Pete Carroll and the Seahawks' staff attended Locker's pro-day

Jake Locker is a coaches player. 

It’s an opinion based only on 2010 tape, a year in which the Washington quarterback was scrutinised, criticised and pulled apart. It comes with the territory of returning for your senior year, when evaluators expect to see a finished product and have further basis for nitpicking. 

There were some extremely poor performances from Locker (Nebraska part one, UCLA), some very good performances (USC, Oregon State) and the occasional write-off (Stanford). 

We’ve all seen the reports – a lack of accuracy, robotic mechanics, inability to improvise combined with obvious physical talent and upside. Nobody is prepared to come forward and say they’d risk a top-15 pick on the guy, a far cry from 12 months ago when he was touted as a likely top-ten prospect. 

People scoff and laugh at that suggestion now and claim it was never likely to happen. I often wonder whether we’d be saying the same things about Mark Sanchez or Blaine Gabbert as potential top-five picks had they stayed in college. 

With less than three weeks to go I would expect the vast majority of teams in the NFL don’t have a first round grade on Jake Locker. I suspect some won’t have him any higher than a round 3-5 prospect. Some teams won’t see him as the most talented senior prospect coming out of Washington this year. 

But some teams will grade him highly and I think it’ll be those that have coaches with authority potentially showing that interest. 

Coaches will be able to work directly with Locker to try and tap into the upside. Not every head coach or offensive coordinator will rate him, but those who do will thrive on the opportunity to develop his potential. General managers may be more cautious, concentrating perhaps more on the reasons not to draft the guy and looking at completion percentage and win/loss records. Once the decision to draft a guy has been made, their involvement pretty much ends when it’s over to the coaches. If the person making the decision can work with the prospect directly, I suspect you’d be more willing to take a chance on upside. 

The perfect comparison is last year when Tim Tebow went 25th overall to the Denver Broncos, who traded back into round one to draft the Florida quarterback. Nothing about Tebow mechanically or as a passer warranted a first round grade, yet he had an x-factor reputation earned through an illustrious career with the Gators. Some teams won’t have ever entertained the prospect of drafting Tebow that early, others will have given it serious consideration. Josh McDaniels controlled the Broncos draft board during his two year stint as coach and pulled the trigger on his guy. 

Locker hasn’t got the brilliant college career and success that Tebow had, but he’s also a much more orthodox quarterback with an over the top, quick release. As with Tebow a lot of teams will be scared off by inaccuracy or mechanical problems, but there will absolutely be others who can’t wait to take the chance on him working out as a NFL starter. 

Just like McDaniels in Denver, it’ll probably be a team where the coach has final say. 

This is the main reason I continue to mock Locker to Washington at #10. Mike Shanahan has been given control by Dan Snyder to do it his way. Locker is also the perfect scheme fit for the Shanahan offense. 

Donovan McNabb wasn’t benched on a whim. This was a veteran quarterback who cost the Redskins considerable draft stock, fresh into a new contract. Benching McNabb was a clear signal that Washington would be drafting a quarterback early. 

I doubt Denver/McDaniels were the only suitors interested in Tim Tebow and the same will probably be true of Locker. If I’m right and Washington do end up having serious interest in drafting the Huskies QB 10th overall, the question becomes whether anyone will be willing to trade up to usurp the Redskins? 

Will Minnesota, Miami or Jacksonville be surprise candidates? I’m not convinced. 

Back in December I wondered whether the Seahawks and Redskins would be draft rivals. A lot has changed since then, with Seattle making the playoffs and ending up with the #25 pick. As discussed yesterday trading into the top ten would likely cost at least the #25, #57 and a 2012 second round pick – a huge price I don’t expect they’ll be willing to pay. 

Even so I wouldn’t rule it out and just like the Redskins and Broncos, the Seahawks are a team where a coach holds the final decision.

A few extra thoughts on this week’s projection…

– I’m uncomfortable projecting Da’Quan Bowers as low as #11 overall. This is a guy I’ve had pencilled in at #2 with Denver ever since the season ended. I appreciate there are some concerns with his injury and a poor pro-day performance, but he’s clearly not 100%. Teams will go through tough medical checks to determine whether he’s likely to be hampered by further knee problems. Tony Pauline reported this week that Buffalo green lighted a medical check. It’s easy to forget this is a player who had 16 sacks during the 2010 season. If Denver wants to play it safe, they can select Marcell Dareus. I suspect that if Bowers’ knee is cleared and John Fox has any input, the Broncos could still draft a Clemson defensive end second overall.

– If Newton and Dareus are off the board it creates a quandary for Buffalo at #3. I personally think it’s too high for Von Miller, but many thought #9 was too high for CJ Spiller 12 months ago. Is AJ Green an option? What about Blaine Gabbert? I would take the quarterback or Da’Quan Bowers but I suspect Buffalo may go in a different direction. It could be a potential trade slot for other teams in the top-ten if the feeling is Gabbert won’t get past Cincinnati at #4.

– San Francisco are a bit of a wild-card at #7. They obviously have the need at quarterback but I don’t think anyone expects them to draft Jake Locker or Ryan Mallett. They are well positioned to draft a cornerback, defensive end or OLB pass rusher. Alternatively they could move down the board, but they already have a war chest of picks. The player top of San Fran’s draft board may be different to many others. I have Cameron Jordan at #7 this week with JJ Watt as a potential alternative. Both great fits who are capable of creating pressure.

– I’ll be surprised if there isn’t early trade movement, possibly in the top-ten. I think Tennessee will take the best player available, even considering their big needs at quarterback and cornerback. Dallas at #9 is an interesting spot. I have Washington taking a quarterback at #10 (Jake Locker). I suspect they won’t risk Locker going to Minnesota, Miami or Jacksonville by trading down – all this despite the negative publicity surrounding the Huskies QB. The Cowboys could be targeting offensive lineman, defensive lineman and cornerbacks. It’s widely speculated they want a right tackle who can start immediately – with Tyron Smith, Gabe Carimi and (considering their preference) Nate Solder being possibilities. Dallas could trade back even into the mid-20’s and still get one of that trio. A smaller move down the board still gets them a top ranked DL or CB too. The Cowboys traded away a pick in the 20’s for a future first in 2007, so they aren’t afraid to make bold moves.

