The argument to take Brock Osweiler… in round one

January 13th, 2012 | Written by Rob Staton

The future?

It was revealed today that Tyler Wilson won’t be entering the 2012 draft and will return to Arkansas. Barring any last minute shocks, we know what’s out there for the Seahawks. Amid all the talk of improving the front seven and especially the team’s pass rush, one need sticks out so much it’ll trip you up. The Seahawks need a quarterback. I started this blog in 2008, and we’ve talked about this subject virtually every week since. Back then it was a case of fixing the roof while the sun was shining – drafting a successor for Matt Hasselbeck before he departed. It started raining, and the house flooded.

The prospect of spending another year talking about quarterbacks is about as tantalising as watching Jim Harbaugh win a Super Bowl. Yet without some bold, ambitious, zany move up the board – that’s exactly what we’re faced with. Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III will be drafted early and the Seahawks will have to pull out all the stops to get one of the ‘big two’.

After that, well there’s always the possibility players will rise up the board considering the vital nature of the position and how it translates to NFL success. The new rookie wage scale makes drafting a quarterback in round one much less of a gamble, with damaged reputation and pride rather than cap space the main issue. A team can decide to fire a GM for making a bad pick at the position, but they’re going to be able to clean up the mess quite swiftly. We saw last year that team’s are prepared to chance their arm now – there’s no other way to justify a prospect like Christian Ponder going #12 overall.

In my latest mock I included Ryan Tannehill as an early pick after reading Tony Pauline’s report that he’s currently expected to go in the top-15. Like Jake Locker last year, someone could easily take the gamble under the new cap rules. I much preferred Locker if we’re talking comparisons, but many graded the former Washington QB outside of the first round. In the end Tennessee drafted him at #8 – considered a shocking turn of events at the time – and there’s every chance Tannehill will also go in that range whether you agree with that decision or not.

The Washington Redskins pick #6 overall and while they may be better served going in another direction, this is Mike Shanahan’s third draft with the team. In year one he gushed about Sam Bradford, but the #4 pick in 2010 wasn’t high enough to get his man. Last April I fully expected Shanahan to draft Locker at #10 before the Titans stepped in. This year, they might take the hit to get that elusive quarterback. Tannehill shouldn’t go as early as #6 overall, but are you going to risk a third strike and face another year with potentially John Beck or Rex Grossman as your starter? They could take Tennessee’s lead and still add a veteran option to tutor Tannehill and give him time and I maintain Peyton Manning playing in the capital seems like a logical option. If Shanahan doesn’t sort out the position this off season, he’s going to be on the hot-seat.

So with three quarterbacks off the board already, the Seahawks could be left with the scraps at #11 or #12. One option is to just take the situation on the chin, because this is still a team in rebuild with other needs. However, if the goal is sustained improvement it’s unlikely a franchise quarterback is going to one day magically land on a plate. Any quarterback with a modicum of talent is going to go earlier now that team’s essentially have a financial carte blanche to roll the dice on a franchise quarterback. Is it wrong to believe that if things keep progressing in Seattle, the front office faces an inevitable decision on either a.) reaching for a player or b.) trading up?

Of course, so far this regime has found gem after gem in the later rounds of the draft and free agency. They have the midas touch at the moment and the way they’ve turned around an ageing team going absolutely nowhere fast deserves greater credit on a national scale. However, their record so far at quarterback is poor. Tarvaris Jackson was a convenient choice last off season, but he lurched from good to mediocre to bad in 2011. The Charlie Whitehurst trade is a busted deal, simple as that. The only other fairly significant move was to sign Josh Portis and essentially red-shirt him for a year. Nobody truly knows what he’s capable of, but expecting to find the next UDFA sensation is like expecting to win big on the lottery – not impossible, but excruciatingly difficult.

