has the physical traits Pete and John have taken chances on before.

  65. David Stinnett says:

    If there is anyone SEA should not let get away, it’s Jeremy Lane. Too much of a difference that no one is likely to make up at this time.

  66. KHawk says:

    Watched Ifedi in the Alabama game and he really looks like an uncoordinated goof at times. Obviously his measureables and body say he has an NFL future but is he used to cheating and getting away with it and got exposed when playing against linemen who also have NFL futures?

  67. reggieregg says:

    Is there any love for DT MaliekCollins out of Nebraska…. what’s everyone think of him??

  68. SeventiesHawksFan says:

    Excellent and thorough review and projection, Rob. I agree with all of it, though I don’t believe we will get Lane back. He’s already proven his bona fides as a starter to the rest of the league. So he’ll get a multi-year contract. Especially being only 26 years old and he has proven full recovery health wise. He’s got nothing he needs to prove to get a deal with another team.

    I think we will allocate some of our cap resources taking care of or extending Bennett, Baldwin, and Chancellor. The FO takes care of its ‘core’ first. And I think Rubin will be a part those priorities as well. And maybe Mebane too.

    All of the other URFA’s will be gone. It is what it is. And it’s what also makes the most sense cap-wise.

    And I agree that our first pick will most likely be an OT. Ifedi or Coleman would be great. Britt and Bailey will be our OT backups. That entire position group is going to be incredibly cheap.

    I believe OG / Center will include at least one FA signing and two new draft picks as well. I doubt the later round rookies will start this year. I expect that just our first pick of he’s an OT will start.

  69. Chris says:

    “Cable is regularly asked to create a productive O-line on the cheap.”

    Don’t agree with this at all. He’s been given two 1sts (Okung, Carpenter), a 2nd (Britt), a 3rd (Moffitt) and various other picks. It LOOKS like he has to put things together on the cheap because they’ve failed so many times when trying to draft OL, and scrubs is all we have left afterwards (scrubs, by the way, that are better than the high and wasted draft picks).

    • Rob Staton says:

      Well, he inherited Okung. Since he arrived they’ve created a line and if Okung and Sweezy leave — the entire starting OL from the first Super Bowl has been allowed to walk. And since 2013, their only high investment on the OL was Britt.

      • franks says:

        Like you always say, move on. The problem is pass pro and Sweezy is Robin to kenny Britt’s Batman.

        • franks says:

          Time to move on to guys that can pass block, release the guys that can’t. Especially when all they’re doing is keeping MArshawn company on the long runs.

    • franks says:

      I agree there’s been early capital spent on the OLine relative to other positions and nothing to show for it because it’s always a swig and a miss. We had a Tackle and a Center before he got here, the rest of the guys should be easier to fill. Not one true hit since Cable got here, he needs to stick to coaching.

  70. […] When we ran through some free agency predictions a week ago — we looked at the possibility of keeping Ahtyba Rubin and replacing Mebane with a cheaper option — while prioritising Jeremy Lane. […]