– The Seattle Seahawks held a private work out with Jake Locker this week. If (and it remains a big ‘if’) the Seahawks are serious about keeping Locker in Seattle, the Dallas Cowboys might be the team to do a deal. It’d be a costly move with the Seahawks probably needing to sacrifice the #25, #57 and a 2012 second round pick. Using an updated trade chart that would total 1245 points and the #9 pick is worth 1250. The cost may be enough to prevent a deal happening – Locker would be a gamble at #25, let alone with three high picks invested in his success and a top-ten salary.

– If the Miami Dolphins pass on Ryan Mallett I’ll be surprised. It’d be a great schematic fit now that the Dolphins have moved away from the wildcat experiment. They traded for a big-name receiver (Brandon Marshall) last year. Chad Henne has been with the franchise for three years now and hasn’t been able to convince anyone of his starting ability. The former Michigan quarterback is also a low-cost option as a late second round pick. Miami’s biggest need is quarterback and a guy that can start quickly at that. Mallett ticks the boxes.

– I still have Nick Fairley dropping. #18 might be a bit too dramatic and it’s not a perfect fit for San Diego, but how can he get away with rejecting to work out for Miami? If that’s the attitude he’s taking then it’ll prove costly. I’m not nailing my colors to the mast here, Fairley could easily stick in the top-ten. A fall has to be a possibility though.

– A mixed reaction to Marvin Austin at #25 in the comments section. I have trouble selling the idea to myself too because as I’ve often mentioned, I gave him a late second/early third round grade based on 2009 tape. Since then he’s missed a whole year through suspension and he’s only being talked up now because of a brilliant off-season. What I need to decipher is whether the bad 2009 tape was down to a lack of effort and a bad attitude, or whether it’s just the physical qualities don’t translate into football ability. Pete Carroll has taken a chance on rough around the edges types (Mike Williams, Marshawn Lynch) and managed to motivate game winning moments out of them. Austin is a personable guy and may just need the right kind of leadership. The three technique position becomes a huge need if you expect Brandon Mebane to depart the team.

– Round two is a complete lottery and I’m not going to sit here and claim my projection carries any weight. There may be guys I’m mocking in round two that go undrafted, or at least drop into the late rounds. The best of the best will have a tough time guessing 64 picks correctly. I’m not convinced we’ll see the mad rush on quarterbacks everyone’s projecting. As much as I don’t like Christian Ponder, I think he’s the only QB likely to garner interest in the round two range but only to specific teams.

– The Leonard Hankerson pick for Seattle at #57 has received a negative response. I think there’s likely to be some value at receiver in that 55-65 range and as with Golden Tate last year, the Seahawks may feel one guy is worth a chance. John Schneider has come from a Green Bay team that has been collecting receivers in that range for a while, including Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson. People have talked about the ‘trenches’ at #57 but the options aren’t likely to be great in that area if a number of interior lineman leave the board as projected in this week’s mock.

You can see the latest mock draft by clicking here

Could Leonard Hankerson be an option for the Seahawks in round two?

I have limited time today but wanted to put something on the blog, so here’s this week’s mock. I actually wrote this out in full with graphics but the internet connection at the hotel crashed, wasting over an hours work.

Round One

#1 Carolina – Cam Newton (QB, Auburn)
Ever since Andrew Luck opted not to declare, I’ve had Newton going first overall.

#2 Denver – Marcell Dareus (DT, Alabama)
I’m not writing off Bowers yet but if Denver want to play it safe this makes sense.

#3 Buffalo – Von Miller (LB, Texas A&M)
I don’t agree with this pick but it looks like it could happen. They should take Gabbert or Green.

#4 Cincinatti – Blaine Gabbert (QB, Missouri)
This is a no-brainer with Carson Palmer forcing himself into retirement.

#5 Arizona – Patrick Peterson (CB, LSU)
With the top-two quarterbacks off the board Arizona takes the BPA.

#6 Cleveland – AJ Green (WR, Georgia)
The perfect fit for Cleveland considering their complete lack of offensive playmakers.

#7 San Francisco – Cameron Jordan (DE, California)
Jordan could go this high, he’s talented enough.

#8 Tennessee – Julio Jones (WR, Alabama)
Quarterback and cornerback are the big needs but Tennessee are my tip to make a surprise choice.

#9 Dallas – Tyron Smith (OT, USC)
Smith starts at right tackle but he’s got limitless potential on the blind side.

#10 Washington – Jake Locker (QB, Washington)
Mike Shanahan will fight to draft Locker and he’ll win.

#11 Houston – Da’Quan Bowers (DE, Clemson)
If he does fall it won’t be too far. Huge production in 2010, huge potential.

#12 Minnesota – Robert Quinn (DE, UNC)
The Vikings pass on Mallett with premium defensive talent still available.

#13 Detroit – Prince Amukamara (CB, Nebraska)
I prefer Jimmy Smith but the character concerns will help Amukamara.

#14 St. Louis – Corey Liuget (DT, Illinois)
If it’s a choice between Liuget and Nick Fairley I think the Rams will go with the Illinois tackle.

#15 Miami – Ryan Mallett (QB, Arkansas)
I just can’t see Miami passing on Mallett.

#16 Jacksonville – Aldon Smith (DE, Missouri)
A logical fit considering the Jags’ need at defensive end, their scheme and the value on offer.

#17 New England – JJ Watt (DE, Wisconsin)
He plays like a New England Patriot and I think they’d love to have him.

#18 San Diego – Nick Fairley (DT, Auburn)
Fairley’s attitude could cause a fall. He recently rejected an offer to work out for Miami.

#19 New York Giants – Mark Ingram (RB, Alabama)
Someone will draft Ingram in this range and this would be a perfect fit.

#20 Tampa Bay – Jabaal Sheard (DE, Pittsburgh)
He’s more suited to a 4-3 defense than most people think.

#21 Kansas City – Mike Pouncey (OG, Florida)
Scott Pioli looks for leadership, character and quality. Pouncey has all three.

#22 Indianapolis – Nate Solder (OT, Colorado)
Defensive tackle and offensive line are the two big needs for Indy.

#23 Philadelphia – Jimmy Smith (CB, Colorado)
Smith has too much quality to fall past this range.

#24 New Orleans – Ryan Kerrigan (DE, Purdue)
Solid week one starter that fills a need for the Saints.

#25 Seattle – Marvin Austin (DT, UNC)
A brilliant off-season is boosting Austin’s stock. Could he go in this range?