There are options in this draft beyond round one. Chandler Harnish (Northern Illinois), Ryan Lindley (San Diego State), Austin Davis (Southern Miss) and BJ Coleman (Chattanooga) all carry a degree of intrigue. There are bigger names out there too, such as Brandon Weeden (Oklahoma State). Realistically though are any of these guys going to start next year? Perhaps of greater importance, is it really that much easier to find a starting quarterback in rounds 2-7 if the top players are going to go earlier than ever before?

The Seahawks may have to take a chance. This isn’t a draft full of top end first round talent and the prospective options at #11 or #12 are hardly making the fans in Seattle rub their hands in delight. It’s particularly weak on the defensive line – the other real need area that has been highlighted. Do you take a chance? Have Pete Carroll and John Schneider earned the opportunity to get a first round pick at quarterback wrong and live to tell the tale? Are they prepared to take a chance on a quarterback who might not quite be the second coming of Aaron Rodgers, but has enough talent to upgrade the position beyond Tarvaris Jackson? Enough talent to pull together an offense that blocks better, has some talent at receiver and a running back who, if he re-signs, will be hoping to build on a 2011 season that firmly put him among the league’s best.

Let me take you back to 2008.

A quarterback named Joe Flacco was preparing for the NFL Draft. He’d left Pittsburgh after struggling for starts behind Tyler Palko and moved to Delaware, where he made 22 regular season starts and led a FCS playoff run in 2006. He went to the Senior Bowl and impressed enough to earn a grade in the back-end of round two. Momentum continued to build, other quarterbacks failed to emerge. It was understood the Baltimore Ravens had interest in drafting Matt Ryan with the #8 pick, but when he left the board at #3 they traded all the way down to #26. They then moved back up to #18 to secure their man.

Flacco was raw and his footwork needed major work. Most people said he needed time but when injury and illness ruled out Kyle Boller and Troy Smith respectively, Flacco was in. Baltimore boasted an elite defense, a sound running game and offensive line and the rookie quarterback was able to make some plays, helping his team to the AFC Championship game. He got a lot of help as mentioned, his performances were hit and miss – but he did enough. Flacco’s big arm kept other team’s honest, and he did enough to win Rookie of the Year.

Since then Baltimore have returned to the post season each annually. Flacco hasn’t had it easy, including some heavy criticism as people reflect on his status after four seasons of pro-football. The thing is, he’s never going to be Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. In Baltimore though, he only has to be Joe Flacco. Denver, New England and Houston are the three teams standing in the way of a first Super Bowl – and the Ravens have home field advantage. Flacco is far from perfect, he can be rattled at times and he’s not been helped by some bizarre playcalling (see: Seattle, week 10). Yet he does enough consistently to keep getting wins. Sure, he won’t be perfect every game – far from it in fact. But he’s not bad enough to stop Baltimore making the playoffs every year and competing. He doesn’t spoil a good supporting cast.

And this is when we come to Seattle.

Everyone is chasing the next Manning, Brady, Brees or Rodgers. Everyone is also chasing the next tier of Matt Stafford, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger (or whoever else you want to include here). The Seahawks don’t necessarily need to keep chasing the holy grail. They may only need their version of Joe Flacco.

Some people will cringe at that because let’s be honest – nobody truly aspires to have Flacco as ‘the guy’. We all dream of the elite passers in the league, the miracle workers. But here’s the reality – Alex Smith was quarterback for not just the NFC West Champions this year, but also the #2 seed in the NFC. He did enough in certain games to get a few W’s – the kind that went begging for the Seahawks under Jackson. The Niners have a lot of talent, but they’re not the elite Ravens on defense. This is Seattle’s primary competition for now.

Carroll and Schneider are building a defense that is starting to look very promising. Potentially, it’s a three-technique and another pass rusher away from being – dare we say it – a force to be reckoned with and feared by the rest of the NFC. The running game has come along nicely as 2011 developed. Doesn’t it all just sound familiar?

