Updated mock draft: 18th January

January 18th, 2012 | Written by Rob Staton

I want to try and make these mock drafts different, not just a weekly repetition with one or two minor tweaks. These things are never that accurate and a good mock draft should never be the benchmark for validation. This is all about the journey from September to April – watching the tape, making the judgements and coming to conclusions. I expect a lot of people to disagree with this week’s projection, but that’s OK. We’re over three months away from the draft and now is the time for debate.

There is one significant tweak today because although I don’t project trades, I’ve laid things out to look at what will happen if a certain deals occur early in round one. If a team like Miami does move up to draft Robert Griffin III, how does it impact other picks? It seems likely Minnesota won’t draft Griffin, but I’ve put RGIII at #3 to see how the cards fall in that situation.

With 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 different way of doing things. A lot of people in the media hadn’t even considered James Carpenter in round one last April – yet Seattle made him the #25 pick. It was obvious why they liked Carpenter – he stood out on tape for Alabama and even jumped off the screen a few times blocking for Mark Ingram and Trent Richardson. We talked about him often on this blog because the guy clearly had talent. Maybe he was a little raw, but the physical potential and room for development was extremely high.

The Seahawks made similar picks throughout, raising a few eye brows when they took John Moffitt in round three and Kris Durham and KJ Wright in round four. There were bigger, more established names on the board – but Seattle’s front office knew exactly what they wanted. This continued all the way into day three of the draft – unique picks, most of which had an instant impact. I’m not here to say Brock Osweiler definitely falls into that same category – particularly as a quarterback – but he’s another player with incredible potential even if he is a little unrefined. Look at the players this team has signed at the position so far and they all have similar physical attributes. Osweiler may be a more talented version of what they already have.

He’s starting to get a bit of national attention too, which isn’t unexpected but certainly it’s helpful. Today I noticed a tweet from ESPN’s Todd McShay stating, “Momentum building for Osweiler as a late-first round grade after three tapes studied. Maybe 3rd QB after Luck, RGIII?” This was closely followed by a reply from McShay’s Scouts Inc colleague Kevin Wiedl (whose opinion is worth noting, he’s one of the best around) who added, “Extremely impressed with Osweiler’s tape. A lot of tools to work with and a competitor. Stock could rise moving further into the process.” Interesting.

We’ve already looked at tape against USC, Utah, Oregon and Boise State. In the video above you’ll see Osweiler’s performance against Illinois (thanks to TTN2810 for supplying the tape). Expect further thoughts tomorrow, but for now let’s get into this week’s mock.

Updated first round mock draft

#1 Andrew Luck (QB, Stanford)
The Colts are cleaning house to make room for the Andrew Luck era. At this stage, I don’t think there’s any deal Indianapolis would accept to trade this pick.
#2 Matt Kalil (OT, USC)
The Rams have to take Kalil, he’s too good to pass up. There’s enough depth at receiver to wait until round two.
#3 Robert Griffin III (QB, Baylor)
Minnesota won’t draft Griffin, but I don’t project ‘trades’. I want to look at a mock where RG3 leaves the board here in the event of a deal.
#4 Trent Richardson (RB, Alabama)
I could see Richardson being Cleveland’s choice even if Griffin is still on the board. He’s that good.
#5 Morris Claiborne (CB, LSU)
He’s had a great year and put his stock firmly in this range. Tampa Bay can’t lose if they take Claiborne or Trent Richardson.
#6 Ryan Tannehill (QB, Texas A&M)
This would be a foolish reach but Shanahan wants hisguy. If Tannehill really is going to go in the top-15 as speculated, Washington is the obvious choice.
  #7 Kendall Wright (WR, Baylor)
Jacksonville are known for doing things differently. It’s speculated that a lot of teams see Wright as the #1 receiver in this class.
#8 Riley Reiff (OT, Iowa)
Depending on the appointment of their new coach, I still think Miami are the favorites to trade up for Griffin. Minnesota would then draft a lineman like Reiff.
#9 Michael Brockers (DT, LSU)
A complete lack of defensive line talent could push a raw youngster like Brockers into this range.
#10 Justin Blackmon (WR, Oklahoma State)
If the Bills don’t re-sign Stevie Johnson, receiver becomes a desperate need. They also need to improve the offensive line and pass rush.
#11 Luke Kuelchy (LB, Boston College)
Undersized but a tackling machine. The kind of player Scott Pioli likes to draft for his team.
#12 Brock Osweiler (QB, Arizona State)
The tape doesn’t lie and there’s a lot to like about Osweiler. If Christian Ponder is good enough to go here, so is this guy.
#13 Jonathan Martin (OT, Stanford)
This is the kind of range where Martin becomes a bargain and well worth the risk to improve Arizona’s offensive line.
#14 Dre Kirkpatrick (CB, Alabama)
He’s big and good in run support, but struggles in coverage at times. Jerry Jones will like this guy, so will Eli Manning.
#15 Zach Brown (LB, North Carolina)
The Eagles will look closely at the linebacker position and Brown is a good fit for Philly’s scheme.
#16 Mark Barron (S, Alabama)
Few players have enjoyed the level of progress shown by Barron in 2011. He’s firmly in the round one equation.
#17 David DeCastro (OG, Stanford)
Slightly over rated, a technician who looks great on the move but lacks elite power at the point of attack.
#18 Courtney Upshaw (OLB, Alabama)
The kind of player San Diego is lacking on defense and will instantly improve their attitude and pass rush at outside linebacker.
#19 Dwight Jones (WR, North Carolina)
The best receiver in this class as far as I’m concerned. He has enough talent to become the complete package.
#20 Whitney Mercilus (DE, Illinois)
They need to improve their edge rush and Mercilus led the nation in 2011 for sacks. A hard player to work out.
#21 Janoris Jenkins (CB, North Alabama)
Elite cornerback talent but troubled by off-field problems. The Bengals needs to draft a corner and Jenkins is good enough to start quickly.
#22 Michael Floyd (WR, Notre Dame)
Cleveland needs to keep adding playmakers. Floyd has his issues, but put him on that offense with Trent Richardson and it’ll be much improved. They’d still need a quarterback.
#23 Brandon Boykin (CB, Georgia)
He doesn’t have elite size but he’ll light up the combine and push his stock into this range.
#24 Mike Adams (OT, Ohio State)
I’m not a fan personally, but reports suggest it’s likely Adams will go in this range. The Steelers could look again at the offensive line.
#25 Lamar Miller (RB, Miami)
The Broncos run the ball well and could look to add another back to their stable. Carolina had two first round runners under John Fox.
#26 Andre Branch (DE, Clemson)
The Texans might struggle to re-sign Mario Williams, so could look elsewhere for further additions to their growing defense.
#27 Devon Still (DT, Penn State)
I’m still trying to get an angle on Still. It often looks like his best fit may be at the five-technique.
#28 Fletcher Cox (DE, Mississippi State)
He plays a bit like a runaway train. He’s unbalanced but moves well for a big guy. He looks ideal for the 5-technique position.
#29 Mohamed Sanu (WR, Rutgers)
Sanu can line up anywhere and make plays. New York aren’t desperate at receiver, but they could be creative here.
#30 Quinton Coples (DE, North Carolina)
In recent years Baltimore have capitalised on players falling into this range to get value. Coples could drop into the late first.
#31 Alshon Jeffery (WR, South Carolina)
Jeffery divides opinion. He is capable of making big plays, but he runs sloppy routes and looks ‘too big’.
#32 Peter Konz (OC, Wisconsin)
Stood out last year in a big-name Badgers offensive line. Could return for another year, but ready to have an impact as a pro.

