Seahawks will pick 25th overall & Updated mock draft

January 16th, 2011 | Written by Rob Staton

Following defeat to the Chicago Bears in the Divisional Playoffs, the Seahawks will own the 25th overall pick in the 2011 NFL Draft.

Seattle last owned the 25th overall pick in 2008, when it traded down with Dallas before drafting Lawrence Jackson.

Here are the players taken with the 25th selection in the last six NFL drafts:

2010- Tim Tebow (QB, Denver)

2009- Vontae Davis (CB, Miami)

2008 – Mike Jenkins (CB, Dallas)

2007- Jon Beason (LB, Carolina)

2006- Santionio Holmes (WR, Pittsburgh)

2005 – Jason Campbell (QB, Washington)

Yesterday the deadline passed for underclassmen to declare, so we know what prospects will be available and the range Seattle will be based. I’ve since updated the mock draft to represent team order and remove any prospects who opted to stay in school.

You can view the mock draft by clicking here or selecting ‘mock draft’ from the title bar.

52 Responses to “Seahawks will pick 25th overall & Updated mock draft”

  1. Ralphy says:

    So anyone that didn’t think WR was a top priority should have changed their opinion after that game. Almost all of Hasslebecks throws were on the money and dropped by the recievers. Williams is not a number one and Obomanu is not a number two. I know we keep hearing about Tate’s amazing plays in practice but he looks intimidated out there on the field. I hope they can address this problem in free agency but if they don’t they need to in the first or second round.

    Another thing that has been bothering me is how many people think LB is a strength of ours. They all get blocked way too easily and never put a serious hit on anyone.

    • charlie says:

      We have too much money in the LB area to go early there. And i know rob isn’t for tate, but he is still just a rookie, and could prove to be a very solid slot guy. And yes, mike williams did not step up today, but neither did the oline in the running game, we have many holes, but you can be succcesful with mediocre recievers when you have a good qb, good oline and good running game. the defense also needs alot more help than the offense. Depth on Dline, and desperate help at corner.

      • Rob says:

        I think there are needs all over the team (which is pretty obvious) but I disagree that the defense needs more help. Absolutely the team can use upgrades and depth on the line and in the secondary (and linebacker isn’t a strength but easier to fill than other postions). However – the team’s starting quarterback is 36 in September. We’ve seen today that the running game can’t feature against a good defense – and it wasn’t helped by the passing game becoming equally redundant because of drops.

        The team will have success going forward by finding a young QB to lead this team going forward (and not necessarily needing to start them in year one or two) and giving that QB reliable weapons and a run game. When you have an offense that can function, it helps the defense. Both need to grow together, but offense has to be the priority for me.

        • charlie says:

          I agree QB is top priority, but i just don’t think WR is a good choice first round unless its someone that falls. BPA, thats what we need to go by, someone will fall in this draft, hopefully the hawks can get that someone. While the offense struggled today, the defense did more so… the first 4 drives allowed 3 touchdowns. something i would consider much worse in comparison to 3 three and outs by the offense. The oline really does need to be addressed, i dont know how much AP could have done with those holes…

          • Matt Q. says:

            What do you all think about Ryan Williams out of VT? He’s a elictric player and could give us the #1 one back status. I know that Lynch is “Good” but we only gave up a 4th round pick for him. I want to believe he can be the every down back but its not going to happen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTNoSsI7jfg

            1st = Ryan Williams
            2nd = Rodney Hudson
            4th = Greg Romeus
            5th = Tyrod Taylor (or any other QB thats worth a chance)
            6th & 7th = BPA

            • Rob says:

              I like Williams but I’d be surprised if Seattle – with all their issues running the ball this year – felt that the issue will be solved by another back like Williams who let’s remember spent 2010 mostly on the sidelines with an injury.

          • ChavaC says:

            I’m starting to agree on BPA as being the best choice. You could make the argument that a better offense will keep the defense off the field, but in our case it seems that the reciprocal is just as true. When the defense blows up for big leads early on, then the offense abandons the run, becomes 1 dimensional, and never goes anywhere. I say take BPA outside of RB, FS.

            • Rob says:

              I think we all have our own list of vital needs – I’m pretty sure everyone knows mine by now. The issue we have (and I think this is represented in the mock) is that you can’t always solve need #1 especially when you pick near the end of rounds one and two. I had to combine BPA and need here which is why the pick is Baldwin and not a position others would prefer. I agree with you Chavac that BPA is best at the positions of need unless you can get that dream deal to move up.

