Seahawks sign their picks, Cowboys board leaked

May 30th, 2013 | Written by Rob Staton

It’s not such big news these days. In the past a player or two might hold out into camp. Not in the new CBA era, which is refreshing. Guys who haven’t proven anything in the league shouldn’t be battling over money. One of the major positives of the new system is the ability to get young draftees signed up quickly. Now it’s up to the 2013 class to help push this team onto another level.

One of the more interesting things to emerge this week is an apparent leak of the Cowboys 2013 draft board. If you allow camera’s into a draft room, there’s always a chance you’ll see the board. And that’s what’s happened here.

Personally, I don’t see what the fuss is. Who cares if we know the Cowboys had a fourth round grade on E.J. Manuel? Will the world stop turning if it proves to be a mistake? Will it make any difference what so ever to Manuel’s chances of succeeding in Buffalo? Of course not.

I’m not sure why there’s a wall of secrecy post-draft. Teams might argue they don’t want to get shown up. Well, that can happen anyway. The only way to avoid embarrassment completely is to not take part in the draft at all. Sit it out. The fact is you’re just as likely to be praised or criticised for the decisions you make publicly (who you draft, who you pass on). So what’s the big deal?

It irked me a little bit that nobody asked Pete Carroll or John Schneider about San Francisco trading right in front of them to draft Vance McDonald. I guess those in a position to ask assumed they would get short shrift. But it’s a legitimate line of questioning and I want to know whether the Seahawks were considering taking McDonald before that trade. Were they usurped by a divisional rival? I also wanted to know if Seattle was thinking running back in 2010 before both Houston and Cleveland moved above them to grab Ben Tate and Montario Hardesty respectively. These are not unfair questions.

Essentially, the Seahawks didn’t do anything wrong in sitting tight. It’s not like they can be criticised. They have no control over who moves above them. Yet we’re none the wiser on what exactly happened there. Perhaps a member of the San Francisco media could’ve asked why the 49ers felt obliged to move above Seattle? Perhaps someone did ask and I just missed it? However, I think teams could be more open post-draft. Let’s learn more about the process. Why not?

The Cowboys board leaking is interesting because we see they only had 134 players listed. It’s always fun to hear people refer to ‘their” top-300 boards (you know who you are). Teams narrow these things down to the Nth degree. There’s no need to look at every player and create an all-inclusive ranking system. It’s an inaccurate science. One player who fits for team A won’t be a match for team B. It’s way better to pick out certain players who fit scheme and physical characteristics. I think Seahawks fans have a decent grasp on what to look out for after four drafts with this front office.

Jordan Hill is the only player Seattle drafted that is listed on Dallas’ board and he was given a third round grade. There’s some reassurance if you needed it. You shouldn’t need it, because this team drafted Russell Wilson. Amongst others.

Just to go back to Manuel and Dallas’ fourth round grade, it shows how weird the quarterback rankings where this year. Buffalo seemingly was always taking a quarterback. They could’ve easily put Manuel, Matt Barkley, Ryan Nassib or Geno Smith at the top of their board. And whoever they passed on was going to sink like a stone. First round or fourth. What a difference. I’d guess a fair amount of teams had Manuel ranked in the fourth. Yet he goes 16th overall.

Dallas had Barkley, Nassib and Smith graded in round two. I’m amazed nobody took Barkley on day two, even just for value. A lack of quarterback need this year hurt him big time. Philly got a steal. Don’t be surprised if he ends up starting for the Eagles, maybe even in 2013. Likewise for Nassib, there was a surprising unwillingness from teams to pull the trigger — especially from those sporting ageing or mediocre starters.

The Cowboys gave Eric Reid a second round grade — the Niners traded up to get him in the late teens. They also had #11 overall pick D.J. Fluker in round two and Atlanta’s #1 pick Desmond Trufant in round three (along with Tank Carradine, Kyle Long and Datone Jones). Christine Michael was not on the board. Neither were any of Seattle’s other picks apart from Hill.

56 Responses to “Seahawks sign their picks, Cowboys board leaked”

  1. nolan says:

    Nice to hear from you rob i have been going into with drawls with the lack of post totally.understandable being as how not much to talk about though… Like i said though nice to see a post from you.

  2. Attyla the Hawk says:

    I’d be kind of stunned to think that Seattle would have opted for McDonald at that pick. Judging from what we’ve been able to piece together with how they covet explosive qualities with their early picks, McDonald doesn’t really seem to fit that criteria. he had good agility numbers, but Seattle likes speed. McDonald ran a pretty pedestrian 40 (4.69).