72 Responses to “Updated mock draft: 18th January”

  1. Dan says:

    Nice take Rob. This has probably been mentioned here and I don’t always read through the comments, but watching the tape above i can’t help but think Osweiler looks a bit like Philip Rivers in the way he plays. The way he climbs the pocket and his throwing motion are vaguely similar. Anyway, very intriguing as usual and now it’s more interesting that national pundits are starting to take note. As is typical, you were ahead of the curve on calling that, so Kudos Rob.

  2. Rob says:

    I agree Dan, there’s a bit of Rivers in there. He’s more shifty and a different frame, but I think that’s fair. Obviously there’s a lot of pressure and sacks in this game and Osweiler doesn’t always deal with it too well – but he also showed on a few occassions a bit of elusiveness and an ability to keep the play alive. There were some bad drops, some exceptionally good passes but also some poor ones (under thrown deep ball near the end was poor, he looked flustered chasing the game). Yet he’s started less games than Ryan Tannehill, so let’s not forget that – he’s pure raw potential. I like the guy and wanted to represent his possible rise in a mock. I know a lot of people will disagree with this, but it’s out there now for discussion.

    I’ll break down the tape in more detail. I would recommend people also watch the USC, Utah, Oregon and Boise State tapes by scrolling down the blog.

  3. Nat says:

    Rob, thanks again for this blog! Always good stuff and a fresh perspective.

    I see a lot of Big Ben in this guy (without the issues/attitude). You can’t fault him for a mediocre core of receivers/backs, nor can you fault him for the ridiculous amount of swing passes that are called. In fact, I’d say he executes the swing pass very well (puts the ball in front of his receiver/back with enough zip so they don’t lose forward momentum).

    If you think about it, why wouldn’t a guy like Big Ben be an ideal fit for the PC/JS scheme? If we get Osweiler in Seattle all of the sudden we start to look like a young Steeler team…one that is a perennial playoff team.

    Looking forward to April!

  4. Major nitpick: Christian Ponder WASN’T good enough to go at #12. Minnesota just thought he was.

    I certainly hope Osweiler would turn out to be the KJ Wright of quarterbacks, rather than the Kris Durham or John Moffitt.

  5. Swampfox says:

    Excellent job Rob, always well researched and articulated. Also interesting to see you picking New England over San Fran in the Super Bowl – with that D it will be impressive if the Pats pull it off!

  6. Rob says:

    Nat & Swampfox – really appreciate the kind words about the blog, it means a lot. I couldn’t put the 49ers at #32… Jim Harbaugh’s face in that circumstance would lead to the end of the internet.

    Brandon – Perhaps I should’ve phrased it differently. Ultimately what I was trying to say was, Osweiler is vastly superior to Ponder in terms of potential – so if a team is willing to sell itself on Ponder, I don’t see why another wouldn’t deem that sufficient range for Osweiler. Minnesota laid a huge egg with that pick – and to think, they could have Griffin III and another player (left tackle? Nick Fairley?). Instead, they have Ponder and….?

  7. David says:

    Rob, I dont know if you look into FA’s that much but i was wondering what your thoughts of Mario Williams coming here is, if what you say is true about the Texans not being able to resign him.

    Honestly havent watched much of him, but i have heard alot about him, and most good things, but i was curious what your take was on him.

  8. Ryan says:

    I love it. I hope they go in this direction, but I’d like them to trade down and grab him and more picks in the process.
    Basketball athleticism has tranlated into more than one all pro tight-end, why not a QB? He’s only 21, he won’t have to start right away. perfect.

  9. thebroski says:

    His throwing motion reeks of Philip Rivers, which isn’t bad. The issue for me is that he also looks way too much like Rivers from the first 10 games of this season as well. That might have a bit to do with his protection but he also seems to be holding on to the ball for an awfully long time.

  10. Ed says:

    I hope this isn’t our 1st rd. Would prefer impact player (upshaw/mercilus) then move up if necessary for osweiler. cle/wash/indy will all draft qb’s 1st rd (per your draft) and miami probably will go for flynn (since looks like packer assistant will be coach). That means osweiler should fall to 2nd

  11. Colin says:

    My only question with Osweiler is how long will it take Seattle to get him ready to start at the NFL level? I have concerns that he can sit the bench one year and be ready. If we can continue to improve the run game and defense, we can be a winning team with Tarvaris and the pressure to play Osweiler would go down tenfold.

    Can he be a starter in 2013?

  12. Cannonater says:

    I liked watching this game footage a lot. It may not have been his best game (he definitely could have gotten the ball out quicker a few times) but his offensive line AND his receivers were just killing him.

    The thing I really like though is that he never appeared to get skittish or worried in the pocket, despite being hammered a few times, nor did he appear oblivious to the pressure.

    Side note, I haven’t watched either of these teams much, but is this a ferocious Illinois defensive line dominating an average ASU offensive line? Or is Illinois just capitalizing on a tragic ASU offensive line? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? At any rate, ASU’s offensive line was just whipped in this game.

  13. caleb says:

    Im not much of a scouting guru, but it seems to me that his throwing motion, similar to rivers or not i don´t know, is not ideal for a west coast passing game. He seems really tight and pushes the ball forward rather than use his arm length to maximize accuracy, velocity ect. It also seems like he stares down his reciever, and on multiple occasions didn´t even look out of his his swing route. I know its only one game tape, but these throwing styles do not really lend much hope for a west coast style of play. Accuracy, ball controll and and ability to survey the WHOLE field are most important, and without those three, its a Tavaris Jackson situation. But like I say, im not a scouting guru. Maybe I know nothing.

  14. Patrick says:

    WOW, It is good to be back!!!

    Sorry for the longtime absence Rob! It’s been a long and eventful year graduating college, getting a job, getting a new job, etc. Still a huge fan and check the site as much as I can. I can’t thank you enough for everything you do! I am happy to say I am back!!!!

    As for the draft, I actually would be thrilled if the draft happened this way. I just can’t imagine how much different it would be feel watching the team with a young QB to groom. I remember being a huge fan of Mike Teel, and obviously he isn’t even playing in the NFL at this point. The point is, I’d be thrilled with a young QB with so much potential.