#26 Baltimore – Gabe Carimi (OT, Wisconsin)
Carimi can start immediately as a pure right tackle for Baltimore.

#27 Atlanta – Adrian Clayborn (DE, Iowa)
Clayborn needs to play as an orthodox right end in a 4-3 scheme.

#28 New England – Anthony Castonzo (OT, Boston College)
They’ll know all about this guy.

#29 New York Jets – Brooks Reed (DE, Arizona)
Rex Ryan loves pass rushers. I suspect he loves pass rushers with great hair too.

#30 Chicago – Stephen Paea (DT, Oregon State)
A good match for the post-Tommie Harris Bears.

#31 Pittsburgh – Muhammed Wilkerson (DE, Temple)
Inconsistent but with raw potential as a five technique.

#32 Green Bay – Derek Sherrod (OT, Miss. State)
I think the Packers will draft a pass rusher or an offensive lineman.

Round Two

#33 New England – Justin Houston (DE, Georgia)
#34 Buffalo – Phil Taylor (DT, Baylor)
#35 Cincinnati – Akeem Ayers (LB, UCLA)
#36 Denver – Kyle Rudolph (TE, Notre Dame)
#37 Cleveland – Christian Ponder (QB, Florida State)
#38 Arizona – Martez Wilson (LB, Illinois)
#39 Tennessee – Curtis Brown (CB, Texas)
#40 Dallas – Brandon Harris (CB, Miami)
#41 Washington – Christian Ballard (DE, Iowa)
#42 Houston – Rodney Hudson (OG, Florida State)
#43 Minnesota – Edmund Gates (WR, Abilene Christian)
#44 Detroit – Bruce Carter (LB, UNC)
#45 San Francisco – Ryan Williams (RB, Virginia Tech)
#46 Denver – Jarvis Jenkins (DT, Clemson)
#47 St. Louis – Danny Watkins (OG, Baylor)
#48 Oakland – Chimdi Chekwa (CB, Ohio State)
#49 Jacksonville – Mikel Leshoure (RB, Illinois)
#50 San Diego – Quinton Carter (S, Oklahoma)
#51 Tampa Bay – Rahim Moore (S, UCLA)
#52 New York Giants – Terrell McClain (DT, USF)
#53 Indianapolis – Drake Nevis (DT, LSU)
#54 Philadelphia – Ben Ijalana (OT, Villanova)
#55 Kansas City – Cameron Heyward (DE, Ohio State)
#56 New Orleans – James Carpenter (OT, Alabama)
#57 Seattle – Leonard Hankerson (WR, Miami)
#58 Baltimore – Torrey Smith (WR, Maryland)
#59 Atlanta – Titus Young (WR, Boise State)
#60 New England – Jordan Todman (RB, Connecticut)
#61 San Diego – Orlando Franklin (OG, Miami)
#62 Chicago – Marcus Cannon (OG, TCU)
#63 Pittsburgh – Randall Cobb (WR, Kentucky)
#64 Green Bay – Aaron Williams (CB, Texas)

Who will quarterback for Pete Carroll in 2011 and beyond?

Could the Seahawks really ignore the quarterback position completely in the 2011 draft?

I touched on it briefly yesterday but felt this was a topic worthy of a little more focus. My own personal view is that quarterback is the team’s #1 need and it’s not even close. I suspect the team’s front office will share that sentiment, particularly given Charlie Whitehurst is currently the only quarterback contracted for 2011. His expensive deal expires in 12 months time.

It’s an issue that is going to be solved one way or another this off season. The question is – how?

In Pete Carroll’s end of season press conference he talked about re-signing Matt Hasselbeck as a priority. A deal never materialised and Seattle’s most successful quarterback will test free agency whenever that takes place. There are two things that instantly came to mind when Hasselbeck wasn’t re-signed before the CBA expired:

1.) If the team were completely committed to Hasselbeck, how did it ever get this far? Was he really that much of a priority, or was he a priority signing on much reduced terms? He hasn’t enjoyed a great deal of success in the last three years and will be 36 in September. Will a team stump up an attractive offer when free agency does eventually kick into gear? Are the Seahawks still considered favorites to complete something with Hasselbeck regardless of what happens in the draft?

2.) Was it always the team’s intentions to go into the draft and test the water? If a quarterback fell to them at #25 that they weren’t expecting or if they worked on a deal to trade up, would that ultimately make Hasselbeck expendable? Likewise if they weren’t able to draft the guy they wanted, do they feel comfortable enough to re-sign Hasselbeck later in the year?

Whatever you think about Hasselbeck it certainly was a significant moment when the CBA expired without a freshly signed contract. Despite all the positive talk of mutual respect and priorities, for the first time it seemed like the Seahawks were actually preparing themselves to move on.

This situation will be resolved one way or another, that absolutely is the case. Either it’s one year or multiple years of Hasselbeck (with or without a logical replacement in the background) or they’re moving on. I suspect we’re closer to moving on at this stage.

This brings me back to my view of Carroll’s regime. We’ve heard the slogans – ‘compete’… ‘all in’… ‘win forever’…

If I could ask Carroll any question knowing I’d get a definitive answer, as of the 5th April it would be, “can win forever include a rookie or at least an unproven quarterback?”

I’m not convinced it can, but then what do we really know?

Pete Carroll wouldn’t be the first Head Coach to carry such a view. Jon Gruden was vehemently opposed to rookie quarterbacks in Tampa Bay and in part it may have contributed to his departure. What happened as soon as Gruden left? Weeks later they drafted Josh Freeman in the first round.

The thing with Gruden was he just preferred to have the experienced head running the show. He’d rather pluck Jeff Garcia from free agency than draft a first round QB. I’m not sure Carroll would act in the same way, but I think he might be leaning towards experience in the early years of this latest project. Win forever is more than just the name of a book and competition isn’t something restricted to the players during training camp. Carroll wants to win – it’s what he’s become used to after years of USC dominance in the PAC 10.

When he arrived in Seattle the team almost immediately traded for Charlie Whitehurst – a 28-year-old veteran coming from the Norv Turner school of quarterbacking. Even though Whitehurst didn’t have much game experience, he had been coached by one of the best in the business and associated with a top NFL quarterback (Philip Rivers) and one of the best backups (Billy Volek).