          • charlie says:

            matt- RB really are a dime a dozen. no reason to take rb in the first round, you may not have faith in lynch, but seriously, there are less talented rb’s running for way more yards due to holes to run through. the dude breaks tackles, and on top of that, they don’t give him the ball consistently… id say if were gonna grab a rb, grab one that is a speedster in the late rounds.
            -Chavac, totally agree

  2. Ryan says:

    I enjoyed the playoff run too, and don’t want to say I wanted them to tank it… but… once the season is over, and we’re looking to fix our holes and rebuild for next year, including finding a young QB, improving our WR mix, improving the pass rush and secondary…. boy, it sure would be nice to have that #8 pick instead of #25.

    • charlie says:

      it will be a hell of a lot easier to get guys in FA though after the saints game, regardless of how the bears game went, assuming there is a FA period. its also more promising for the players and buying in, something i think is much more important than a higher first and second round draft pick.

      • Matt says:

        I really don’t think eeking into the playlets helps us with FA. I think the $ and playing for PC have much more pull than the former. It obviously doesn’t hurt the cause.

        The scary thing to me, we could easily be a 4 win team next year. I’m not trying to be a pessimist, but if the cards and 49ERS address QB, we could be in trouble. We just dont have great talent and our depth is poor. Our CBs are terrible and our best LB is a UDF. I love Milloy, but he is a complete liability in coverage. Today should highlight our complete lack of playmakers on offense. That has to change. Unless your QB is Brady, you have to have players that defenses game plan for.

        • charlie says:

          Lets just wait for things to unfold before we start projecting how many games we will win. alot of people thought we would be the worst team in football this year…

  3. Ryan says:

    I disagree. Never been fond of what free-agency has brought us: T.J., Fisher, Julius, Grant, Burleson, Peterson, Kerney, Russell… the hits (Kerney, Fisher) have only been great for maybe a year or so. You build through the draft, not FA. Free agency can fix some holes once you’re good, but you can’t lean on it to build a talented nucleus of a team from scratch.

    • charlie says:

      Im not saying you lean on it, and that was also tim ruskell who brought in players way past their prime. But getting a player like jonathon joseph, or the lottery Nnamdi Asomough cannot hurt the team…

  4. Anthony says:

    Rob,

    The ‘hawks two biggest needs seem to be coming down to CB and QB with the difference of opinion being whch of those two is the bigger need.

    I’m getting the impression that the two best QBs that might be available at that point are Locker and Mallet. They were both rated pretty highly last year but seem to have fallen off somwhat this year.

    I don’t deny that QB is a definate longterm need that needs to be addressed sooner or later (unless PC and co can work miracles with Nate Davis), question is, are either Locker or Mallet capable of being the franchise QB that we need or are we going to be better off taking a first round CB and picking up a project QB and/or waiting til the 2012 draft?

    • Rob says:

      Hi Anthony,

      There are positives and negatives with each prospect for me. Locker’s accuracy and poise has raised concerns mainly because he hasn’t really taken the step most expected this year. However, he’s got everything else you look for – prototype size, strong arm, decent mechanics, flawless character and work ethic. He’s also got that X-Factor ability to make big plays. I cannot say whether he’ll be more John Elway than big bust but that’s the gamble someone is going to make. He has a tremendously high ceiling.

      Mallett likewise has big positives – major improvement in accuracy this year, amazing arm, reads a defense better than any college QB I’ve seen this year and goes through his progressions very well. Tall and not immobile with decent mechanics if not a slight wind up motion sometimes. However, there are the negatives – how his accuracy goes out the window when he’s asked to re-set his feet or throw on the run under pressure. He has thrown big games away making mistakes in that situation. There are some attitude/character concerns – can he lead a veteran locker room?

      I think you can hurt yourself waiting for the perfect QB. Josh Freeman wasn’t perfect but if you re-did the 2009 draft he probably goes first overall instead of 17th. Unless you’re picking in the top five it’s difficult to find QB’s close to Matt Ryan for example. I wouldn’t necessarily avoid either QB especially if they are there at #25 – in some cases it’s worth the risk because the cost is so small. If they bust – as with Lawrence Jackson when he was taken in the 20’s – you move on.

      • Anthony says:

        That all makes sense and certainly if Locker is available at 25 I think the FO should be looking at him.

        However, I can’t help looking at last years draft and thinking Tim Tebow went 25 whilst Devin Courty went 27. Of course, one draft doesn’t in anyway make a trend but it’s still there in the back of the mind.

        I know you didn’t rate Clausen last year and where proved right on that one. Where did you have Tebow?