  15. Mike Kelly says:

    Rob; Great mock and I hope it works out this way for the Hawks. But since the teams picking below the Seahawks all have franchise QBs already, would the team try to move down and pick up Brock Osweiler lower in the first? May be able to pick up an extra pick or two if possible.

  16. Richardfg7 says:

    Seattle has the best young secondary in the NFL. By far. But Clemons is the only legit pass rusher. I see a big need for some star power at pass rush. If they can pick up Flynn from GB & save the high draft pick they’ll be way ahead.

  17. Doug says:

    I know you’re really good at this Rob, but I just can’t see this pick. IF they take him, and he turns into something, then I will forever bow at your feet. But today, I see this as a silly choice. There will be a bona-fide starter available at 11 or 12, and I believe they will take one of them, or trade down.
    Or else, this is a criminally weak draft overall… Which I am starting to believe.

  18. Nate Dogg says:

    I want to like Osweiler in the first but it feels like such a stretch. He has impressive athleticism for his size and good athleticism for the position in general, but I don’t see his arm being particularly special and you’re asking for so much improvement in accuracy, poise, and decision making.

    I get why you have him going here but I’d have a tough time being ok with Seattle actually making this pick.

  19. Tarry says:

    I think this QB class is fairly deep with Luck, RG3, Tannehill, Foles, Davis, Osweiller, Tyler Wilson, and possibly Harnesh who could be starting QBs in this league… If we reach for a QB it wont be at 12, we’d likely trade back and reach on Osweiller late 1st or Foles whose stock has been rising as well and here is why… Most of the teams in need of a starting QB are picking ahead of us with exception of Cardinals with 13th pick… and if the Browns don’t draft their QB at pick 4, they could use thier 22nd pick to take one. It is very likely that only 2 QBs are gone by 11/12… so why reach? Even if Tannehill is gone by here as well, I don’t think you push the panic button at 11/12.

    That said, I hadn’t considered Osweiller before this post. Can you be ‘too tall’ for a QB? 6′ 8″ is huge… can his legs take the amount of hits he’s going to take? He’s more mobile than I thought would be possible for a man his size. Good post.

  20. Tarry says:

    …Oops, scratch Tyler Wilson off that list, going back for Sr year.

  21. Derian Johnston says:

    Rob,
    I have watched a few games on tape from Osweiler. He has potential, however the odds of a qb like Osweiler being successful are not very high. I have seen comparisons with Roethlisberger, I do not agree. Osweiler does not appear to have a good pocket presence, knowing when to step up, or take off. The largest difference is what Roethlisberger is so well known for, buying time in the pocket. This is a majorly underrated part of successful qbs in the pro game. Even Brady(being one if the slowest qbs in league) is not very nibble, but can escape pressure much better than Osweiler. Osweiler does have decent accuracy, which can improve with a good qb coach, improved footwork. If PC & JS do like Osweiler which I doubt, I would prefer to see them take a David Decastro to solidify O-line if they dont go defense in 1st, and Osweiler will likely be available to trade up for at end of first round early second if they are sold on him. He will need an exceptional O-line to be successful at NFL level. Seeing qbs Pete liked in college, he likes the bootleg type qbs that throw well on the run. Pete does like slightly taller qbs Palmer 6-5″, Leinart 6-5″, Sanchez 6-2″, Barkley 6-2″, so I dont think he will go with undersized qb, Osweiler at 6-8″ may be a selling point for him.

  22. Nathan says:

    For all the different players you’ve mocked to us at 11/12 none of them really thrills me. Brockers would awesome but no way he slips past Carolina. Zach Brown, Courtney Upshaw, Osweiler… eh… maybe…

    I hear this FO likes to trade down so hopefully an opportunity presents itself this year. On the other hand, with lots of time left before the draft maybe someone will really shine during the Senior Bowl or combine.

  23. seanmatt says:

    Rob- Do you agree with Nat that Osweiler throws the swing pass at a plus level due to the offense that Arizona State uses? If so, do you think that could lead to us look at pass receiving RB’s as potential “Touchdown Makers”? I remember a couple years ago John Morgan over at Fieldgulls arguing that if we wanted to build an offense around Charlie Whitehurst, who loves the checkdown, that we needed to draft offensive threats that could turn a checkdown into big yardage. Would Osweiler greatly benefit from the same philosophy?
    Kip- I love you going big and arguing that Darren Thomas will be a first round selection and wondered how you would compare Osweiler to Thomas as a fit for this offense.

  24. JROCK419 says:

    Interesting pick indeed. I’m on the OS train for sure. I’ve been impressed with the way this guy plays, but it will take him at least a year to be comfortable from under center. I would love to see that pick in the second, but something tells me he won’t last past the end of the first round. Thanks for picking up this video, it seems that these are appearing now more frequently, so the hype train is a rollin!

  25. jonneal says:

    plz remember wat happened when we drafted dan maguire wat a bust

  26. Ryan says:

    Todd McShay has been reading your blog Rob. He just said on Sportcenter that he felt Osweiler is going to be the fastest riser for QB and will go in the mid to late 1st round. Let’s just hope the Redskin’s or Miami don’t grab him first.

  27. Rob says:

    Thanks for all the questions – I’ve tried to answer them all below…

    David – It really depends on cost. Mario Williams has been IR’d the last two years so while he’s worth having as an elite talent, they won’t want to throw money down the drain. If I had to guess, I think it’s probably unlikely but who knows?

    Ed – why are Upshaw and Mercilus more likely to have an impact? Let’s not assume defensive players are just going to hit the ground running – let’s not forget Aaron ‘safest pick in the draft’ Curry.

    Colin – I think in a scaled down playbook with a good ground game and defense he can start in year one. When I watched Joe Flacco learn drop backs in one off-season and win rookie of the year it changed my view for the better on QB’s. Pete Carroll is right – they can start earlier.

    Caleb – all views welcome my man. I disagree slightly and not sure how a throwing motion can ‘fit’ a system. The ‘WCO’ term is too generic these days and Seattle is running something more akin to a more conservative run and gun. They want to pound the ball and beat you over the top, while using the passing game to facilitate a possession offense using a lot of bootlegs, comebacks and developing routes. That’s pretty far away from the west coast concept even if the terminology is similar. This is a long way off what Mike Holmgren used to run.

    Patrick – great to have you on board and thanks for the kind words. It means a lot.

    Mike Kelly – that would make a lot of sense. If they can move back even only into the #18 range they could pick up another 3rd and 4th rounder accoridng to the chart. Ideal, right?

    Richardfg7 – Or why not draft a quarterback and get a pass rusher in free agency? After all, we found Clemons in the bargain bin – can we strike gold again? If we’re talking about saving picks, why are we looking at the worst draft for pass rushers in years to solve that dilemma? Why not get a QB and sign a FA defensive player?