The Seahawks didn’t dip into a patchy class of quarterbacks, passing on Jimmy Clausen, Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy et al to go in different directions in every round. Instead they brought in JP Losman to compete as the third stringer.

If you believe media reports Seattle were aggressive in their pursuit of Philadelphia’s Kevin Kolb and it’s a rumor that has extended into this off season. Several reports have also surfaced suggesting the Seahawks have at least held talks with Cincinnati to discuss a potential move for former Carroll protigee Carson Palmer.

Perhaps this is just a case of leaving no stone unturned in the perpetual race to find that one guy who can lead this team to sustained success? Perhaps the 2011 draft is the next part of the puzzle and could provide the answer? Or maybe it really is all about the veterans?

Think about it – Seattle brings in another veteran who has at least some experience and grounding in the league. Someone Carroll thinks he can trust to start immediately. There’s no reason why the Seahawks cannot win in the NFC West with better quarterback play and Carroll must know that? If he’s looking to prepare the programme for the long term, maybe he will think short term at QB?

Once the win forever system is up and running and the team has some sustained success, he makes the splash on a rookie QB. Is it illogical? Is it really that far fetched to think Carroll believes Kevin Kolb is a safer bet than Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker? Absolutely not.

But again I will state how opposed to that suggestion I truly am. For starters, if you trade for a Kolb or a Palmer and it does cost you a first round pick or a combination of picks you have to get that instant success to justify the move. People will ask questions sooner of a player that is considered the finished article. Even if one of those two players offered an improved statistical performance to Matt Hasselbeck, if the offense doesn’t function or the team isn’t winning people will say, “was it worth it?” Yes the Seahawks can win in the NFC West with better quarterback play, but so can the San Francisco 49ers, St. Louis Rams and Arizona Cardinals.

Signing Carson Palmer could be nothing more than a stop gap and a delaying of the inevitable. Kevin Kolb is a different matter in that he could legitimately start for many years – but how much are you willing to spend on a player who has earned a reputation actually based on very little other than sporadic form?

Even with a lockout injuction it appears impossible that free agency will take place before the 2011 draft. Do you really trade unknown 2012 draft stock for Kevin Kolb? If you’re willing to spend a top 5-10 pick on Kolb then it’s a non-issue. That is the worst case scenario. Again though, I’m not sure people would stomach a trade that saw the team bring in Kolb, struggle and then be left with the prospect of losing a top-ten pick.

If there is any concern about handing over the new era of Seahawks football to a rookie quarterback, at least people will expect growing pains. There won’t be the pressure to start the player immediately. Go back and sign Matt Hasselbeck if you have to, or trust in the big trade of 12 months ago and give Charlie Whitehurst his moment to show it was all worth it. If the rookie isn’t ready, c’est la vie.

At least then you’re geting a guy you can mould how you wish. Someone who can grow with what is going to be a younger team. Someone you can build around – highlight the strengths and mask the weaknesses. Whether you’re drafting a prospect or signing Kevin Kolb – you know you need a better offensive line and more playmakers. Doesn’t drafting a rookie just buy you an extra year to further improve those positions?

Of course the argument I’ve missed so far is the one that states the lack of options early in the draft. If the top four quarterbacks are long gone by #25 and this front office feels the same way about Ponder, Dalton etc as I do, then Kolb and Palmer suddenly become merely alternatives to Hasselbeck and not the rookies.

That is of course, unless you’re willing to move up.

Things will become clearer after the draft and even more so whenever football re-starts and we see who it is that leads the offense into battle. The simple fact is we just don’t know enough about this regime at the moment to accurately guess what the plan is. All we know is they’ve had strong attendance at both Jake Locker and Ryan Mallett’s pro-days and that the Arkansas QB is today completing a two-day visit to Seattle.

There’s the facts. If only we had more to work off?

Firstly a heads up that I’m flying to Jamaica on Tuesday morning. I’m hoping to update the blog as usual every day but that may not be possible for the whole week.

Trading up or down in the draft is a popular discussion amongst fans. The majority hope or expect their team to move down and there’s usually less enthusiasm about moving up. I personally prefer a more proactive approach putting quality ahead of quantity when at all possible. It’s not that I oppose trading down, but it’s clearly easier for teams like New England with proven players at key positions. The Seahawks need to improve their talent pool before thinking about depth.

This is the first time a team with a losing record is picking in the mid-20’s without a trade. That just increases the unclear nature of what the front office in Seattle may be thinking. Do they need to keep the momentum of this rebuild going by trading up to get a top 15-20 talent? Do they intend to sit tight and simply allow the board to come to them, taking the best player available? Is trading down a possibility to accumulate extra stock considering the team doesn’t own a third round selection?

The best way to consider the possibility of a trade up is to use the draft value chart to project the cost. Even so, this doesn’t provide an exact science on what you can or can’t do to move up. NFL Draft 101 projected an update for the chart prior to last year’s event taking into consideration how the NFL had changed:

“An example of the disparity in the value of top 10 picks can be found in Jacksonville’s 2008 trade up from #26 to #8 overall with Baltimore.  According to the trade value chart the 8^th overall selection should have been worth 1,400 points.   By trading picks 26, 71, 89 and 125 the Jaguars gave up only 1,127 points.  Even with the recommended adjustments in the chart the 8^th pick is 1,350 points and the points given up have only closed the gap from 273 points to 178 points.  In other words from a chart standpoint the Jaguars still got the better end of the deal just not quite as good. This just goes to show how hard it is for a team to make a move from the 20s into the top 10.

“As the Ravens-Jaguars trade demonstrates economics and the draft pool have lowered the value of the players at the top of the draft.  In addition, with the need to add as many quality young players as possible to one’s roster the value of the later round picks has increased a little as well. In other words with the supply (i.e. teams wanting to trade) outweighing the demand (team’s wanting to move up) the trade value chart needs to be updated.”

Here is the proposed update from NFL Draft 101 (click on the image to enlarge):

We need to stress here that this is merely a projection and there’s nothing ‘official’ about the upated chart. There’s is however a universal consensus that the old chart is outdated.

It’s also unclear whether further changes to the chart need to be made for 2011. It’s almost certain we’ll see the introduction of a rookie cap when the CBA situation is finally sorted and surely that changes things and increases the value of the #1 overall pick? If you’re making less of a financial investment on the top overall player, it might not be a stretch to say it revolutionises the draft – making the #1 pick a huge bonus rather than a potentially crippling hindrance. That should filter through to the rest of round one.

