Disappointing Draft

[JimmyG]

My thoughts on the draft...

I really liked the Frank Clark pick. Classic 'great talent that fell because of character concerns'. Kind of reminds me of Christine Michael, whom I'm still high on.

Lockett is another nice pick. He'll be a day-one impact ST player. Very good gunner and will undoubtedly provide an improvement in the return game. I'm always a little skeptical of the impact return guys make. A lot of prospects are given the "great return ability" label but are sort of pedestrian in the NFL. I do love his route running and ability to separate though. DB's seem to struggle covering him with conventional quarterbacks, how are they going to stick with him while Russell Wilson is dancing in the backfield for 10 seconds?

With Lockett, I like the player, but I hate the cost. I get the whole "well, not all of the picks are going to make the roster" sentiment, but there are still other options. We could trade for extra picks next year. We could draft someone with injury concerns and stash them on IR (circumventing the 53-man roster limit). We could take a flyer on players that dropped into the late rounds. Even if you don't expect them all to make the roster, it's nice to be able to bring guys in for extending evaluations during training camp.

I'm also intrigued by Ryan Murphy. He could be a nice backup/ST player. I have a lot of confidence in our front office's ability to identify late-round DB talent.

Overall I'd give it around a C+/B-.

 

[vonstout]

In a vacuum I like Tyler Lockett, but this team desperately needs starting outside receivers that can beat press coverage because that is all they're going to see.

If you watched Seahawks games last year, teams loaded the box, and played man free, or cover 0 pressing the outside receivers leaving them 1 on 1, and they cant win, not because of speed or separation, but because of size and strength.

Paul Richardson was the fasted WR at the combine last year running a 4.3 40 how many times did you see him take the top off the defense? Hardly ever because he would get jammed, and he was done. Dez Bryant ran a 4.58 40 but it doesn't matter because he is big and strong, if Tony Romo sees 1 on 1 he throws it up even if he is covered because he can out muscle the DB for the ball, that is what Seattle is sorely lacking, and that is why Tyler Lockett makes no sense.

Enter Jimmy Graham really awesome add to to offense, because this will force teams to exclusively go Cover 0 with Jimmy Graham bracketed. Leaving every eligible target outside of Graham 1 on 1 with no help.

The perfect plan would have been use a 2nd round on an outside receiver like Jaelen Strong or Sammie Coates, then in 3rd round draft Frank Clark. Trade up after Eli Harold goes if you are scared he will get taken, then 4th round draft someone like Stefon Diggs or Kenny Bell to be your returner. Keep your extra picks and draft Oline and Defensive depth like crazy = winning the draft imo.

Seattle can still win the draft btw, but they got to knock day 3 out of the park.

They still will not have a receiver who can beat press coverage which = schematic weakness.

If you watch Lockett last year, he was able to get off the line with quick moves. Big and strong isn't the only way. I don't know why we don't use motion more often. That would help.

 

[rideaducati]

Here we go again. The pundits are out and know more about EVERY player and team than the teams themselves. All of the well known mediots have given up on bashing the Seahawks drafts because they have been proven wrong by this front office so many times. This is from a guy no one has heard of trying to make a name for himself at NFL.com:

Seattle Seahawks
Draft pick: DE Frank Clark (No. 63 overall), WR Tyler Lockett (No. 69 overall), OL Terry Poole (No. 130 overall), OL Mark Glowsinki (No. 134 overall), CB Tye Smith (No. 170 overall), DE Obum Gwacham (No. 209 overall), DT Kristjan Sokoli (No 214 overall), S Ryan Murphy (No. 248 overall)
Day 1 grade: N/A
Day 2 grade: D
Day 3 grade: C
Overall grade: C-
The skinny: The Seahawks don't get a Day 1 grade because they didn't have a first-round pick, but their grade would be an A+, considering they turned the second-to-last pick in the first round into a Pro Bowl tight end/receiver in Jimmy Graham. Yes, the price was high, but Graham is a proven commodity who can help get this team another ring. Frank Clark had a ton of character concerns entering the draft, and getting him in the second round was a massive reach. The team managed an average Day 2 grade, however, because the selection of Lockett was a home run.