  28. Rob says:

    Derian Johnston – Thanks for your thoughts. I think De Castro is slightly over rated and too much of a technician. He understands that scheme at Stanford, he operates well on the move and likes to get to the second level. However, we’re not talking about Mike Iupati here and a guy who warrants being taken at #11 or #12. The Seahawks have spent two first round picks, a second and a third on their offensive line since 2009 with Robert Gallery the other piece. It’s time to move on, they’ve addressed the line. Carroll has said as much, they need to look at other areas.

    Seanmatt – I think it’s a scheme thing because ASU don’t have a great run game. It’s an extended hand off and it draws DB’s and linebackers close to the line, so Osweiler can beat them deep. It doesn’t translate but I think he can have the same success behind a good orthodox running game. They should look to draft a RB though because this is a draft full of them.

    jonneal – We can’t be permanently scared of tall quarterbacks just because one busted over 20 years ago. I mean, are we going to never draft a QB in round one ever again because of McGwire and Rick Mirer? McGwire and Osweiler may both be tall, but they are very, very different quarterbacks.

  29. David says:

    You talked about trading back, which i think is a good idea if we cant find anything at 11/12

    i always thought of us trading with Cincy for their 17 (which i believe is Oaklands) and getting maybe a 3rd or 4th depending.

    I know im beating this like a dead horse because ive brought it up before, but what do you think we could get for Tate? hes not that bad, hes very versatile, he can play returner, and once he has the ball in his hands he can make players miss, so i wonder if a team like Cincy would be interested in a player like that, hes still young (23 i think), i dont see the need for him since Baldwins emergence.

  30. jim J says:

    Rob – But we can’t permanently ban smaller QBs (anyone under 6-2 now) just because common thinking is they won’t work out. Why not draft one late and try them out?

    Didn’t Tebow teach us that having the heart and motivation of a WINNER is more important than being physically perfect and looking good?

    My only point being. You want to draft Osweiler – fine. Why don’t you also draft a late rounder (or UFA) like Russell Wilson or Kellen Moore and make it a competition?

    Also – I like what you are doing by rotating picks. It is fun to analyze them. Maybe you could throw in a few canadian football players that are free agents?

  31. David says:

    I am down to bring in a UDFA smaller QB, like a Moore or a Wilson, but i dont want to use a pick on one, especially since we only have 6 picks this year.

  32. Rob says:

    David – The problem with Tate is that he was taken in the late second round. Considering he’s not had much production, his stock level is almost certainly lower now. I always think it’s best to ‘sell high’ if you can, and this would not be selling high – the return for Tate would be minimal.

    Jim J – I’m not really sure what Tebow has taught us to be fair. Not to take anything away from him, but let’s see if that magic keeps occurring next season. I’m happy to draft multiple QB’s particularly if they cost very little at the back end of the draft or UDFA – I’ve highlighted many later options on here and there is some depth at QB. Competition is fine by me.

  33. Nathan says:

    jim, CFL free agents are not really a draft topic but to give you an idea of players getting NFL interest this year: there is an undersized MLB, a RT, couple slot receivers, some traditional off-coverage DBs, and a couple undersized pass rushers. No idea if any have worked out for the Hawks.
    DE (LEO) Greg Peach Eastern Washington 6’3″ 255lbs age 25
    DE (LEO) Justin Hickman UCLA 6’2″ 265lbs age 26

  34. shams says:

    My problem with Osweiler’s height is how it takes expression in that big ol’ tree of a plant leg, just sitting out there waiting to get knocked around.

  35. AndrewP says:

    Rob- First time poster, been reading for a couple years ago. Like everyone else here, I really enjoy the blog. The guys you unearth and ‘make us’ read up on are what make the draft season so awesome, so thank you!

    When you brought up Osweiler as a potential first rounder, I was not as quick to scoff as many probably were. I watch a lot of college football, and he was one of my favorites as I really enjoyed watching him sling it around while @ASU, and he just has the look of a professional passer. I -like you- don’t see a single play he can’t eventually make at the next level. So at first, I was on board. However, after thinking about if for a couple of days, I finally put my finger on what really makes me nervous about taking Osweiler @12, and it has nothing to do with his physicallity; but rather his intangibles.

    1) He doesn’t come from a winning program, and
    2) Save for the Zona game in ’10 and the Mizzou game this year, I haven’t seen a whole lot of late-game ‘clutchness’ from him.

    Regarding 1, it isn’t vital to come from a winning program (or at least win a lot while in college) to have success in the NFL, but man it sure helps

    As for #2… I think the big reason TJack won’t be the starter for the Hawks going forward has nothing to do with his work in the first 55 minutes of the game, but the last 5. On several occaisions this year, he had the opportunity to put the Hawks in the W column, and failed. He did his job in managing the game for the most part, but that isn’t always going to be enough in the NFL… to be an elite team, you have to WIN a few games, not just ‘not lose’ them. TJack has shown in his 5+ years in the league that he is just not capable of that. What set Alex Smith apart from the other game-manager QBs this year was his work in the the last 5. He stayed cool under fire and delivered when it mattered most (including twice against the Saints).

    As the great QBs in history showed, those last 5 minutes of the games are what define you, and Osweiler hasn’t given me confidence he’s great for that, YET. He may get there, but I’m not sure I’d bet #11/12 on a raw, non-winning, and so far non-clutch ‘may’.

  36. [...] likely to force the issue on a defensive player just because it’s the next strongest need. This week I projected Brock Osweiler as an option and in fairness he’s a player gaining moment right now. If that’s unrealistic, I fully [...]

  37. Rob says:

    Hi Andrew – great to have you on board and please feel free to comment more often! You raise a valid point and perhaps something I need to discuss in an article to create a wider debate. I have struggled to decipher how vital ‘winning’ is to a quarterback since the day I began writing this blog. On the one hand, a guy like Jimmy Clausen had superb statistics, very few turnovers at Notre Dame but just could not win football games. Colt McCoy had a storied career at Texas and won a ton of games and the Longhorns kind of collapsed after he turned pro – yet on tape he looked like a late round quarterback in my mind. I rated both poorly, but consequently argued for and against the ‘winning’ debate in both circumstances. With Clausen, I felt his W/L record had little relevance because for the most part he was doing the job asked of him, he just played in a very limited Charlie Weis offense. McCoy had all of the wins but none of the pure physical tools to make it in the NFL.

    People can and will argue for QB’s for little other reason than they are ‘winners’, while others will argue against QB’s simply because they have a poor record. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. We have to consider environment and supporting cast, we have to consider whether a QB has won a big games or games and whether he single handedly has kept his team in tough matchups even if the end product was a defeat.