If the overall value of the top picks increase it’ll make it much more expensive for Seattle to make a significant move up the board.

Even so, without a new CBA will teams still make plans for the 2011 draft under the previous guidelines expecting to fork out for the top players? If that was to be the case, what would it take for the Seahawks to jump into the top 15?

Using the NFL Draft 101 chart, Seattle’s first round pick (740), second round pick (350) and fourth round pick (107) totals 1197 points. That is just short of the equivalent value of the #10 overall pick (1200). In 2008 Baltimore were committed to trading out of the top ten after Matt Ryan was drafted 3rd overall by Atlanta. They knew they still had the opportunity to target Joe Flacco later on to address the quarterback position. We saw a similar thing with Cleveland in 2009 and Denver in 2010 as both teams made substantial moves down the board accumulating picks and targeting players (Alex Mack and Demaryius Thomas) that would be available later in the first round.

It’s hard to project which team may be open to repeating such a move this year, but it’s also not a complete stretch to think one franchise in the top 10-15 would be willing to move around. Seattle’s three picks in rounds 1-4 could potentially net them the #8 pick owned by Tennessee or the #9 pick owned by Dallas. Baltimore gave up 273 points using the standard chart to move down three years ago. Even with an updated chart as a reference, the determination to turn one pick into three could allow for the Seahawks to get a ‘bargain’.

Why would a team like Tennessee give up 153 points on the NFL Draft 101 chart to move down when they’re beginning a new era themselves? They need a quarterback but both Cam Newton and Blaine Gabbert are likely to be gone by the #8 pick. If they are one of the teams supposedly unconvinced by Jake Locker and Ryan Mallett, they may be targeting one of the ‘second tier’ prospects. Moving down would allow them to add a player at another position of need (cornerback is a huge need for the Titans) and really target their guy among the next crop of QB’s with a war chest of picks.

Of course that’s all speculation, supposition and it doesn’t mean it’s even a modest possibility. Yet if the Seahawks have got that determination to make a big move up the board that’s one potential way of doing so.

In my last mock draft I had Jake Locker off the board at #10 and Ryan Mallett at #15. Such a move would allow them to target either or one of the high end defensive prospects. The Seahawks would’ve owned the #8 overall pick had they lost to St. Louis in week 17.

Too much of a stretch for a rookie QB? Perhaps, but the move doesn’t include any 2012 stock and would allow the team to continue their long term plans for a rebuild with a strong investment at the most important position. Trading for either Kevin Kolb or Carson Palmer is likely to involve a first round pick and possibly second round compensation too. This would only be a similar move albeit for an untested younger player. The big difference is you may not get an instant return on your investment, which has to be taken into consideration. The Seahawks did show in 2010 though that they can be competitive in the NFC West, so perhaps that strengthens the argument slightly.

What about if the Seahawks were targeting a position in that 11-13 region with Mallett in mind? NFL Draft 101’s chart suggests it’d likely only cost the #25 and #57 (1090 points) to target the 12th overall pick owned by Minnesota (1100) or the 13th overall pick owned by Detroit (1050). That wouldn’t be too expensive to address the team’s biggest long term need. Compare this to the older chart when the two picks would be worth 1050 points – the exact same value of the #15 pick.

Not many of the national pundits are projecting the top four quarterbacks will go in the top 15 picks and I may be proven completely wrong in that sense. Obviously there’s a huge presumption in this piece that my own projection will prove true. If the Seahawks aren’t interested in trading up for a quarterback, they may still have some interest in moving up and it’s at least interesting to see what the options are.

Marvin Austin: a first round option for the Seahawks?

Presuming the Seahawks stick at #25 and the top quarterbacks are off the board, what will they do? We’ve looked at different options in the mock drafts but today I want to focus on five logical targets. Not all of these players will necessarily be available but they could go in the 20-32 range. 

No position is more important to Seattle than finding a long term quarterback. However, I don’t expect the Seahawks to reach on a second or third tier player. Despite an incredibly positive press for Christian Ponder, Andy Dalton and Colin Kaepernick I don’t expect any quarterback outside the ‘top four’ to be considered at #25. Let’s not forget how many people last year were touting Colt McCoy as a first or second round pick, Tony Pike as a possible third rounder and Dan LeFevour was even ranked by some as a second round sleeper. The same thing will happen this year unless rampant need (and therefore insanity) takes over the NFL. 

With that in mind, who could be in play for the Seahawks? 

Note: Please refer to the latest mock draft for a breakdown on the areas I believe certain prospects will leave the board 

Muhammad Wilkerson (DE/DT, Temple) 

It makes sense to start with the player I’ve pinned to Seattle in my last two mock drafts. Wilkerson has his sceptics with some questioning his first round credentials. Others rate him much higher (he’s #10 on Mel Kiper’s most recent big board). Reports have suggested both Baltimore and New Orleans are showing strong interest in Wilkerson and the Seahawks reportedly arranged a meeting with him for this week. 

My own view is mixed. You can’t help but be impressed by a 315lbs lineman who rushed predominantly off the edge and recorded ten sacks in 2010. He moves well for a big guy and appears to be a logical fit for Seattle’s 5-technique position. The team want to add depth on the defensive line and adding Wilkerson would create that – with both Red Bryant and possibly Wilkerson being capable of playing two positions.  

The question marks arise in whether he’d be able to make that smooth transition to the three-technique – a position he can attempt to play early (particularly on obvious passing downs) but would need to learn and develop from scratch. Should the Seahawks lose Brandon Mebane whenever free agency begins, it’ll leave a size-able hole inside. Even if Mebane is retained really the coaches should be considering moving him back to the one-technique where he thrived earlier in his NFL career.  

Wilkerson has the size to play the Bryant position while offering a better overall pass rush threat from the edge. He may never be that elite difference maker on a defensive line, but he’d offer the size and depth Seattle is looking for. If he can translate his pass-rush production to the next level, he’s more than capable of becoming a staple player on a NFL defense. 

Marvin Austin (DT, North Carolina) 

Not a player I’ve really considered at #25, but certainly someone who’s enjoying a productive off-season. When I watched Austin in 2009 I wasn’t really impressed. He didn’t stand out on a talented defense including Bruce Carter and Robert Quinn, so I was interested to see more in 2010. Then obviously he was suspended before the first UNC game of the year – which I still studied closely. He travelled to the game with friends and sat in the stands laughing and joking throughout (the camera switched to him regularly). It wasn’t a good mental image of a guy I believe was asked to stay away by the team during the ongoing NCAA investigation. 