        • Rob says:

          My opinion on Tebow was that he’d almost certainly go in round one because someone would fall for the intangibles. He had major, major mechanical issues… he wasn’t that accurate and his arm wasn’t elite. He’s not a stunning athlete just simply a powerful runner with a full back’s build. I had him as a 3-4 year project because of the work he needed to do – but also acknowledged that if anyone was going to put in the work to become a solid starter it would probably be Tebow. I never mocked him in round one because I didn’t do trades, but always had the qualifier that someone would trade up to get him. He’s a lefty which put me off a bit and he always looked like a limited prospect in terms of – like Clausen – can you ever see this guy leading the team with a 350-yard, 2TD performance… perhaps needing a drive at the end of the game to win through the air? I couldn’t see it with either guy. For me, the four guys slated to go in R1 this year have more potential in that sense.

  5. James says:

    Professor John Clayton made the point on Saturday that after Jacksonville picks at #16, no team between there and the Seahawks at #25 will take a QB (barring a trade). He still thinks that the Hawks should take a QB if one of the first-rounders is still available. (Watching Sanchez on tv right now confirms what the Hawks should have done a year ago.) But I tend to think the Hawks must go OL/DL/or CB. The Bears really exposed them there.

  6. Ed says:

    showed the last few games. hass can play when he has time. i agree we need young qb, but that can wait. and yes wr’s dropped balls, but late they got by cb’s (and it wasn’t because they gave up. tate got by early too but one handed a ball when he was being held with no call.

    our biggest needs are oline (even with lynch long run last game, our rb’s are almost always getting hit at or behind line of scrimmage) and cb’s (jennings fa and trufant always hurt).

    our gameplan was terrible today too. i could understand rushing 3/4 against the saints because brees tears it apart. but cutler gets rattled and throws int’s when blitzed. we sat back when we should have blitzed.

    • Rob says:

      Hi Ed,

      I would ask though – wouldn’t you rather develop a QB and not be forced to start a rookie? I don’t think you can wait anymore. Also – let’s also remember that as well as Matt Hasselbeck has played the last two weeks – he’s also 36 in September and overall had a disappointing 2010 season. I’m not saying you don’t keep him – but you have to start planning for the long term at QB whatever happens.

  7. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BVM. BVM said: RT @robstaton: Confirmed draft order before NE/NYJ playoff game with Seattle at #25: http://seahawksdraftblog.com/?p=1143 […]

  8. Ed says:

    if we can’t trade back.

    1st harris (cb)
    2nd ijalana (ot)
    3rd smith (wr) trade to get back into 3rd, maybe early 2nd
    4th o’dowd (c)

  9. Patrick says:

    A disgusting loss indeed, but you know I haven’t lost faith! As easy as it seems, I could just tell if you took away the snowy conditions, this may have been a closer game. We got outplayed sure, but I certtainly think it would have been closer. I also didn’t notice our CBs being as big of liabilities, although I know it’s definitely a need. Let’s see…

    QB: First off, I think we’ll resign Hasselbeck which I am fine with. He was not the issue today. However, I also agree with Rob that QB should be #1 on our list. If Newton or Locker slip, they need to be the pick. If not, I really like Matt Flynn. I think Seattle should definitely see if Green Bay would make the trade.

    DE/DT: Cutler had all day. If Mebane leaves, that void becomes even larger.

    G/RT: Definitely a need.

    WR: A need, but I’m not as harsh on Mike Williams and Ben Obomanu. They helped us battle through the Saints, and I really think they’ll bounce back strong. If a stud WR is sitting there at #25 maybe, but I like Tate too.

    CB: Definitely a need, but I like Thurmond’s potential. If the top tier CBs are gone at #25, we can look in the 2nd. With that said… Nnamdi Asomogua!!!!

    • T-Town says:

      Im glad you see it to.

      I keep saying it and I will say it once again.

      Our Pass rush is NOT that good. Clemons and Brock have been productive but they are not consistent. They get in there for a sack or two a game but they dont provide pressure on a play by play basis.

      Clemons is great at getting 1 sack a game and thats it. Hawks are lucky if he records more than 2 tackles.

      Stats are not telling the whole story here.

      I sure hope Bryant and Unger can stay healthy next year. Losing those 2 was a huge blow to both lines.

      • charlie says:

        Clemons was top 10 in qb hurries in the league…

        • T-Town says:

          Thats great. How many of those hurries came against OL’s ranked in the top 15?

          All I saw from Clemons today was 1 spin move where he got a sack. Otherwise he was completely shutdown. Just like half of the seasons games.