    With Osweiler, he has one year’s experience so there’s every chance in time he would’ve won games at ASU. We’ll never know, unfortunately. Secondly, his one season of starting was impacted by what can only be described as chaos – coaching changes during the season, insecurity, in-fighting among players, negative headlines usually involving Vontaze Burfict and a lack of overall quality of depth. Thirdly, Osweiler has experienced nothing but constant change at ASU and a series of voices telling him what to do and which playbook to run. It’s no surprise that when faced with yet another change, he’d had enough.

    Did he win big games? Well, only he and Andrew Luck defeated Matt Barkley and USC in 2011. He was able to make ASU competitive against Oregon (they’ll get blown out next year). He was also part of a team that appeared to mail in there last few games once coaching changes had been announced and couldn’t buy a win. The Boise State Bowl game was a disappointing end.

    So it’s an interesting debate and something we have to consider. Ultimately though, for every Cam Newton who wins the lot – there’s a John Elway who never played in a Bowl game at Stanford.

  38. SHawn says:

    Another good pick Rob. I mentioned in last weeks mock that I liked Osweiler in the 2nd. If his stock keeps its momentum there is no reason to think he will land outside the 1st rd though. If we draft a QB this year, I think it should be this guy.

    I would still prefer to address our defensive front 7, but this draft class is lacking any top 10 talent at those positions. All of the DEs and DTs have pretty apparent flaws and most years would get late 1st or 2nd rd grades. The LBs lack a legit top 10 talent as well, but that could be a different story once the pro days and combine are over.

    I really like Upshaw, Zach Brown, or Ronnell Lewis for an upgrade at WILL over Leroy Hill, but are they worth the 12th pick? For now I would only say yes to Upshaw, but he could also be had around 15 or 16 if we can trade down.

    So my prediction for next week’s mock: Trent Richardson

    RBs always seem to fall way past where their talent would indicate, and other than the Browns, Buccaneers, Redskins, and Dolphins, there are no teams that would have a RB that high on their board. I know that sounds like a lot of landing spots, and honestly he could be taken by any one of those teams, but they all have MAJOR issues elsewhere and recent history says the RB will fall.

    We also have major holes elsewhere, but just think about the potential of that backfield. Always having Lynch or Richardson available at any given time, on fresh legs, even late in the fourth quarter. And then even if we pay Lynch an exorbitant amount in free agency (which we will), he still has to compete to start (and maybe earn those millions if we put some incentive pay bonuses into the contract). Pete seems to like the whole “earn everything” philosophy, and that should keep Lynch from the seemingly inevitable decline of RBs that get paid. I don’t actually think it would happen, but I can dream.

  39. Chooch says:

    I like this pick. I would like it better if we traded down and got Osweilier and Nick Perry, or maybe Bruce Irvin with an extra 2nd or 3rd or something.

  40. Tarry says:

    Shawn: I cant see Trent Richardson dropping to 11/12. If this is in fact a weaker draft class for DL and LB, you are more likely to see other positions going much earlier than expected. Also with the new rookie contract scale, it kind of throws the, can’t draft this position before…. mentality. The Bucs will get Richardson… that of course is if the Browns don’t get him first (Browns would have to miss out on RG3).

    I’m going to come out and say it… Nick Foles (who I’ve always liked for us), could be a pick here… I’d take Foles over Osweiller.

  41. Jarhead says:

    Rob you know I’ve wanted Osweiler since he declared. I love this pick. I believe that we could certainly trade back a few spots and still get him, which is what we should do. But Osweiler is much preferable to laziness and ineffectualness (Foles) and overhype and undertalent (Tannehill)

  42. smitty says:

    I refuse to believe we passed over Ryan Mallet 6 times and will now pick this guy in Rd1

  43. jim J says:

    We could have had Colt McCoy in the third round last year but New England scooped him up.

    I’m not a big fan of trading back. Pete Carroll has shown that if he needs to fill a position then he will grab a player while they are available.

  44. David says:

    did you mean Mallet? instead of McCoy? haha

    i like Oswieler if we can trade back a few picks and get some more mid rounders, i think thats what John and Pete would try to explore, if Griffin, which is a long shot doesnt fall into our laps.

  45. Craig says:

    I know we’re supposed to be mocking for the Hawks, but this is how I think the whole quarterback situation will turn out: Luck obviously goes to the Colts. I could see Washington trading up to take RG3. In that case, I would imagine that the Browns would try really hard to get Flynn and select any combination of Blackmon/Richardson and either a second WR or, if they get Blackmon, an RB. They would get an instant and significant upgrade at the 3 most important offensive positions which were all very poor last year and resulted in one of the league’s worst offenses. That leaves Peyton Manning as the only significant name in the draft/FA that could realistically start over Tarvaris right away. If the Hawks were somehow able to get Manning, I feel like they would go for an LB with their pick. If they can’t get manning, I feel like they would take Osweiler. In both cases, they would probably try to trade down and stock up on some picks before taking the player that they are targeting.

    Thoughts on this prediction? Do you think that the Browns are dead set on getting RG3, or that they would not be willing to outbid Washington and would allow for the rest of the draft go on like I think it will?

  46. Rob says:

    Ryan Mallett and Brock Osweiler are very different players and individuals.

  47. Marc says:

    Rob, great blog. Thank you for the time and attention you put towards this.
    My question is related to Kellen Moore. I’m a Husky, so I am no BSU fanatic pushing for us to draft him, but certainly a fan of the program.

    Every time I see him play, he has remarkable accuracy. He is a winner and seems great under pressure of 4th quarter, lost three games his entire career, probably should have been just 1 except for two late miss field goals.

    I immediately think of him like Drew Brees, shorter albeit 5’11- 6ft. I hear people drafting because of height and cringe thinking about Dan Mcquire or Kelly Stouffer type quarterbacks.

    I’m not against Osweiler, just wanting clarification/analysis please.

    Can you help me with why Kellen is not being mentioned as an elite NFL quarterback prospect?

  48. John says:

    First, great work with the site! If you’ll allow a contrary opinion:
    When draft mockers are mocking their drafts lately, they all seem to emphasis the importance of quarterbacks, shooting marginal guys higher and higher, probably due to the exaggerated emphasis most fans put on the quarterback position and the love they get from fans who think a new quarterback will be their savior; meanwhile they forget the Jimmy Clausen lesson, who was mocked how high on this site? and fell how far? and busted how bad after he got into the NFL?
    I think GMs know that missing on a high QB pick is quite a bit worse than missing on, say, a high offensive tackle pick who will usually still be of some use to the team, whereas a high first round quarterback pick who busts loses a substantial amount of games for your team because you have to start him at some point, and then when you bench him he is either wasting roster space you could be using developing another QB, or he’s sitting there as a backup waiting to lose the game when he gets in.
    IMHO mockers need to be careful to remember the QBs who “rise” like Clausen when they never actually rose in NFL minds.