Austin missed the whole season and a player I already ranked in the R2/3 range appeared to be sinking further. It looks like he spent that time off wisely because he’s had a sensational off-season. For starters, he was the stand out prospect at the East/West shrine work outs. He continued to slim down and thoroughly impressed at the combine – running an eye catching 4.8 forty yard dash (superior to Nick Fairley despite being 20lbs heavier). He also benched 225lbs 38 times which was only bettered by Stephen Paea’s 49 reps. The momentum continued at this week’s UNC pro-day and people are starting to talk about a rise back up the boards. 

I’ve seen interviews with Austin and he’s a personable guy with a big personality. There are some concerns about his work ethic and clearly that suspension issue needs to be studied with some serious questions asked. My impression is – this guy got serious when it really mattered and the work outs are better than the tape. What I need to know is whether that will continue once he’s drafted or whether he reverts back to type. He needs to perform better in the NFL than he did in the 2009 college season, he needs to play like a 4.8, strong 309lbs defensive lineman every week. The potential for success is incredible from an athletic stand point and I have no issue with his run defense, but he needs to refine his pass rush technique to be more effective as a potential three-tech. 

If he’s really a fast enough riser to get into that 20-32 range it makes sense that both New Orleans and Seattle will consider him. High risk, potentially a very high reward with great potential but needs to bring it. I’d still have major reservations about the work outs being vastly superior to the tape, but NFL teams will do their homework. 

Jabaal Sheard (DE, Pittsburgh) 

 One of my favorite players in the draft. When I projected Sheard and Brooks Reed as potential late first round picks in February, I received a lot of tweets like this one questioning my sanity. Both players have since gained a lot of momentum and should go in that 20-40 range. I suspect Sheard could go even earlier than that considering his skill set – we’re talking about a physical beast of a player with great burst off the line, good edge speed and plays strongly against the run despite only weighing around 265lbs. 

It really wouldn’t surprise me if a team like Jacksonville took a punt on Sheard and the two teams that follow (New England and San Diego) could easily show interest. In my last mock I had him at #20 to Tampa Bay – a team with a huge need at DE who could see real value with that pick. I think he’s more suited to a 4-3 than most think – with people wrongly assuming he’d fit better at 3-4 OLB because of the size. 

If he lasts until #25 he has to be on Seattle’s radar because there may not be a better LEO candidate in this draft class outside of Robert Quinn. The Seahawks need a smaller lineman who can maximise one-on-one match-ups, flash that burst to beat a man off the edge yet hold up against the run. People ultimately think Von Miller would be a good LEO pass rusher, but that’s not true. He’d be a complete liability against the run given his size playing on a four-man front at end and would almost certainly have to play linebacker in Seattle. The Seahawks need a player more in the Sheard mould. 

Chris Clemons is contracted to another year but Raheem Brock is not. With Reed and Sheard in that 20-40 range they have to be options for Seattle. Let’s also get one thing straight – Clemons had a good 2010 season but he’s 30 in October. Pairing him with a young edge rusher for the future could seriously upgrade the Seahawks defense for the long term. 

Mike Pouncey (OG/OC Florida) 

 I’d like to think the Seahawks would consider extending the contract of Chris Spencer after an under rated 2010 season where he was arguably Seattle’s most consistent offensive lineman. Considering the major repair work needed in the team’s interior o-line, it makes little sense in my opinion to lose a guy who started every game last year and looked comfortable throughout. 

Whether Spencer is retained or not, the team could still use a long term option at guard. When you’re drafting for that position in round one you have to be confident the player you’re getting is special. I think some teams will feel that way about Mike Pouncey, particularly after his brother had such a productive rookie season for Pittsburgh. I’m not convinced Mike is special – at least enough for me to ignore the depth at guard available in round two (Watkins, Hudson, Franklin, Rackley etc). If the Seahawks want to play it safe though, they could go in that direction.  

I’m also not convinced he’ll last until #25 and the Maurkice-factor may play a part in that. Miami are desperate for a center and could be a wild card as high as #15 (perhaps they trade down?). New England and San Diego are possible options after that, as are the New York Giants. Kansas City would be a logical home because Pouncey ticks every box Scott Pioli looks for in a prospect including faultless character, leadership and work ethic. Even if Pouncey gets past that cluster, the Philadelphia Eagles would need a reason to pass at #23. 

It’s not impossible, but I’d say it’s unlikely. However – many teams are sceptical about adding guards in round one and with options available later, I wouldn’t rule out a fall to #25. He’d have to be at least considerd by the Seahawks if he gets that far. 

Jimmy Smith (CB, Colorado) 

 I’ve never hidden my admiration for Smith – I think he’s a top-ten talent. If the Seahawks picked ten places higher in the draft I’d be championing the franchise to select this guy. I know the character concerns exist and you can’t just ignore that all together. However, not many players have impressed me as much as Jimmy Smith during my time writing this blog. People wax lyrical about Patrick Peterson and how he could/should be the #1 overall pick, but for me there’s a paper’s width between Peterson and Smith. I actually think there’s a fairly good chance Smith will have the better career. 

Speed, height, reactions, instinct – Smith has the complete package. People talk about a lack of effort at times yet I saw little evidence of that and I’m not going to overly criticise a corner back for a sluggish tackle or half hearted effort to shed a block if he’s consistently great in coverage. Dig out the tape of Colorado vs Oklahoma and watch how he performs against a pass-happy offense (and notice how little he’s targeted). 

I don’t like making outlandish comparisons because they are generally quite lazy and unfair. I have no problem linking Smith to Nnamdi Asomugha (who was a late first round pick). 

In my last mock draft I had Philadelphia taking him at #23 which would be a steal. Whether he lasts that far or until #25 will depend on the character concerns. Again, you can’t ignore them. If a talent like Smith falls into the 20’s that in itself sets off alarm bells. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did end up a top ten pick and Tennessee can’t be ruled out at #8 considering their need at corner. If he does last to #25 though I’m taking that chance. Surround him with leadership, mentor him and work on the off-field stuff. If you get it right, you could find that rare #1 gem at corner to go alongside Earl Thomas and Walter Thurmond in a blossoming young secondary. Smith has elite potential. 