    They probably look at other teams’ projected boards as we do. Seattle (56), Houston (57) and Atlanta (60) all took TEs in the draft and selected before SF at 61. I’m guessing they didn’t want to chance someone taking a TE or even two before they picked.

    The draft is clearly much more unpredictable now. You can’t simply forecast what teams will take. You have to look around your neighborhood too. KC took Kelce 2 picks after the 61st. They could have easily slid into Seattle or GB’s spot. Obviously both those clubs have a well established history of moving back in the draft.

    I honestly think it was a case where SF would have traded with either of us in order to minimize their risk in losing their guy. Clearly, GB’s ask was less than ours, since we netted significantly more than the Packers did for what would have been essentially the same pick. But by getting GB’s pick, they took the earliest pick at the cheapest cost for the least risk.

    Recall, John said that he felt comfortable moving back to 62, because there were 3 guys they liked that were available at 56. I have to assume then, that McDonald wasn’t the fourth. Either way, it seems almost a no brainer that John would have still made the deal to drop behind SF and pick up picks and take one of the 3 (or 4 if they also liked Vance) they liked who would have dropped.

    If SF did move ahead of us specifically to take Vance from us, then it was probably a stupid gamble as we’d almost have assuredly dropped behind them of our own accord. I am inclined to take Schneider at his word when he labeled Willson as the player he’d be bummed to leave the draft without. I mean there’s no reason for him to pump him up that way if it weren’t the case. I think we had Luke targeted all the way.

    I suspect that Aaron Dobson was one of those players we wanted. He was very comparable to Chris Harper except he possesses excellent speed and even more outstanding receiving skill. If I had to speculate on the other I’d have put my money on Armstead. I’d have guessed it was Dobson/Michael/Armstead in that order.

    • Miles says:

      Yes but the Seahawks may have been considering Jordan Hill at the 2nd round spot. I think there was thought that he may not have been around when the Seahawks drafted in the 3rd round. We’ve talked about it before, but the Seahawks really weren’t interested in O-Lineman early in this draft; given what it takes to be an O-Lineman on the Seahawks and how great Tom Cable is at turning 7th-round guys into scheme-fit run-blockers, I don’t think they were going to take any O-Lineman, not even the very physically gifted Armstead. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took Dobson had he been available, but I think they liked Michael better; he fills a spot on the depth chart and was the most dynamic and special player on the board at that time.

      • Miles says:

        But I also think they were fine with moving back and they were prepared to not get Christine Michael at that spot. Remember they traded right behind the Packers, who it seems obviously were going to take a runningback at 61 no matter what. So the Seahawks didn’t feel like they needed to have Christine Michael. However, the Packers drafted Eddy Lacy. So if the Packers took Michael, would we have drafted Lacy? I think it’s quite likely.

      • Michael says:

        Actually, Cable said in a recent interview that we did plan to take an offensive lineman, but they were “overdrafted” this year.

        • mjkleko says:

          I don’t know if you can specifically said they planned to take one early, it’s just that they certainly had linemen with 2nd and 3rd round that unfortunately found themselves taken a round or so early with respect to the Seahawks grade. Does this mean they would have taken an offensive lineman had one with a sufficient grade been available when they picked in the second? Who can say; at the end of the day it still depends on who had the highest grade with relation to the roster when their pick came around. And if I had to put down a wager, I’d say they believed Michael was a player that could have been drafted in the 30′s or 40′s- as such, it would have taken a very good offensive lineman to be available for them to pass on the A&M runningback, something that just wasn’t going to happen with the way teams were, as you mentioned, “overdrafting” at the position.

  3. kevin mullen says:

    Yeah that Eric Reid pick/Cowboys placement was what stood out for me. They probably needed more safety help than SF and yet ranked him in their 2nd round. Hopefully Dallas proves correct, Reid only being a 2nd Rd talent instead of 1st Rd like SF is banking on. I wonder why Vacarro wasn’t chosen when Dallas was picking in the 1st? Was that center they took that much better than Vacarro?

  4. Miles says:

    I don’t think we can put much stock into the Cowboys draft board. They have been pretty bad except for Dez Bryant; they thrive on big free agent signings. I was talking to one of my friends once who is a Cowboys fan, and he agreed with me that the Cowboys really only draft for elite-level talent. They never have the right mindset to build the team from the ground up, which is why they have little depth.