The Seahawks are lacking that facilitator, someone who can make enough big plays in a game to get the job done. Maybe it is just 145 yards and a score one week? As long as you win the game, what does it matter? That touchdown could be the game winning drive? Unfortunately, ‘game winning drive’ are not words you can associate with Tarvaris Jackson.

Seattle’s Joe Flacco could be Brock Osweiler. The physical similarities are there – height (6-6 vs 6-8), weight (240lbs vs 240lbs), arm strength and raw potential with room for development. Like Flacco, Osweiler has a grade in that round 2-3 range right now. Flacco actually only started six more regular season games at Delaware than Osweiler has at Arizona State, but there’s a steep difference in opposition quality between the FCS and the PAC-12.

Nobody will ever count Osweiler as the ideal. Nobody will argue he’s the finished article or flawless. Yet anyone who watches the Utah tape from yesterday’s blog article will see there is some legitimate pro-potential. Fran Duffy, associate producer for philadelphiaeagles.com and a former video coordinator at Temple University describes Osweiler as, “(someone) who is going to be a stud in this league. I’m sold. This kid has a howitzer. Osweiler can stick the ball anywhere he wants, and he tries to. (He) puts the ball in tight quarters, sometimes good, some bad. But I like that.”

I tend to agree with this assessment and while there’s plenty to work on, there’s also plenty to work with. The one great difference between Flacco and Osweiler is mobility – extending plays, breaking off runs. Osweiler is a natural athlete with surprising agility that helps him improvise on plays the way Flacco simply can’t. In many ways, Osweiler is the kind of quarterback Seattle has been looking for – ability to run bootlegs, downfield passer with an arm to make all the throws and is able to extend plays. Ultimately though, Seattle’s roster is being set up to accomodate a less than perfect quarterback, simply a good one instead.

A lot of people are going to hate this idea, but I’m putting it out there. The Seahawks could trade down, just like Baltimore in 2008, enabling them to add an extra pick or two later on and then draft Osweiler in the #18-25 range just like the Ravens planned with Flacco. It’d be taking a bit of a risk, but this is the situation while ever Seattle’s not picking in the top five to get at the Andrew Luck’s and Matt Barkley’s. Some will say, “why not wait until round two?” My answer is simple – quarterbacks are going to go earlier and earlier these days. Waiting, hoping and praying will not get it done. Osweiler may never reach elite status as a NFL passer, but if he can be Seattle’s Joe Flacco and do enough to make the Seahawks competitive – isn’t that just the ticket?

27 Responses to “The argument to take Brock Osweiler… in round one”

  1. I’m still stuck at the “wanting Rodgers” stage. Everyone paints the popular desire for one in such condescending terms, but I haven’t seen a modern Super Bowl team without one in a long time.

    It intrigues me, though, that Osweiler could have a higher ceiling than Joe Flacco.

  2. Dan V. says:

    Nailed it. Couldn’t agree more. This is a guy that really gets me excited. I’m not worried about where he’s drafted relative to his grade, I just want the Hawks to get a young guy that has the potential to be elite if he’s developed the right way.

    This could be that guy.

  3. Fletcher says:

    I would love Osweiler in round 2, I’m not sure about him at 11/12, but I could get behind trading back and taking him towards the end of the round. There simply aren’t enough superstar QB’s around, we can still win without one, look at Baltimore, San Fran or even Houston. I would take Osweiler over free agent contract Flynn.

  4. thebroski says:

    I’d consider him in Round 2 provided we trade back from 11/12 to acquire the draft pick that would be used on him. That way we still get a couple defensive front seven guys at middle of round one and near the top of round 2, in addition to Osweiler.