******** 

I appreciate there are other candidates here and things will change, but as of April 2nd these are the names I’m focusing on. Four of the five are lineman and I want to stress this wasn’t necessarily done intentionally. I think quarterback is the team’s greatest need by far, but they aren’t taking a QB at #25 unless Newton, Gabbert, Locker or Mallett drops. I’m not even convinced every name in that quartet would be considered if they are available – although I don’t think any will get past the mid-teens in round one. 

Wide receiver is still a need because the offense simply does not have enough game changers. Outside of AJ Green and Julio Jones it’s hard to project the next best receiver and exactly where they’ll fall. 

There’s simply no getting away from the fact that in the 20-40 area, the best value is going to come on the defensive line. I could’ve thrown in more names for this piece – Phil Taylor (DT, Baylor), Brooks Reed (DE, Arizona), Jarvis Jenkins (DT, Clemson), Christian Ballard (DE, Iowa), Justin Houston (DE, Georgia)d or Terrell McClain (DT, USF). Coincidentally I don’t think Adrian Clayborn (DE, Iowa) is a good fit for Seattle either in the Red Bryant position or as a LEO rusher. Neither am I convinced Stephen Paea (DT Oregon State) is a logical scheme fit as a smaller one technique. 

The option to move around and get creative is open yet unpredictable. If the team stays put at #25, unless the Smith’s and Pouncey’s do drop, I suspect the Seahawks wil be adding a defensive lineman to their roster on April 28th. A lot can change, though – especially after the impending court case this week which could potentially end the lockout.

Pete Carroll has been aggressive so far, will it continue?

Last time the Seahawks owned the #25 pick in 2008 they traded down. Will history repeat this year or could Pete Carroll and John Schneider consider moving up the board?

For the basis of this article I’m going to refer to my latest mock draft (updated yesterday) which you can view by clicking here.

Ever since the playoff defeat to Chicago, I’ve really thought there’s a strong possibility the Seahawks will attempt to trade up in the 2011 draft. This is a 7-9 team and by rights would be picking in the middle of round one in any other NFL season. This is the first team with a losing record to make the playoffs and one magical performance against the defending Super Bowl Champs doesn’t change the fact that this is a roster needing to add impact and quality.

It’s important to stress that I don’t think moving up is anything like a formality. Fans will always tout the possibility of moving down – it’s classic ‘rosterbation’ (to coin a Field Gulls phrase) to want as many selections as possible and to assume you can hit on any extra picks you collect. In reality, the quality market becomes thinner the lower you select. In winning the playoff game against New Orleans, it’s almost like Seattle already traded down. They swapped a pick in the teens for a memorable night of playoff football – and I doubt anyone regrets that trade.

But will the team be pro-active in moving back up the board?

I see no evidence to suggest Carroll and Schneider won’t strongly consider that possibility. They were certainly pro-active in the Charlie Whitehurst trade, taking a gamble on finding a quarterback solution. The various trades involving Leon Washington et al were all pro-active decisions. The continuos roster turn over? Pro-active. To some degree the players they chose in last year’s draft could be classified as ‘pro-active’ – especially players like Earl Thomas and Golden Tate who were viewed as playmakers although obviously enjoyed contrasting rookie years.

Courting Brandon Marshall was a pro-active move. Trading for Marshawn Lynch was pro-active. Whether you believe the talk or not, both Carson Palmer and Kevin Kolb have been heavily linked to the Seahawks in expensive deals. Would you rule out any truth to those rumors?

While Schneider has openly talked about the value of picks, this is a team that has left no stone unturned in improving the roster and they’ve been anything but conservative. Why wouldn’t they move up in the 2011 draft if the situation was right?

One stumbling block could be a lack of valuable stock. With no third round pick the Seahawks really only have the #25 and #57 to barter this year in order to make a big jump. They have the option to throw in future picks and as we saw with the Whitehurst trade, this is something they won’t shirk away from. As an example, Seattle’s #25, #57 and 2012 second round pick would be worth 1195 points in the draft trade chart. That could be enough to move up as high as the #12 or #13 pick.

It’d be a steep cost – making day two of this year’s draft a non-event in Seattle and leaving the team without their second round pick next year. You’d have to say that such a move would likely be made for a quarterback.

I wouldn’t rule out such a move (especially given Seattle’s great need at QB) but it’s impossible to project. Let’s not forget how cheaply and aggresively New York moved to acquire Mark Sanchez in 2009. How many people imagined Denver would trade one of their 2010 first round picks to the Seahawks to draft Phonso Smith only to cut him a year later? Trades are as much of an inexact science as the draft itself.

A smaller move up the board is surely a possibility? Trading #25, #98 (round four) and one of the team’s 5th round picks (#153) could get you into the #20-22 range. If my last mock draft proved true that could be enough to target a player suffering a surprise fall, the top offensive guard (Mike Pouncey) or a rough diamond like Jimmy Smith. Some could argue the logic in trading three picks to move up just a handful of spots, but the team essentially gained the 4th and extra 5th round pick in trading Deion Branch and Josh Wilson – two players who were unlikely to stay with the team beyond the 2010 season anyway.

It’d be an aggressive move to get a more preferable prospect than, for example, a Muhammad Wilkerson type player. This front office has been consistently aggressive and my own personal view is that if you can move up three spots to draft Jimmy Smith, you make that move.

The draft trade chart is sometimes thrown out of the window as I touched on earlier. Dallas’ trade with Seattle in 2008 involved moving up three places (#28 to #25) for a 5th and 7th round pick. In this scenario Seattle were happy to collect additional picks knowing Lawrence Jackson would still be available at #28. A team’s determination to move down (as witnessed by Cleveland’s significant move south in 2009) can dictate the value of a jump up.

I’m willing to be proven wrong here and really this is just an example of ‘thinking out loud’ but I cannot envisage the Seahawks going along quietly in the 2011 draft. The idea of this front office waiting until #25 and just taking whoever is left atop their board seems almost unrealistic. Can you imagine Pete Carroll pacing around that war room knowing ‘his guy’ is there at #20 or #21 and not getting something done? Perhaps that’s a great disservice to the HC’s restraint.

