Seahawks would be picking between #13 and #15

December 13th, 2010 | Written by Rob Staton

If the season ended after this weekend’s games, the Seahawks would be picking between #13 and #15 overall. Wins for Houston and Minnesota would put the Seahawks at #13. If only one of those two is victorious, Seattle gets the #14 pick.

The top three picks would belong to Carolina, Cincinatti and Denver in that order.

Prospects taken in the 12-14 range in previous five years:

2010: Ryan Mathews, Brandon Graham, Earl Thomas
2009: Knowshon Moreno, Brian Orakpo, Malcolm Jenkins
2008: Ryan Clady, Jonathan Stewart, Chris Williams
2007: Marshawn Lynch, Adam Carriker, Darelle Revis
2006: Haloti Ngata, Kamerion Wimbley, Brodrick Bunkley

Picking in this range would not give the Seahawks the opportunity to draft Andrew Luck or Cam Newton – I expect both to leave the board early alongside Da’Quan Bowers and Patrick Peterson.

11 Responses to “Seahawks would be picking between #13 and #15”

  1. Cliff says:

    With a loss the next two weeks against Atlanta and TB we COULD be picking within the top 10. Questions though. Dareus is more of a 3 tech but could he go to 5 tech if needed? Also you’re high on Cameron Jordan as a possible 5 tech for Seattle but how far does he rise? One more. Greg Romeus, Fallen from injury but he’s a 5 tech that was graded in the 2nd but now possibly the 4th/5th. Little small but what do you think of him?

    • Rob says:

      I was never a fan of Romeus and thought he was over rated. The injuries are a big concern and will hammer his stock. I think he’s more of a pure 4-3 DE than a 5-technique.

  2. Hawktastic says:

    As fans, should we be hoping for a playoff birth or a better draft pick at this point? Essentially, is there a big talent drop off between 12-14 and 21 do you think in this year’s draft class. If not, it might be best still to hope against hope for a playoff birth to help those on the team to buy in and build confidence.

  3. Matt says:

    Anybody else expect the Seahawks to, yet again, end up in no man’s land in regards to the QB situation in 2011? I just have a horrible gut feeling that we will again not address the QB situation because of where we will be picking in the draft.

    So, what happens we don’t get a QB? What position do we draft? Do we just continually trade down and accumulate picks and try to build depth?

    I’m starting to get really concerned about the future of Seahawks football. We just have little to no talent and hardly any pieces that look to be great building blocks of the future. I really like Okung and ET, but when’s the last time a Safety and a Left Tackle won a Super Bowl? We have to get our QB, and I don’t care about the sacrifice it will take to get him. I can’t stand watching Hass any longer. He’s just brutal and our offense is just so easy to defend against. No wonder we cannot run the ball (either) when your QB is of no threat at all.

  4. Matt says:

    Funny how that list you made of the draft picks in that range over the last 5 years, features one elite talent and 2 meh NFL players. Ngata, Revis, Orakpo, Clady, (hopefully) Thomas.

    What are the names you would think would fall in that draft range in 2011? Julio Jones, Janoris Jenkins, Stephen Paea, maybe Marcel Dareus (thanks to Fairley’s rise), Amukamara (who I still think is overrated). Any other guys I am missing?

  5. Dan says:

    I don’t get the hype with Newton he runs a spread offense all the time and is very innaccurate i would rather have Locker then Newton because Locker is more polished for the pro game.

    • Rob says:

      Hi Dan,

      Newton is significantly better than Locker when it comes to accuracy. Having watched Newton several times this year, accuracy is not something I’d pick him up on. It’s the #1 issue with Locker. I’d also argue that whilst Newton runs a system he won’t use at the next level, such is the problem facing nearly every college QB. He runs a playbook with about 15 plays, he’s asked to make one or two reads before using his legs. That’s not uncommon in college. I’d need re-assurance that Newton is switched on when it comes to film study and football IQ – that’s something teams will discover in meetings. From a pure talent stand point – Newton is an incredible prospect. When I first watched Newton – I carried a lot of the concerns people talk about. He convinced me those initial concerns were unnecessary. He’s mobile, he can make difficult throws. His mechanics are not perfect, but they are not an issue (nice high release, gets the ball out quick, good arm). He’s durable. He can carry the team on his back. He’s a top 5-10 pick.

  6. darren says:

    Could a record of 6-10 (possible) get us up to pick 8,9,10? We could see available Jones, Jenkins, Dareus,….and Locker (or Mallet if you prefer). My original thought was trade down from nine to 15, get Locker and an extra pick. The question for teams might not be should we select Locker but can we pass on him.

    • Rob says:

      It’s possible Seattle could end up in the 8-10 range. If that proves to be the case, they might have a shot at one of the elite prospects in this draft (like an A.J. Green) should they suffer a slight fall. The question Seattle really needs to ask about Locker is – does the physical upside do enough to let you ignore the major problems with accuracy? Can you manage that aspect of Locker’s game without washing out the big play potential? Despite the big question marks, some teams will love Locker’s upside which is why I think he could still be a high pick. Seattle have stood by a QB throwing 12-15 for TD-INT’s and traded for another who’s issues appear to be locking onto receivers and inconsistent accuracy.

      Every team values accuracy, but being poor in that area does not always put every team off. Some will give Locker a top-ten grade, others a R3-4 grade (maybe worse). I may be proven spectacularly wrong, but I envisage Seattle keeping Locker high on their board.

  7. darren says:

    Jenkins could be huge playing back there with ET. Listed under 6 ft. Does he fit size criteria for Seattle? If Seattle were to acquire say a Vince Young prior to the draft, would they still consider selecting a qb.

    • Rob says:

      Jenkins is about 5’11″ so I think he’d be OK scheme wise. They’re really trying to avoid that 5’8″-5’9″ type. He’s played big all year against taller guys.

      I’m not convinced the Seahawks would necessarily consider Vince Young if he became available. Perhaps they would, it’s hard to tell right now. I would say that there are very few scenarios that would see Seattle avoid considering a QB in round one next year – getting VY isn’t one of those. It would not surprise me if the Seahawks were starting a rookie QB next year and were completely comfortable with that.