    • mjkleko says:

      Do yourself a favor. Erase your biases when you get a piece of information like this. These are professional scouts. An NFL team, regardless of whom it is or what their recent track records may indicate, place an incredible amount of emphasis through the form of manpower and resources towards scouting the college ranks. You can be damn sure their are people in the Dallas organization who dedicate themselves towards finding and developing late round picks into viable depth for their roster. Saying build a team because they only draft for elite-level talent may be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. I get what you are trying to point out, but everyone is drafting for elite-level talent and looking for the next future star from the lower rounds. Teams that have good depth don’t do so by saying, “oh let’s go find some guys who are going to be so-so but will fill out a roster real good!” they do so by drafting the best matches for their team and having a coaching staff in place that create a competitive atmosphere that enables and motivates every player on the depth chart to constantly be improving. You can’t point to a teams draft board and pinpoint a problem, there are far too many moving parts.

      • Miles says:

        Actually what I’m saying isn’t ridiculous at all. The NFL teams that turn over every rock to find a player that matches their scheme is rarer than you’d think. Many teams, I’ve heard, draft players based on the biggest schools and somewhat name recognition. The other extreme is the Seahawks, who turn over every rock in search of a player who fits what they are trying to do. The proof is in the pudding: The Cowboys only had 190-someodd players on their board. They didn’t do any digging at all, they merely picked their favorites out of the top layer. So while I’m sure they don’t completely disregard the depth of their team, it appears they place a higher emphasis on a player’s ability to start right away and become an impact player as opposed to filling niche roles at first.

        I’m not speaking out of bias, I’m speaking out of experience. And if you’ve watched the way the Cowboys have worked, they really haven’t picked up many players who have made successful under-the-radar contributions to the franchise. The Cowboys draft for boom or bust much of the time, and like I said, you can tell because of their draft board here.

  5. Barry says:

    Interesting piece Rob, and I couldn’t agree more regarding the lack of teams being more open about their boards.

    I cant believe I’m going to say this but I am impressed with the Cowboys board, I feel a bit dirty now.

  6. dave crockett says:

    Information is power.

    Add to that a certain level of contempt that the professionals have for draftniks and not surprisingly their impulse is not to share, independent of any specific rationale.

    Also, from a competitive standpoint the scouting and GM ranks are filled with people who know each other reasonably well. Still, even if you know the front office and coaching staff well, it can’t be easy to just guess how a team constructs its board. You might be able to guess early rounds, and how a team grades out skill position players, but that still leaves a lot of blanks to be filled in.

    I get that it’s annoying that teams treat this information like state secrets but that’s the nature of most corporations. At one time I interned for a shoe manufacturer and you’d have thought those people worked for the CIA with all the secrecy and whisper campaigns.

    • JW says:

      If I’m running a war room I run a disinformation campaign, and let photos leak of a board that might promote my own interests, for the exact reasons you state, Mr. Crockett.

      • Rob Staton says:

        I don’t think teams should be publishing their draft boards, far from it. But I do think the hysteria on Twitter and criticism of Dallas yesterday was unfair. I’d like teams to be a bit more open. Not give away huge secrets, but discuss the process beyond just the platitudes and praise for the guys they took. Discuss the process a little more, and maybe even talk about some of the targets they had. The Seahawks have been fairly open 2-3 years down the line. Again, maybe my criticism should be labelled at the people asking the questions rather than those answering them.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think it’s showing contempt for fans more than draftniks. The fans are thirsty for information and we’re now at a stage when the media aren’t even prepared to ask the GM or HC their thoughts on San Fran trading above Seattle, presumably because they believed it ‘wouldn’t go down well’. I don’t know. Maybe I should be complaining at the media for not asking one of the few interesting questions you can ask post-draft.

      • JW says:

        Fair criticism of the questions asked, to be sure. I can definitely understand why sports personnel (athletes and management) get sick and tired of the media and typical sports reporters- they are so mundane.

        • Rob Staton says:

          They’d definitely rather be challenged occasionally. It’s OK to receive a snarky answer every now and again, or be seen as the one asking a tough question every now and again. It just seems the press conferences all blend into one. Injury update. Question about the opponent. The same guy every week tries to be clever and asks a question using technical jargon. Then a question on whichever player or players made a good play the previous week. Rinse and repeat. A totally futile exercise.