But I keep coming back to the pro-active nature of this front office. This is a rebuild that’s had a solid start and that needs to keep ticking along. There are so many key areas of need, least of all quarterback. I suspect if free agency was open for business, they may have already traded that #25 pick. Will the Seahawks be aggressive on April 28th? That remains to be seen but I wouldn’t bet against it.

Thursday draft links

Dan Kelly is the new lead writer at Field Gulls. I urge everyone to support Dan in this move and check out his articles. He’s a talented writer and I’m looking forward to seeing his reputation develop in front of a wider audience.

He has an interesting piece on the blog today quoting Michael Lombardi’s appearance on Brock & Salk, where the prospect of drafting a quarterback at #25 was discussed.

Brandon Adams has an interesting article at 17 Power discussing whether the Red Bryant position (five-technique) is being over rated by fans and pundits.

Dan Hyde has an incredibly detailed piece on Arkansas quarterback Ryan Mallett.

There were two key pro-days yesterday at Washington and USC. Jake Locker had a good work out watched by the majority of Seattle’s coaching staff. Tyron Smith was the star of the show in SoCal. Fellow Trojan and Seahawks Draft Blog follower Malcolm Smith also worked out and will visit with the Seahawks soon. For those not aware, he’s the brother of New York wide out Steve Smith.

Walter Cherepinsky’s updated mock continues to place Colorado’s Jimmy Smith at #25. That would be a steal for the Seahawks.

Mel Kiper and Todd McShay have their latest ‘First Draft’ podcast available courtesy of ESPN.

McShay also discusses Clemson’s pro-day (see video below) which will feature Da’Quan Bowers. He missed the combine through injury.

Will Nick Fairley still be smiling on April 28th?

To see the updated projection click here or select ‘MOCK DRAFT’ from the title bar 

There aren’t a cluster of changes this week but there’s one significant fall and one other issue I want to discuss. First let’s talk about Nick Fairley dropping to San Diego at #18. 

Without doubt Fairley was one of the most impressive performers during the 2010 college season. He consistently got to the passer, he’s electric off the snap and he’s got perfect size for the three-technique position. Fairley’s production was unmatched (13 sacks) and thanks to Oregon’s offensive line scheme he was too often left unblocked and able to dominate the BCS Championship game. 

It was around that time that many people considered Fairley an option to go first overall. He could still be a very high pick because the talent is there yet if one of the big names is going to fall, I’m putting my money on either Fairley or Von Miller. 

A lot of people have started to voice concerns. Mike Mayock has often stated his view that you either buy into Fairley or he’s not even on your draft board. There’s the one-year-wonder aspect, considering he was a complete non-factor in 2009. At the same time that one year of production was admittedly sensational. His attitude has been questioned and perhaps highlighted by his decision to reject the opportunity to work out for the Miami Dolphins (who own the #15 pick). 

ESPN’s Todd McShay has highlighted the high bust rate at the defensive tackle position which could be a factor, stating: “The more you watch Fairley on tape, the more worried you get he’ll be a bust.” 

Maybe this is just the latest edition of scaremongering? There’s nothing quite like a nice dose of negativity when discussing a big name prospect. Coincidentally, prospects like Andy Dalton and Christian Ponder have been elevated to star status with seemingly little justification. That is the way the draft rolls this time of year. 

Even so I wouldn’t rule out a drop for Auburn’s defensive compliment to Heisman winner and probable #1 pick Cam Newton. 

I first projected a drop for Fairley a month ago, pinning him at #14 to St. Louis. There are teams in the top-ten that could easily consider drafting a three technique (Denver, Cincinnati, Cleveland or Tennessee) but all four will be given extremely viable alternatives. A lot of people have Tennessee taking Fairley, yet this is a team with giant holes at quarterback (Locker or Mallett?) and cornerback (Amukamara or Smith?) and could still make a surprise pick (I have them taking Julio Jones). 

Once Fairleydrops past #8 you’re either banking on a 3-4 team making the choice and using him as a five technique or you’re preparing for a fall. Minnesota and St. Louis are logical homes, yet like the teams picking in the top ten will be presented with alternatives. In the Rams’ case that could be another defensive tackle – Corey Liuget is another talented player but has none of the character issues that come with Fairley. 

Eventually someone is going to take that chance. I’m happy to admit that it could be a top-ten team rather than someone in the #12-18 range. If he keeps falling, it increases the likelihood that a 3-4 team will take a punt on his ability to work as a five-technique. It wouldn’t surprise me if San Diego moved down in such a scenario, potentially trading with a team like New Orleans that has a big need on the defensive line. Perhaps we should discuss the possibility of Seattle trading up from that position? Would you surrender the #25 and the #57 for a shot at Nick Fairley? 

The second issue I wanted to address was the number of quarterbacks I have going in the top #15 picks. I hear the argument about how long it’s been since that number were taken early. This isn’t a normal year though, is it? Teams haven’t had the opportunity to make veteran additions due to the lack of free agency. If the court case on April 6th fails to prevent the lockout from continuing, we could be facing the prospect of a shoe-horned free-agency a fortnight before the season begins. 

Will that increase the possibility of quarterbacks going early in the draft? I think for the top four prospects that will prove true and we may also see other quarterbacks over drafted. 

I don’t think it’s optimistic to suggest the top-four will all be gone by Miami at #15. There are so many teams in the first half of round one that need a quarterback. Not all will go in that direction, for example I think given the option of Patrick Peterson or Locker/Mallett, Arizona will go with the cornerback. In my latest mock I also have Tennessee and Minnesota going in different directions. But I actually think it’s more unrealistic to expect only Gabbert and Newton to go early and then have this long drop off into the late first round or early second round. 

I understand the issues with Locker and Mallett but I still think two teams will roll the dice. I can’t see Locker getting past Washington and Mike Shanahan at #10. If we do see three quarterbacks go in the top ten, that is only going to increase the value of Ryan Mallett. His issues are well publicised but Miami are a team that has added Joey Porter and Brandon Marshall to their roster in recent years. They have a huge hole at quarterback, yet many people presume they will draft another running back in Mark Ingram. Why? 

If Mallett did go early, the question would then become – will we see the next tier of quarterbacks over drafted? After Locker and Mallett the next QB I have on the board is Ricky Stanzi with a R3/4 grade. I have Kaepernick in 3/4, Ponder in R4/5 and Dalton in 5/6. I suspect at least one of these guys is going to be a second round pick.