  5. Clayton says:

    There is no doubt in my mind the Osweiler can sling the ball due to having a canon for an arm however he reminds me of a quicker Dan Mcqwire. Yes, there maybe a lot of upside to drafting a player like Oswieler in the second round and hoping he pans out to be our starting QB for years to come but there is just as much hope for trading down in the draft to acquire additional draft picks either this year or next to pull the trigger on Barkley. With additional picks either this year or next we pick up a speed rusher, a linebacker, and with a 3rd round pick or 4th round pick Russell Wilson. Wilson maybe listed at 5″11 one inch shorter then Drew Brees and has shown through his college career at NC State and Wisconsin that he his quick on his feet, (mobile) is a smart passer (interceptions have never been over 14) and can still through the deep ball. I see Wilson as no more of a prospect then Osweiler with better upside minus the height factor. If as I say we do trade down and acquire additional picks we can add some play-makers that add competition right off the bat. I am no fan of Tavaris Jackson and from what I have seen of Charlie we definitely need to be addressing the QB position this year and next. Andy Dalton is a perfect example of what Russell Wilson could bring to the table, a quick learner and desire to win. In Russell’s case he has more to offer then Dalton. So what I would do is trade down into the 20’s because someone will be wanting to trade up. ( I guarantee this) take someone like Upshaw, Montgomery or Brockers with the 1st rounder, a RB or CB with the second pick (Lamar Miller or Stephon Gilmore) if Alshon Jefferies is still on the board I jump after him with the second pick as there is no telling what’s going on with Rice’s shoulder and upper body problems and BMW’s. Alshon will be the best or 2nd best receiver of this draft. 3rd take Russell Wislon and have him compete with Portis to back up Jackson. End result, we address our speed rusher, depth at LB, RB and CB and have a QB prospect that can definitely push Jackson. Worst case scenario Wilson does not pan out, but we now have some additional draft picks to target Barkley. With an improved D going into next year we still have the opportunity to play for a 10-6 record if Tavaris can at least do the same thing he did this year.

    Clayton

  6. Mr Fish says:

    So the question becomes, will there be enough talent available at the 11/12 spot to attract a trading partner?

  7. TJ says:

    I love your “fix the roof while it is still sunny” comparison. Very accurate. I still think that had Ruskell drafted Sanchez at #4 instead of Curry and then let him sit behind Hasselbeck for a year or two, he would be much better than he is now with the Jets and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

    I don’t know about using a 1st rounder for Osweiler. He looked horrible in the Boise State game. The 100-yard pick 6 that he threw was a high school caliber throw. I don’t disagree that we might need to reach to get a QB. I also see the comparisons to Flacco and agree with most of what you say in this article. Osweiler just doesn’t do anything for me. I would rather see the Hawks take Tannehill at 11/12 than Osweiler at 25.

  8. Pacificsands says:

    I agree entirely. (At least, with the logic; not the player. More on that in a minute.)

    It makes absolute sense for the front office to decide on the quarterback they like, and if they can make a move up to get Luck or Griffin, to trade down (or even sit still) and simply take the best quarterback available, regardless of situation.

    Whoever the FO has faith in is fine, I suppose. The more telling concern is their evaluation of quarterback talent. In two years here, this front office has brought in Charlie Whitehurst, Tarvaris Jackson, JP Losman, and Josh Portis. Portis’ potential aside, this is not a murderer’s row of high-ceiling QBs. Might there be a problem evaluating quarterback in our front office? These guys legitimately believed Whitehurst would compete with Hasselbeck, which turns out to have been quite the joke. In the end, Schneider has demonstrated a talent for finding blue chip players high and low, so all we can do for now is hope he can do it at Quarterback.

    Now, Brock Osweiler. Brock Osweiler comes to the draft fresh off a five-game losing streak, in which he is 137 of 229 (59.8%), still averaging 352.2 ypg, 9TDs, 5Ints, and his team has scored more than 30 points… once (during that streak).

    Now, you’re absolutely right – Osweiler’s measurables mean he’ll be drafted in the 2nd-3rd round (maybe even the late 1st) given the trends we’ve seen the last few years. Some team will be so enamored with his physical tools so as to consider his potential and draft him high. I sincerely hope it isn’t the Seahawks. This guy definitely has potential, but he’s seriously, seriously unpolished. 7 losses and 13 interceptions this year belie a lot of bad decision-making. His yardage totals are to his credit, but this is a guy I’d be a lot more comfortable drafting after at least one more year of demonstrated improvement at school. I realize it was a tough situation for him, and we all do the best we can, but there are other guys out there I hope the Seahawks consider first.