          • Miles says:

            I agree that the reporters ask soft questions. But you also have to consider the relationships the press is trying to cultivate with the team over long stretches of the season. Beat reporting for sports teams is not as cut-and-dry as other types of journalism. There are problems when contacting players and coaches in that you are not allowed to contact them directly, generally. You have to go through an SID (sports information director…?) who will let you know if the player/coach is “available.” Your chances of reaching players based on this protocol is already pretty slim because much of the power is taken out of the reporter’s hands and left to the SID to decide whether or not to allow reporters in. BUT it becomes much harder if the SID does not trust the reporter. So therefore, if the Seattle Times’ Jerry Brewer asks Richard Sherman if he thinks Adderall should be considered “drug abuse”, or some controversial question of that nature, the SID will see Brewer’s question as a threat to the reputation of the Seahawks. It will then be far, far more challenging for Mr. Jerry to get in contact with any Seahawks player or coach. So while it’s true that reporters don’t ask the tough questions, the reporter/team relationship is largely built that way in a manner that reporters can’t do very much about without making some aspects of their job much, much, much harder.

            • Miles says:

              In addition, the Seahawks’ SID is a total hardass, so I’ve heard.

              • JW says:

                It’s not so much harder questions, but the routine and mundane. Also, this is why a reporter should have a good cop bad cop. More generally, this trend of ‘cozying’ up to institutions plagues all media, not just sports.

            • Rob Staton says:

              Speaking as a beat reporter myself, I think most of what you’ve written there Miles is an excuse. I’m not naming names but there are a heck of a lot of sports journalists in the world who live an easy life. They respond to press releases sent out by teams via email or Twitter, never break stories and just roll up to the press conferences to ask nothing questions and maintain a cosy relationship with the coach. Not that having a cosy relationship gets you anywhere because they’re not ringing you up with info and you’re not breaking any stories. It merely enables you to be name checked every now and again at the conference when you ask what makes Adrian Peterson such a good running back.

              At what point did the journalism profession become an exercise in waiting to report on information that’s already out there? We can sit here and talk about obstacles you have to dodge to be a great journalist, but are there not obstacles in every profession? Nobody remembers the guy who blogged about the Manti Te’o episode 20 minutes after that other guy broke the story. If access to a certain coach is limited, make the most of the time you have. Ask a challenging question once in a while instead of asking for that injury update on the guy on the practise squad or pre-scripting an obscure technical question about schemes to try and look like you know what you’re talking about.

              • Miles says:

                I most agree with you here Rob. I’m a beat reporter myself and try to ask the tough questions from time to time as well. There is nothing a journalist should want more than a juicy quote or breaking a big news story, but those kinds of stories are few and far between because the sports world is built in a somewhat adversarial way between teams and journalists. IT isn’t easy to get the big scoop on the story. It’s a very combative process where a lot of people can get very angry at you very fast. While i don’t think that’s reason to throw your hands up in the air and give up, it is reason to, as you say, pick your battles. Sometimes it’s hard to know whether a battle is worth fighting..

    • I always figured the driving factor here would be the relationships with the players & agents. To say publicly they would have taken someone else had they still been on the board is obviously not only understandable, but also inherently obvious. On a larger scale. But for Seattle to say, well, yeah, if we’d had our druthers we’d have gone with Vance, doesn’t seem to serve their interests very well IMO.

      Not that I think this concern is completely valid as the driving factor, but I always imagined that’s why we never see any admissions that a team would have taken someone they missed on. Years after the fact, no-longer-employed personnel guys might offer up a quip, but at the time we always see the Jets deny they desired Bruce Irvin over Quentin Coples.

  7. Jrockrichards says:

    Considering they are going “Oppa Kiffin Style”

    I’m surprised their D board didn’t have more “Seattle” type players.

    • DJ says:

      Actually, their list of DTs is quite similar to what Rob and Kip presented here as options for the Seattle 3 tech spot. I don’t know that Kiffin and Carroll have as much in common when it comes to defensive backs or linebackers.

  8. Derrick says:

    I’m just glad the Seahawks didn’t use one of their picks on Ryan Swope! I took flack from Rob & others at this site pre-draft because I was against the Hawk’s drafting Swope due to his concussion history. I insisted Swope was high-risk while Rob disagreed because he didn’t miss any game-time in college and he often had episodes of “concussion-like symptoms” as opposed to true concussions, LOL. Well, he may not have missed any game-time in college but “the effects of those concussions are holding him back at OTAs” with the Cardinals…what a nightmare!

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/29/ryan-swope-still-dealing-with-effects-of-college-concussions/

    • JW says:

      I shared the same concern, but a sixth round pick for Swope is still a pretty good bargain in terms of risk/reward and one I wish the Hawks would’ve made.