  49. Rob says:

    Marc – I have several issues with Kellen Moore unfortunately. Firstly, we have to remember he’s the least sacked quarterback in the NCAA over the last 2-3 years (certainly in 2011). He’s been largely untouched in his college career, and it’s masked a few technical and physical weaknesses. To throw beyond 10 yards he actually has a pretty elongated release because he has to exert so much energy to deliver the ball. It takes a long time for plays to develop like that at BSU and at the next level, he’s going to need to drop, set and throw much quicker and still exert greater velocity than he did in college. It’s a major ask. He’s a little bit side arm at times which isn’t good at 5-11 and really he will be the first of his kind if he works out in the NFL. I think someone said it best that had Moore played for Purdue (for example) nobody would be talking about him. Yet had Boise State not had Kellen Moore, they wouldn’t have achieved anthing close to what they did during the last few years. He’s a smart guy, he’s done a great job at BSU but I don’t expect it to continue in the NFL unfortunately.

    John – It has to be said that I graded Clausen very poorly and left him out of my early mocks entirely, even when he was considered a likely #1 overall candidate. I wrote many articles saying he was a very limited QB and ended up mocking him in the mid-teens purely through the fact so many others on a national level were sure he would go in R1. Although I take your point on board, when you see four QB’s go in the top-12 last April (including Christian Ponder!!!) and you see the implementation of the new rookie pay scale, it makes taking a chance on a QB a lot less of a risk these days. I think we’ll see more calculated gambles than ever in the future.

  50. John says:

    Rob, the reasons I gave for a high draft round QB being a much bigger risk have nothing to do with the new pay scale, though that did decrease the risk. Surely you are right about risk now being reduced. In fact, the entire trade value chart needs to be changed for all picks due to then new pay scale. Higher draft picks are now worth more than they were relative to lower picks.

    Think of it this way. Curry turned out to be worse than everyone expected and wanted. But he still started almost the entire time he was here, not just so he would develop, but because he was in the top three starting linebackers on the team. His lack of Pro Bowl level of play was a big disappointment, but it didn’t really hurt the team much during the games. Contrast that with Leinhert or Jamarcus Russell. See how much they hurt the teams that drafted them? So it’s a much bigger risk. Now imagine a team actually REACHING DOWN to get a guy like Osweiler and drafting him high in the draft. His odds of busting are probably even higher than the 60% average bust rate for first round QBs. I don’t see Carroll and Schneider doing it.

  51. Rob says:

    I don’t agree, John. For starters, I’m not sure how Russell/Leinart being busts has hurt Oakland/Arizona any more than Curry being a bust in Seattle. In all three cases, the players were expensive flops, cut with barely any reward and they were all wasted top-ten picks that could’ve been spent more wisely on other areas. The lasting impact of all three busting hits the bank balance, but that’s about it. You could argue that had Leinart and Russell worked out like a lot of other highly drafted QB’s, at least taking the chance on a quarterback would’ve solved the greatest dilemma in football for those two franchises. In Seattle, they busted on a guy who even at a high level of performance would’ve been ‘just a linebacker’. We’re also talking about two notoriously badly run franchises here not re-known for classic drafting decisions. So comparing choices by Al Davis to how the Seahawks approach this draft is a bit unfair IMO.

    If the Seahawks were to spend the #11 or #12 on Brock Osweiler, it would cost them a contract worth around $11-12m over four years, fully guaranteed based on the contract signed by JJ Watt (#11 pick last April). When you consider Tarvaris Jackson is on an $8m, two-year deal, it’s hardly a cap-destroying amount for a potential franchise quarterback is it? If anything, this encourages teams to take a chance on a raw, toolsy player because the potential benefits on hitting at QB far outweight that of any other position.

    I also don’t understand the percentage ‘bust potential’ you quoted of >60%. I think in general NFL fans – for whatever reason – treat the QB position with such suspicion. Any other raw, physically gifted player – we encourage our teams to take a chance on. A lot of NFL fans will draft the toolsy defensive end or offensive lineman, but hate the idea of drafting a quarterback who’s jumped onto the scene and hasn’t enjoyed the two-years of consistent hype and publicity that guys like Andrew Luck has enjoyed. Detroit Lions fans held rallies to chant ‘Don’t draft Stafford’ because they didn’t want to take the risk and wanted their team to draft ‘safe’ Aaron Curry instead. I was doing some work for Draft Tek that year and the guy who chose the Lions pick (Michael Schottey) refused to accept Stafford would be the choice and consistently named Curry as the #1 pick every week – basically making the entire process a waste of time because it was so obvious Stafford was going #1 overall (and rightly so). Fans hate taking any kind of chance on a QB and I have to say my experience on this blog is Seattle fans are among the worst for this.

    My ideal is not to draft ‘any’ quarterback for the sake of taking a risk. I use this blog to grade prospects and identify players I think would fit in Seattle. Osweiler – in my eyes – has the kind of tools that warrant a first round pick, and I think he fits what Seattle is looking for in a lot of ways. Whoever the Seahawks take in round one, whatever the position, there will always be a strong chance that player doesn’t work out. But this team cannot expect a perfect QB to fall into their laps unless they intend to be as bad as the 2011 Indianapolis Colts any time soon.

  52. John says:

    60% is the statistical bust rate of first round draft pick quarterbacks. The reason *some* fans are leary of drafting a quarterback that high is demonstrated by Russell and Leinhert. An Aaron Curry isn’t going to take down your team for 2+ years like they did. He was a serviceable LB who didn’t hurt the team much. Contrast that with what happened to the Raiders and Cardinals teams as a result of terrible quarterback play while they tried to develop them.

    And you’re acting as if drafting a high draft round pick is what you have to do because it’s so much better than getting lucky with a lower pick. That’s a false dilemma IMHO. There are just as many franchise QBs who come to NFL teams via working their way up the depth chart. Either acquired the way Flynn will be, or built up by their own team. There are a fair sized pool of these guys always coming up, you can see them functioning in NFL systems, sometimes they same one you are running, and they don’t take down your team because you don’t have to start them for two years to develop them. This is what the team was/is trying to do with Whitehurst and Jackson. Jackson still might pan out. If they stay to form they will jettison Whitehurst and maybe Portis if he hasn’t stepped up and get one or two more guys of that type.

  53. Rob says:

    I still don’t accept your point here, John. We’re talking about the Raiders and the Cardinals – two notoriously sucky franchises who made bad QB picks. How does that relate to a Pete Carroll and John Schneider led franchise in 2012? If memory serves me correctly, the Cardinals made a Super Bowl during the time in which they drafted Leinart and then cut him. I don’t see how missing on him and the lack of development of Matt Leinart supremely damaged the Cardinals. Sure, when Kurt Warner retired they were stumped – but if the point here is that bad QB pick = crippling situation I don’t agree. The Cardinals have only been as good/bad as Seattle since Warner retired, with Curry playing in Seahawks Blue.