  9. Pacificsands says:

    *if they (can’t) make a move

  10. Rugby Lock says:

    Personally, I would like this pick if it were done later in the 1st round if they can move back. His penchant for throwing at guys who look covered and allowing them to make a play just screams BMW to me. Tjack only seems to want to throw to guys who are wide open, or close to it… His mobility impresses me as well considering how tall he is…

  11. Jeff M. says:

    How concerning should we find his possibly being “too tall”…and this isn’t just a Seahawks fan being scared of the next McGwire.

    If we look at all QBs 6’6″ and higher (and it does seem like there’s a real cutpoint there, as 6’4″-6’5″ includes lots of elite guys), the best one ever seems to be Scott Mitchell. The second-best ever is probably Joe Flacco. The third-best ever is…Josh Freeman? Derek Anderson?

    Now it does look like the chances of being successful at 6’6″ are improving (Flacco and Freeman), and it’s certainly true that even fairly recently 6’5″ was seen as abnormally tall for a QB (now you have Manning, Roethlisberger, Rivers, etc.).

    But still, no one his height has been successful (in fact, if he in fact measures out at 6’8″, he’d tie McGwire for tallest QB ever), and Mallett at an inch or two shorter seemed to fall in the draft at least partly for this reason (I do understand the difference in mobility, but even with Osweiler we’re not talking about an athlete like Matt Jones or Terelle Pryor who has WR/TE as a fallback option).

  12. Jim Q. says:

    Wow, height sterio typing, I wonder which astrological sign has the most successful QB’s in NFL history? Seriously, I’ve seen very tall guys that can’t take a step witout tripping over their own feet. I’ve also seen a few that were actually very well coordinated in their movements. With his basketball history and just watching the guy move around on film, I believe Osweiler is an actual tall athlete with good movement skills (think Piere Paul, the back fliping DE). I believe his negatives can be sufficiently overcome by good coaching and time/repititions. If drafted in the coming draft, as a trade down into a lower round one pick, great, I would hope he could be red-shirted for the first year and be ready the following season.

  13. Ben says:

    Isn’t Josh Freeman a better comparison than Joe Flacco? He’s got a similar size, mobility, and inconsistency. A big knock on Flacco is that he’s got slow feet, which doesn’t seem to be a problem for Osweiler.

  14. Doug says:

    harumph…
    I just don’t see PCJS going into a panic mode and making a desparate reach for a so-so QB, just because they need one. To let a stellar defensive/offensive player get away just to reach makes no sense to me. I could see taking a flyer in the 3rd for a guy like this, but I just don’t see them blowing a high pick. We have WAY to many real needs that we can address.

    I get it that this article is only posing a concept due to such a perceived need at the position, but the thought of taking a guy like this as a number 1 pick seems like a huge reach to me, one that I just don’t see the staff doing. They are all about improving the team at every opportunity, and letting a blue chip player slip away for a flier just isn’t in my crystal ball. Even if it’s an O-line player or a RB, depending on how the cookie crumbles, elite talent is just that, and the more players on the team at that level all contribute to the big picture. QB is just one position, an importand one I understand, but still…

    Think about how totally weak it was when the Hawks kept two kickers on the roster. Talk about wasted space! Does anyone see PCJS ever in a blue moon being so incredibly lazy as that? No way. They feel that every last roster spot is extremely important to the base team, and letting a possible elite player get away for a 5th round flier just wont happen.