          • Matt Q. says:

            its not like we are paying him big time, hes good. Why is everyone thinking he is like one of the best in the league? The problem for him (at least as i see it), he gets sacks, not consitant prresure (like we need).

          • charlie says:

            Its not that hes incredible, or brock, but they definetly held their own… we have far greater needs than DE in the first couple rounds. we can get guys that fill that position later on, and maybe they like dexter davis too

          • Rob says:

            Very few DE’s get constant pressure every week – Julius Peppers has 8 sacks for the year and barely had a sniff against Seattle in week six. Kerney had double digit sacks in 2008 and was not a constant force. Clemons had an excellent year for me.

          • Alex says:

            The point is that there are greater needs on the team. Pass rush is important, but there are greater needs such as OL (good guard), CB, QB. While pass rush can be improved on the DEs, it’s ok at this point. Then again, how many teams are “perfect” in all aspects. Not a lot.

            Alex

  10. Matt Q. says:

    What about steve smith from new york, hes a great reciver and he went to USC

  11. J. Gray says:

    He tackled Forte for a loss on play action. Maybe you should pay closer attention. It was kind of a big play.

  12. Ed says:

    not many teams get pressure when they rush 3/4. our scheme needs to improve (as well as timing from our blitzers when we do blitz). when our dline is healthy it is pretty good (mebane/balmer/cole/brock/clemons/terril/bryant).

    we need oline and cb. in a year or two, qb.

    • Ryan says:

      I’d say “in a year or two a QB” as well, but since I’d like to not have that young QB thrown to the lions as a rookie, it’s worth drafting them now so they can learn behind Matthew for that time.

    • Matt says:

      No no no. Can’t “wait” for a QB. Let’s not forget Hass had about a dozen BAD games this year and has played poorly for a better part of 3 years. I’d rather get our guy and sit him and let him learn.

  13. Ryan says:

    Would anyone still choose Curry over Sanchez right now?

    I also think draft seeding of playoffs teams by elimination round instead of record is stupid. The NFL shouldn’t penalize a 7-9 team just because they played in a weak division. No reason we should be drafting behind the Saints and Colts.

    • charlie says:

      Its not penalizing. if we won the superbowl, it would be unfair to give us the 8th pick in the draft… System works perfectly fine, no need to change it because of one year. We moved on past those teams, so we earned our spot. as for curry, hindsight is 20-20 man, no need to go in the past, we got what we got, im sure we would have liked a number of other players over curry (clay matthews anyone) doesnt matter now, move on

      • Ryan says:

        I bring up the past so we can learn from it. If you need a young QB, and there’s a possible good young QB still on the board at #4, you don’t pass that up to take a linebacker. The QB position is just too important.

        • charlie says:

          Tim ruskell was horrible at making decisions like that though, we all know what we should have done, but were not picking number 4, and im sure we will get a qb if ones available at 25

          • Ryan says:

            I imagined it’d only be Mallett that would have a chance to fall that far. What’s the nature of this bad reputation that he has? I’d like to know more.

          • Alex says:

            The first and foremost issue with Mallet is that he is the exact opposite of what we want in a QB. We want mobility, passing on the run, accuracy, horizontal passing, some running ability to play option, and some ability to stretch the field.

            Mallet is little mobility and when he is asked to move, his accuracy and mechanics get completely messed up. This in itself takes away the play action that is so integral to Bate’s offense. The only thing that Mallet fits in regards to the Seahawks is his ability to stretch the field, but in Bates offense, that is a lower priority. By comparison, Mallet would be more fit for the vertical based Air Coryell Offense run by Mike Martz or Norv Turner.

            This is why Andrew Luck (if he’d come out) and Locker were the best fits for this offense. Gabbert seems fine as well though I’d rate his mobility a notch below and his throwing on the run ability as below average. The best pure pocket passer is Luck, but the best throwing on the run QB is Locker BY A FAR MARGIN. I remember reading a statistic ESPN where Luck throws roughly 53% on the run. Locker is a strange anomaly as he throws somewhere between 65-70% (FSN compiled this statistic during the ASU game) on the run and Coach Dennis Erickson said that Locker is actually more accurate on the run than in the pocket.

            As for Mallet’s character concerns, there is nothing concrete for us the readers. But several NFL scouts and insiders claim to have something that is not yet public. Apparently, that concern is enough for some to say that they won’t touch him with even a ten feet pole. I see no reason why it’s not true at this point because Mallet is talented. Therefore there is no reason to eliminate him and give another team an opportunity at Mallet if it isn’t true.