    And I’m not acting like a ‘high draft pick’ is what you ‘have to do’, I’m acting like having a good quarterback is what you ‘have to do’. Your words describe it best, “getting lucky” with a lower pick. Is that really a philosophy for a NFL franchise? “Well, we could draft a first round quarterback with first round tools and potential, but then we have to take into account it won’t be risk-free and we could also get lucky later on if we’re fortunate.” It’s like saying, “We could invest money starting a business so we can earn a living, but then we’d be neglecting the possibility we could win the lottery.” Of course there’s an element of risk in starting the business, but there’s an even greater risk sitting around waiting for a miracle.

    Nobody is arguing here that the Seahawks should take a wild stab in the dark by drafting any old QB in round one. I’ve spent a lot of my spare time breaking down the tape here and came to this conclusion that Osweiler ‘could’ be an option after a lot of homework. But why is a $11m, 4-year contract for a quarterback such a potentially crippling situation to you? That is LESS than Tarvaris Jackson is earning! If you wanted to cut Brock Osweiler after two years, it would cost you $5.5m – or around $1.5m less than this team paid in cold hard cash to part with TJ Houshmandzadeh. Did that cripple the team? Osweiler would have to be even worse than Jamarcus Russell – much worse in fact – to warrant being cut after two years considering JR’s deal was worth ten’s of millions more. I understand that he’d also be playing at a more crucial position that linebacker, but Seattle’s starting QB passed for 12 regular season touchdowns in 2010 and 14 in 2011. That’s 26 touchdowns in two seasons, alongside 30 interceptions. Thirty! The Seahawks have endured bad quarteback play for the last two years anyway, trying to find a solution and still ending up with bad quarterback play isn’t exactly a must-avoid gamble.

    Like you say – maybe Jackson pans out after all? So why not start Jackson next year and give Osweiler a red-shirt season? Then in 12 months either you have a franchise QB in TJ or you give Osweiler a go in a much more progressive situation with a year in the system. I just don’t understand the fear factor involved here. If you don’t rate Brock Osweiler, let’s talk about his game and have a debate about that. I’ve watched five of his games in the last 2 weeks and I’m still formulating an opinion now. But this concept of avoiding first round QB’s, with the greatest respect, is a bit like dipping your toe in the water… saying it’s too cold and running inside.

  54. John says:

    You keep bringing up the lack of cap risk, which I have never mentioned, and ignoring the real risk of having to develop and play your first round pick for a season or two before you cut him. Doesn’t matter if you delay it a year, you’ll still have to play him for a whole bunch of games. If he sucks, there goes your season, just like happened with Leinhert and Russell and many many others. BTW, those two were highly rated by most everyone and neither would have dropped out of the top half of the round one if the supposed stupid teams would have passed.

    You also don’t seem to be addressing the method I’m advocating and the team is so far using, which so far doesn’t even include any low draft picks of their own, but rather involves getting guys who they’ve seen in the NFL, which right there gives you a big edge over any QB who hasn’t played in the NFL. –As if getting a guy the Hasselbeck way is somehow unlikely in the NFL. It isn’t. It’s the best way IMHO.

  55. Darnell says:

    Rob, what’s the word on Janzen Jackson? undraftable cancer or someone that might be given a shot?

    He’d be an interesting late round/fa reclemation project for PC.

  56. Rob says:

    Hi Darnell, I’m glad you asked about Jackson. Basically he jumped off the screen for Tennessee and he absolutely looked like a pro in the making. His off field history is a major concern because it’s so consistent, it’s not one isolated incident and when players that talented get kicked off a team, you have to be wary. I don’t know enough about him to say he’s undraftable or worth a shot, but he’s got a lot of talent. Like you say, as a late round or UDFA flier I’d consider it if the off-field concerns are not so great that you just can’t let him near the team.

  57. Rob says:

    John – I keep bringing up cap space because that’s the way risk is diminished. If you fail on a guy earning $11m, it’s never crippling for the team. You talk about the guy having to start, but that assumes he’ll fail and doesn’t acknowledge the pure fact that this team’s starting QB’s threw only 12 regular season TD’s in 2010 and 14 in 2011, despite throwing 30 interceptions. We have had bad QB play for the last two years anyway – and it hasn’t crippled the team. Jackson in 2011 had comparable stats to Blaine Gabbert, so if Osweiler is as mediocre as Gabbert as a rookie, he’d still be not much worse than the 2011 version of Jackson. I proposed to you a concept that avoids the haphazard way Jacksonville dealt with Gabbert’s rookie year.

    It baffles me that you keep bringing up Leinart and Russell. Arizona were NOT crippled by missing on Leinart – they went to the Super Bowl! Al Davis drafted Russell instead of Megatron.

    As for Seattle’s ‘method’ so far – they’ve had no choice. Here are the QB’s they’ve been able to draft but haven’t…. Tebow, Clausen, McCoy, Kaepernick, Dalton etc. Supply hasn’t met demand and they’ve had to look elsewhere because they have no choice!

    And your Hasselbeck suggestion ignores the fact Seattle had just appointed his coaching staff and implemented his scheme and given his former HC the power to act as GM. Seattle doesn’t have a QB out there that can walk into this scheme and this setup in that way. I’ll give you two other examples comparable to this that are more recent – Kevin Kolb and Matt Cassell. I’m telling you now – missing on Kolb will be just as damaging to Arizona as missing on Leinart.

  58. Marc says:

    Thank you for your comments. I will look for those things at combine, if he is invited.

  59. [...] Seahawk’s Draftblog’s Rob Staton has some pretty good connections to the Seattle Seahawks in his latest mock he has the Seattle Seahawks selecting Brock Osweiler the Quarterback for Arizona State University. [...]

  60. John says:

    Rob, The Cardinals went to the Super Bowl by following the method I’m advocating! They did it with a FA QB! As soon as he retired, back into the crapper they went. They got lucky though by picking up a “washed up” guy to be a back up to the anointed one who didn’t turn out to be washed up. Normally, the back up to the high draft pick really is washed up, like with Oakland and Jamarcus Russell’s backup.

    Your comparison of Gabbert to Seahawk starters is a non-sequitor argument because any real analysis of quarterbacks can’t be done based upon stats. The rest of the team is a huge factor as to the QBs success or failure, as you know. Put Hasselbeck or Jackson in the Green Bay offense and they would rack up the same stats that Flynn did. Put Flynn in into the Seahawks offense the last two seasons and no way on earth he throws for 500 yards in a game.
    I don’t get why so many people think that by drafting a quarterback high in the draft you are making the move to save your team. As if drafting Osweiller at #12 instead of in the second or third round where he belongs will suddenly make him great. It actually is more likely to do the opposite: put pressure on the team to play him even though he sucks, costing you games and seasons, and put pressure on the QB to be what he’s not.