    I see a million picks before this guy IMHO…

  15. Jarhead says:

    Seattle is in a very good situation considering this line of logic. Several teams may be looking to add a playmaker to an already powerful offensive or defensive unit. And there will be many more options at the number 11 spot. We could easily move back and now have a second option in round 2, and an additional second option in round 3 or 4. Here’s the kickier- there is MUCH MUCH more value for the D-Line picks later on in the draft, guys like Nick Perry, Vinny Curry, Cam Johnson, also it would be easier to add a second young RB that way. Same thing for LB, we could explore other less costly options for speed rush LBs and more solid coverage guys with those additional picks. I feel this is a draft where the money will be made after round 2, because the talent is paper thin at the top. As for Osweiler, I’m already sold on him. And honestly does one single person on this site believe that Tannehill is any more polished than Osweiler? Come on, man. Kellen Moore was the only QB less hassled than Tannehill this season, and Tannehill still was staring down recievers and forcing throws all season. If you want to talk about the Maaco Bowl, look at the tape. The Bronco lineman were in his face every play, and he was forcing throws because his receivers couldn’t get open. That game was not a good match up and the talent disparity was obvious. The point I’m trying to make is that he was fighting to make something happen. Trying to make plays. Something significantly lacking for Seattle from the QB position this year. He can learn to make the reads, what his check downs and hots are, but one thing that can’t be taught is courage. And he fought the entire way, even when getting killed. Dennis Erickson was fired because of that losing streak, so for that to happen, I would certainly think that there was more wrong with the Sun Devils than poor play by Osweiler. I think this whole situation makes the draft exciting again. Great write up, Rob

  16. Griffin B says:

    I could get behind the pick if they were able to trade back. It’s my belief that they need to be willing to give up what it takes to move up and grab a quarterback, and if they don’t, it is only because they want a different quarterback…like trading down and getting Osweiler.

    After thinking about it for a second, it seems much more like Carroll and Schneider to trade back and pick a QB than trade up for any reason (they like picks and have been willing to go with guys like Whitehurst and Tarvaris at QB).

  17. Colin says:

    If the hype trains get around to Osweiler, he won’t last to the end of the 2nd round. IMHO Tannehill wouldn’t be worth a 1st round grade if you paid me to give him one. Hype and hope sell if the time is right.

  18. John says:

    First, if Flacco had as little offensive talent around him as TJack had, he’d be doing as bad or worse. So the team already has a low risk guy at that level. But I agree they will aim for another QB like that rather than bet the farm by making a big move for a QB…to compete with TJack. May the best man win.
    Second, the Seahawks couldn’t move the ball when they were forced to pass, not due to TJack as most fans think, rather due to not having stud receivers (WR,RBs,TEs) who can beat double coverages or get open when the D is expecting pass. Look for Carroll to go big for a big play WR or two like Vincent Jackson or Justin Blackmon.

  19. Rob says:

    Jeff M – height problems are usually accompanied by mobility problems. Osweiler is unique in that sense which avoids some of the usual issues.

    Ben – Flacco’s situation was really the comparison, rather than the skill set.

    Doug – Osweiler is a better player than that IMO. It’ll only be a panic if they don’t truly believe in the guy.

    John – I could see that kind of move, but I also think Jackson warrants a fair portion of blame. There were times when he really struggled and couldn’t move the ball, especially at key points in close games.

  20. dave crockett says:

    I’m on board with targeting Osweiler. It makes perfect sense. Osweiler’s not without risk, but when you look at the options we’ve been discussing at 11/12 there’s no obvious higher upside talent likely to be available.

    @Chandler — Osweiler is nothing like McGwire, who had ZERO athletic ability beyond being extraordinarily strong. Osweiler is a former basketball player whose footwork separates him from lots of big guys his height. Jeff M mentions Josh Freeman, and that’s a closer comparison.