      Hopefully he can put together a career without further brain damage.

      • Miles says:

        There’s always the possiblity that, as a sixth round pick, Swope could be cut because of concussion issues and we could reserve him on our practice squad in hopes he can overcome his concussion problems.

        But if the concussions are such an issue that they are already creating long-term damage, it would be best for him to quit before it gets too serious.

        • JW says:

          It is pretty concerning from a long term health perspective. To be having concussion related symptoms several months removed from your last game, with repeated issues, I think I described it as a ‘yellow flag’ pre draft. At this point I’d call it a red flag. Hopefully he and the docs can navigate the issue safely and he can sock away some money for the risk.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’d recommend holding back on the “LOL”‘s until it’s had a lasting impact on his pro career, not just OTA’s.

      • Could also just say, “I feel my concerns about his concussion risks have been partially corroborated,” rather than LOLing about something like concussions.

  9. adog says:

    as defensive minded coaches often act, the qb position on the seahawks is being underhanded. One good qb is not enough. The defense is not that great. Say what we will about Russel Wilson, but he has played only one year in the nfl. While he has all the intangibles, we cannot say he is or is not injury prone. Yes shorter, smaller qb’s cannot see as well and they are dinged in the draft for that, but they are also more likely to be injured than a bigger qb…and here they are also dinged in the draft. I would have grabbed Barkely at the end of the 1st or in the 2nd just to feed a Montana\Young fantasy, but also to have another thumb in the dike if Wilson goes down with injury this year. Brady Quinn is laughable, Johnson who knows.

    • JW says:

      There’s the size/injury correlation again. I want to see some empirical studies on ht/wt and injuries for QBs before I find this at all convincing.
      Russell Wilson’s BMI ht/wt proportion is actually very close to what has been identified as the ideal build for a durable running back. Combined with his elusiveness and demonstrated game awareness, I just don’t think there’s much to be said about size and injury correlations.

      The variables for what determines injury for a QB go well beyond size.

  10. Bill Bobaggins says:

    Looks like the Cowboys had Alvin Bailey as a 7th rounder. Hawks picked him up UDFA.

    • Miles says:

      What I thought was weird was that CBSSports.com had Alvin Bailey ranked as a 3rd-rounder. Seems like the NFL really didn’t feel the same way.

  11. Jefferson Davis says:

    Dallas should have taken a GM in the 1st round.

  12. Leonard says:

    I know this is extremely off topic but I thought it might interest some people. The Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation is raffling off a signed and framed Marshawn Lynch jersey donated by the Seahawks at a charity walk in Magnuson Park in Seattle. The event starts at 3 if anyone is interested.

  13. mjkleko says:

    “Guys who haven’t proven anything in the league shouldn’t be battling over money.”

    I disagree with this sentiment. Due to NFL rules, young football players are coerced into attending college football programs in order to both prove their worth and meet NFL guidelines and restrictions. As such, the top players in what essentially is a minor league system should have every right to maximize what they believe their potential worth is. Obviously holding out is an option reserved for a very select few (well, at least it was). When you compare that to other major professions in America, the top 0.10% of say law graduates or finance majors most certainly maximize their earning potentials by either playing other firms against each other creating a bidding war or at the negotiating table. Due to the draft, football players are restricted to the latter and in my opinion should have every right to argue their case for more money. Or again, at least they should have had the right in the past. Which brings up another point, it’s complete crap that incoming rookies are bound by restrictions voted on primarily by players who have at least a year or two of experience in the league. But then again, this is coming from a guy who things the 3 years from highschool graduation aspect of the NFL is complete bulls***.

  14. A. Simmons says:

    Pete and John and Harbaugh were asked about trading up, neither would give any definitive answer other than they they both feel they picked the player they wanted. If you watch Pete’s Town Hall Pep Rally, he made a joke about it when talking about Rice TEs. Something to the effect “We got the TE we wanted.” So you’ll never get a straight answer on that topic or their level of interest in Vance.

    • Michael says:

      They said Willson was the one player that, if they hadn’t come out of the draft with him, they would have felt it was a failure. That’s a straight answer. Whether you think they are straight lying is another matter…

      • A. Simmons says:

        I don’t think they are lying. Rob was wondering if they were asked and they were. Harbaugh was asked as well. The local media and some of the national media asked the question to Pete, John, and Harbaugh, but none of them would say anything more than the usual coach speak. Personally, I don’t think it matters one bit. You never build your draft around one player.