    Better to take a low risk in a lower round and try to develop him (like they’re doing with Portis) or pick up a guy like Hasselbeck, Brees, Flynn, or any of guys who come available almost every off-season. This is even more likely to work because we’re not talking about finding the next Hall of Famer (which is unlikely even with a high draft pick), we’re talking about a guy who has all the pieces around him, like Flynn did, and can succeed without being the next Dan Marino.

  61. Jeff says:

    Rob,
    I’m with you on the Browns giving McCoy one more season with some weapons. I like Richardson and Floyd with the firsy two picks but wouldn’t be disappointed by a Blackmon/ Wilson, Miller or Polk combo. Maybe even LaMichael James in the WCO because of his ability to catch passes out of the backfield.

  62. Rob says:

    John – you’ve missed the point I made about Arizona. You said they were a disaster zone because they missed on Leinart – I pointed out they made a Super Bowl AFTER drafting the guy. Since Warner retired, they’ve traded for Kolb and where’s that got them? At least if you draft a rookie you can keep him on the sidelines until he’s ready. When you trade or sign for a veteran – they pretty much have to start (and perform) immediately. ‘Your way’ is no less of a risk than simply identifying someone worthy of a first round pick and making the choice. Missing on Leinart was disappointing for Arizona, but hardly crippling. Had Leinart worked out – the Cardinals would be a consistent force in the NFC West. It was worth the relatively low risk and there’s nothing to stop you signing a free agent veteran to start while you develop your rookie.

    And I never said stats are the determing factor here – but Jackson and Hasselbeck have been very poor the last two years. If Osweiler makes better numbers than both, the Seahawks won’t have actually lost anything by chancing a R1 pick on the position. THAT IS THE POINT. Hasselbeck was bad in 2010. Jackson was bad in 2011. If Osweiler is bad in 2012 – why is the team going to be crippled if he maintains the statistical achievements of his predecessors?

    IF you want to argue Osweiler isn’t worth the #12 pick, I’ll encourage this debate. But you’re assuming you are right about Osweiler and others are wrong for the basis of an argument about drafting QB’s in round one. I’m projecting Osweiler at #12 because I think he might be worth the pick. Simple as that. And your suggestion of ‘hoping for the best’ in the later round is not a better solution. There’s no right or wrong answer to finding a QB, there’s no exact science. But it’s ricidulous to argue picking from a larger core of available players is in someway ‘wrong’. It isn’t. I can’t believe I’m having this debate.

  63. John says:

    Wow I guess we’re talking past each other. Seems like you’re not understanding a thing I’m saying, which is nothing like “hoping for the best in the later rounds.” If the Seahawks don’t use one of their high picks on a QB again this season, or next, I guess you can say you had a guy on your site who understood what they were doing but couldn’t explain it very well. When I read back through it, it seems pretty straightforward to me, but oh well.

  64. Rob says:

    In fairness John, you did use the words, “You’re acting as if drafting a high draft round pick is what you have to do because it’s so much better than getting lucky with a lower pick.” Perhaps we aren’t doing a good enough job of explaining each other’s position, but debate is healthy and it’s good to see neither of us resorted to insults. Agree to disagree?

  65. John says:

    I said that’s what YOU were saying, not what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion. Sure, agree to disagree, especially since I believe Carroll and Schneider themselves will explain my position, as it is their position. I don’t think they will reach down or give up much for a QB until he is actually running the Seahawk offense successfully.

  66. From everything I’ve seen watching this tape of Osweiler I like the guy. Give him a little stability and he could be the next Rivers or Big Ben. The Mallett comparison is not really fair as Mallett is slower than most linemen and he had the Ryan Leaf attitude. Personally I hope we make the move for RG III and don’t look back. If this team can play as well as they did the second half of the season we will win 9-10 games without any changes to the lineup meaning our 2013 1st rounder will be relatively late anyway. My feeling is that this is the highest we will be drafting for a long time so the trade up will be easier now than it will when we are back to drafting in the 20′s every year. Look how much Atlanta had to give away to move up. A first round pick is valuable but our front office can find talent later. If all we’re giving up is 2 picks for 1 then I think we have to jump.

    One option that I’m surprised we have not heard come up yet is Jason Campbell possibly being brought in to compete. He played pretty well before he got hurt and would most likely be an upgrade to over Tarvaris. Especially if we draft a guy like Osweiler or any of the other QBs not named Luck or Griffin in this draft who would almost certainly sit for the year. That would give us some nice competition in camp and really, Campbell should be an upgrade over Jackson and would not cost an arm and a leg. Again, I would prefer that we just make the move for Griffin and keep Tarvaris and Portis but if we don’t this may be a better option. I don’t know what the price tag will be for Flynn but I would bet it’s way steeper than the cost of Campbell.

  67. Nathan says:

    I don’t see any point in pursuing a FA QB unless he is absolutely your starter right now. Campbell vs Jackson doesn’t add anything to the team. Whether it’s 1st round or 3rd round I expect a QB to be drafted this year that will be legitimately competing for the #1 job in 2012 or 2013.

  68. Rob says:

    Jason Campbell and Tom Cable didn’t get along too well in Oakland… not sure that’s likely to be a consideration in Seattle. I think he’s better than Jackson/Flynn mind.

  69. nate says:

    Are you drunk that would be worse than a raiders pick. Picking a guy at 11- 12 that you could easily get in the second round. Don’t get me wrong I think he has a good skill set and the intangibles but that is way to early. I might take a flyer on him in the second, but I would prefer the third. From what I hear the staff is pretty high on Portis. Jackson or flynn will be the starter next season I would also not be suprised if they trade this pick for a first rounder next year and second this year. They could combo those picks for a quarter back next year if need be.

  70. Rob says:

    Nate – I’ll have compiled over 25 mocks by the time the draft comes around. I use these projections to look at different scenarios so we can have different discussions on what direction the Seahawks might go. They’re intended to be super-accurate predictions in mid-Jan.

    I rate Osweiler a little higher than you, evidently, and think there’s a chance he could rise into the mid-first range. But doing the same mock every week is a bit repetitive too, so I’m going to explore a lot of different possibilities. None of them will be based around the amount of alcohol I’ve consumed, I can assure you of that.

  71. Richard says:

    That’s why I like your mocks over others. I can’t see following a writer’s weekly prediction if the team I like has the same….Devon Still…Devon Still…Devon Still…still. Your approach encourages discussion of a number of ways that the team might go. While giving all an insight into the players who are out there. Keep it up Rob.

  72. Richard says:

    Well this is a new direction for a Mock.

    http://www.sidelinescholars.com/blog/2012/01/23/mock-draft-rounds-1-3/

    Actually I was wondering what would happen if Andrew Luck said to Indy Thanks but no Thanks. I like this one for sure.