            Alex

  14. Alex says:

    I gotta agree with Matt and the others. QB can’t wait anymore. It is THE #1 need. The only reason why I was in favor of passing a QB last year was because it was a weak QB draft where there was essentially one QB I rated in the 1st round (Bradford with a upper 1st round grade). The logic then was that if we drafted Clausen at 14, it would have been a huge waste.

    This year, there is the potential that a 1st rounder falls to us. If not, we can draft up. Or we could just stay for BPA. Regardless, I think there is a greater chance of a solid QB prospect this year than last year.

    Alex

  15. Ryan says:

    Final Four, FWIW

    Steelers: Roethlisberger 1st rd #11
    Jets: Sanchez 1st rd #5
    Bears: Cutler 1st rd #11
    Packers: Rodgers 1st rd #24

    Forgot that Rodgers fell so low

  16. jhs says:

    If Pouncey slips past 15, I would at least consider about trading up. If we stay pat at 25. I would look at Nevis or Heyward to add some depth on the DL. In second round maybe a corner like Ras I dowling or something. Next years QB crop should be decent. Also do you think we can pick up Kolb with the 25th pick?

    • Rob says:

      Hi JHS,

      I like Pouncey but considering what it’d take to trade up – I think it’s expensive to fill an interior line role. Pouncey is projected by many to play center which is where Chris Spencer has excelled this year. The Seahawks had two first round picks on their offensive line this season, I’m not sure they need another at this stage.

      As for Kolb – personally, I think he may be the most over rated player in the NFL. His reputation has grown because he hasn’t played games. I’m sure we could almost certainly land him with the #25 pick but that would be a huge investment, it’d demand a certain level of ‘immediate impact’ and I’m not sure how you can justify spending a #1 pick on a guy who only ever cost a R2 selection and hasn’t done enough IMO to warrant such an upgrade at this stage in his career.

      It’s still very early but the QB class of 2012 doesn’t look great. Luck will be the headline pick and will go first overall. Barkley might declare or he might stay for the opportunity to have another Bowl game at USC after the sanctions close out. It’s actually harder to see Barkley declaring now knowing Luck will be there. Both those guys are top-ten type picks. After that there isn’t a great deal at the moment but things can change.

  17. Mike says:

    I just don’t see Buffalo going with a QB in the first, I think they are sold on Fitz. I think AZ will get a veteran cause they like what they have in their rookie. Leaving SF with the next need a QB pick and I think they will go Gabbert, they are too close to being good to grab a project. Next up is Wash, who I think will go with Newton, he is a Snyder pick. What that will do is most likely leave Locker to Seattle. Its a long way to go and a lot of veteran variability, when you include in the CBA issues.

    • Rob says:

      Hi Mike,

      I think Buffalo are a wild card. I could easily see them going in many different directions. Newton is an option because he’s a perfect fit for the Gailey offense which uses elements of the spread and would give CN the opportunity to scramble. Having said that – they appear to have faith in Ryan Fitzpatrick. Is he a long term solution though? We’ll see I guess.

      As for Washington – I think Snyder has effectively accepted a ‘back seat’ so to speak. Shanahan is making big decisions at that franchise which is why IMO we see McNabb benched. As much as Newton is the kind of guy you’d see Snyder take… he’s not a Mike Shanahan pick. Locker absolutely is and for me it’s a nailed on certainty unless someone trades ahead of the Redskins.

      • Mike says:

        I agree on the Shanahan vs Snyder dynamic, but will he really be able to stay out of it completely. They other name that I have thought of for them would be Vince Young. A year ago I would have bet anything that the Redskins would have gone after him. Now they won’t, but it doesn’t convince me which way they go in the draft. He might sit out on a lot of things, but it will be the face of the franchise. I don’t think Snyder will abdicate completely. I think he will way in on the big things and if Shanahan is even considering Newton, I think Snyder tips the scales.

        • Rob says:

          The thing is though – look at what Shanahan has done. Would Snyder have let Jim Zorn get away with the way Haynesworth has been dealt this year considering the huge investment there? How about benching the big name QB they just signed to a big deal? Shanahan appears to have more power than any other coach there in recent years and to be honest – that’s probably why he took the job. And when I look at Locker – it’s not like he isn’t the type of prospect Snyder couldn’t get behind (big arm, big play potential). I can’t even see Shanny considering Newton – just doesn’t seem like a logical fit.

          • Mike says:

            Its the name and the flash of Newton that would make Snyder covet him. I agree, Shanahan has that type of power overall, I’ll just be interested to see how the draft goes. I wouldn’t be surprised if Snyder leaned in a little bit.