        And there are so many ways you can speculate on unknowns. For example, we could shade this Seattle’s way and say they baited Frisco into thinking they might take Vance when they really wanted Willson hoping Frisco would spend their draft capital to move up. That would be pointless speculation with a bias towards Seattle.

        I think Frisco filled a need with a guy they liked. Seattle picked up a younger replacement for Leon Washington to make sure their run game never stops.

  15. Phil says:

    Rob – have you ever crossed the pond to see the Seahawks play? The season opener is in Carolina. My wife and I just snagged 2 tickets @ $60 each on the 20-yd. line, top deck. We went to the Carolina game last year and enjoyed Charlotte ….

    • Rob Staton says:

      I lived in Vancouver for a while and that’s how I really got into the Hawks. Since then I’ve travelled back to Seattle a couple of times to watch games, and also caught a Jets game when I was in New York. I’m plotting a way back over this year to see one of the 16 regular season games. One slight issue is my wife is due to give birth on the 28th September. I was actually thinking that Carolina game might be best… if the baby doesn’t make an unexpected entrance. Either that or going to one of the last games.

      • Phil says:

        Nice thing about Charlotte is that the stadium is right down town — like the Seahawks’ stadium (is it still Qwest Field?). Next to Candlestick — it has to be the ugliest stadium in the NFL …

  16. James says:

    McDonald is a solid TE with good all-around skills, but he is not exceptional in any area. Willson is an exceptional receiver and just as big as McDonald, though not the same blocker. Christine Michael is an exceptional talent, just the sort of guy that PCJS goes for. John really did take a risk in trading from 56 to 62, if Michael was the guy they targeted, for both Denver (Ball) and Green Bay (Lacy) went RB, though John probably correctly projected neither would go for Michael, since he was too similar to Moreno for Denver’s taste, and Green Bay wanted more of bruiser.

  17. cover-2 says:

    I always find the what if’s after a draft kind of interesting. What if prospect so-and-so was available when we were picking in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounds of the draft.

    In 2011 the Browns traded their 6th overall pick to Atlanta for the 27th overall pick, then they traded up to 21st overall to select Baylor (DT) Phil Taylor. When the Browns selected Taylor 4 picks ahead of us I remember thinking that Mike Holmgren must have had an idea the Taylor would have not gotten past the Seahawks.

    Also, if the front office did intend on drafting McDonald in the 2nd round, then I think the 49ers jumping ahead of us may be a blessing in disguise. I think Christine Michael has the potential to be one of the top-5 RB in the league, that is once Beast Mode has moved on. I like the foresight that our front office had to pull the trigger on Michael even though they currently have a top-5 RB in Lynch.

  18. James says:

    How good is this Seahawks offense? Check out the list below of potential 2014 offensive free agents. I would not sign a single one of these guys as being a better performer or better value than the starting 11 for Seattle. An incredible tribute to PCJS.

    http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/6/3/4389870/nfl-free-agency-2014-preview-offense-michael-vick-jay-cutler-maurice-jones-drew

    …as far a defense, if the Seahawks can retain all their guys and don’t need to replace someone, the only places I see for an upgrade are: you can always use an elite DT, if one somehow became available; maybe a Will LB; and maybe a backup FS. All props to the Seahawks, now lets go win it on the field.

    • Miles says:

      Very early to start talking about next offseason already, but I’m definitely keeping my eye on Hakeem Nicks. He seems like the kind of receiver that could fit on our offense like a Sidney Rice; problem is he would need to be compensated just as much or more than Sidney. So signing him is probably a pipe dream, but I’m not sure the Seahawks will be too active in getting new talent next year. I think the draft will be the centerpiece of the 2014 offseason. Then again, that’s what I said this year. :P

  19. Kyle says:

    I went through a post draft reverse engineering of sorts. First I gave a grade for every seahawk on the roster, then I graded each pick in the draft based on my understanding of what the Seahawks look for in certain positions. Then I performed basic math (subtraction) to get a relative grade rating. Which I multiplied by an importance multiplier for the position on the roster being graded against. You aren’t going to believe me, but the resulting outcome does a pretty good job explaining why they didn’t pick certain players and did pick others.

    • Miles says:

      Cool so which team are you a GM of?

      Lol; I’m kidding. It actually would be cool to see how you did this. Did you take into account players you thought they would draft, who, by this process, turned out to be of negative value? Which players were these, if any..?