    I first noticed Osweiller when he beat an Arizona team with Brooks Reed and Earl Mitchell, two pretty good NFL pass rushers, in his first year as a starter. He left them consistently frustrated with an inability to get home. Osweiler has “phone booth mobility.” He moves his feet very well to find the open area and quickly reset and has a reasonably quick release (where you might expect a long delivery from such a long armed guy). He can make plays on the run, either to extend or pick up first downs. Look at this video at the 12 second mark from his senior year of high school (evidently playing against Lilliputian High School junior varsity).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN30DY-DEcM

    A lot of guys at 6’8″ are simply not coordinated enough to make that move. Osweiler had good feet before he set them on campus in Tempe. You can’t teach that. I doubt Joe Flacco could make that move even today. I’m not saying that makes Osweiler an NFL QB. I’m saying he has really good tools, and that’s a big effin’ deal.

  21. ivotuk says:

    I have to disagree about this premise. That’s putting too much value on an unproven QB when we really need to do something about the pass rush. The last thing I want to see is for our FO to act like some newbie front office and make the big splash on a good look “prospect.”

    Get the defensive monster that we need or trade back and get 2 of them. I’m fine with them going that route and hitting the QB jackpot next year. The LAST thing I want out of this FO is to hamstring this organization with a project QB. We already have 2 of those. I don’t want to go another 2 or 3 years only to find out that Osweiler can’t make it in the NFL.

    Do whatever it takes to get Barkely next year and build up the defense and running game this year.

  22. Rob says:

    Hi Ivotuk,

    I’m struggling to find a ‘defensive monster’ in this entire class, let alone at #11 or #12 overall. There are really limited options on defense this year and it’s going to be difficult to improve the team’s pass rush at the top end of round one. I think all college quarterbacks come with an element of the unproven. Osweiler has legitimate talent, he’s not just some guy with an arm – otherwise I wouldn’t make this suggestion. I’m very down on Ryan Tannehill for example. I just wonder if part of the concern here is because it’s a new name, not an established player being either talked about as a R1 prospect. Essentially, if the Seahawks keep winning they’re going to always be looking at guys like this and not Andrew Luck or Matt Barkley. I mean, Barkley has a very good chance of being the #1 pick in 2013 so it’ll be as expensive to trade for him as it will be Luck in this class.

    We need to conquer the fear of busting on a QB. Earl Thomas was a redshirt sophomore, but most people were excited about drafting a young guy like that. We have to be prepared to consider a similar move at QB one day. Osweiler has legitimate early round talent.

  23. andy says:

    Excellent article! You make a very compelling case and i would have no remorse if the Hawks dropped back in the 1st to grab him and pick up a 2nd/3rd round pick in the process.

  24. seattlesetters says:

    Nice article. I’m on board.

    The only thing I truly wonder about is if we’ll even be able “trade down” and still have a shot at Oswelier. I see more upside to him than Ponder and, to be honest, even Locker. We all know where they went in last year’s draft.

    I am so not on the Tannehill bandwagon. I’d rather try Harnish or Coleman than the former Aggie.

  25. [...] been promoting the talents of Brock Osweiler this week, even going as far to say he could be a first round option for the Seahawks. Some have disagreed (strongly at times) but there’s been a healthy debate on the blog. [...]

  26. Rob says:

    I completely agree, seattlesetters. Ponder had a more ‘established’ career at FSU and had the ‘intelligence’ factor in his favor. Whether we want to admit it or not, some teams want a guy who’s face fits. A guy who comes from a top programme, he’s not ugly, he’s intelligent. Ponder was flat out BAD in 2010 and went #12. I am convinced Minnesota will draft another QB in round one within four years. Locker had tremendous physical upside, but carried risks because his production was so hit and miss.

    Osweiler isn’t the orthodox potential or ‘face’ fit, but he has much more to offer IMO. He’s not the finished article, but you’re talking about a unique player here. I would grade Osweiler above both Ponder and Locker, and they went top-12.

  27. [...] Seattle’s pick I’ve gone in a direction I’ve hinted at for the last seven days. I know the Seahawks won’t reach for a quarterback, but John Schneider and Pete Carrol have a [...]