Bottom line: Moving up to get Lockett was a big win. Otherwise, the team's braintrust reached on almost all of its picks as the Seahawks look to restock the back end of the roster. There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

You can follow Bryan Fischer on Twitter at @BryanDFischer.

 

[Ad Hawk]

I love this last quote from this blog:

There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

"Betting a lot" is a silly way to criticize what is exactly Pete's job, and what our coaching staff is so good at.

I'll take that bet, too!

 

[mikeak]

I love this last quote from this blog:

There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

"Betting a lot" is a silly way to criticize what is exactly Pete's job, and what our coaching staff is so good at.

I'll take that bet, too!

The issue is time. We have a loaded roster so you a very short time to coach up a guy to be almost as good as someone on the 53-man roster. If you achieve that then you determine if the drop-off and potential is worth cutting a veteran.

Seahawks has less time for this than many other teams since we have better players.

It is why Jacksonville can take our cast-off work them for 1-2 years and then people will go "crap we cut a future star player". Their drop-off is less and an untrained athletic player may be an upgrade

 

[chet380]

NFL,com:
Bottom line: Moving up to get Lockett was a big win. Otherwise, the team's braintrust reached on almost all of its picks as the Seahawks look to restock the back end of the roster. There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent..

This cold-eyed assessment seems to hit the nail on the head.

 

[bjornanderson21]

I love this last quote from this blog:

There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

"Betting a lot" is a silly way to criticize what is exactly Pete's job, and what our coaching staff is so good at.

I'll take that bet, too!

The issue is time. We have a loaded roster so you a very short time to coach up a guy to be almost as good as someone on the 53-man roster. If you achieve that then you determine if the drop-off and potential is worth cutting a veteran.

Seahawks has less time for this than many other teams since we have better players.

It is why Jacksonville can take our cast-off work them for 1-2 years and then people will go "crap we cut a future star player". Their drop-off is less and an untrained athletic player may be an upgrade

You are correct in what you are saying, but that becomes a problem with this year's Hawks draft class because they are described as being more raw than most.

For a team that can afford the least amount of time, we took guys that supposedly will need the most time. Only the very bottom of our depth can be used on guys like that.

There is a very good chance that our draft picks get cut or are not as good as the vet who gets cut to make room for them (salary cap saving issue, contract length, etc.).

 

[Happy]

NFL.com:

Bottom line: Moving up to get Lockett was a big win. Otherwise, the team's braintrust reached on almost all of its picks as the Seahawks look to restock the back end of the roster. There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

What the writer seems to be missing is, it's not just coaching in the sense of technique and scheme that Pete brings to the table, it's a complete vision for how his techniques and schemes are to be implemented.

A big part of what makes the program effective is getting the players to trust in what they're being told to do. If you read some of his lectures/talks he gives to other coaches, that's always a big point of emphasis. Trust the system and that the coaches will hold themselves accountable and not blame the player if there's a problem. I think that's how he gets so much out of project guys, they don't have to worry about looking out for themselves, they can trust in what they're being asked to do.

So yeah, that does allow the Seahawks to depend on player development much more so than most other teams.

 

[mikeak]

I love this last quote from this blog:

There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

"Betting a lot" is a silly way to criticize what is exactly Pete's job, and what our coaching staff is so good at.

I'll take that bet, too!

The issue is time. We have a loaded roster so you a very short time to coach up a guy to be almost as good as someone on the 53-man roster. If you achieve that then you determine if the drop-off and potential is worth cutting a veteran.

Seahawks has less time for this than many other teams since we have better players.

It is why Jacksonville can take our cast-off work them for 1-2 years and then people will go "crap we cut a future star player". Their drop-off is less and an untrained athletic player may be an upgrade

You are correct in what you are saying, but that becomes a problem with this year's Hawks draft class because they are described as being more raw than most.

For a team that can afford the least amount of time, we took guys that supposedly will need the most time. Only the very bottom of our depth can be used on guys like that.

There is a very good chance that our draft picks get cut or are not as good as the vet who gets cut to make room for them (salary cap saving issue, contract length, etc.).

I agree 100% that was my point of making the argument for the writer and not dismiss it with "that is our coaching staff's job".

With that said you can have a couple of players in this situation just not a significant number

 

[chris98251]

Yeah we should just sign all high priced vets like the Redskins did or the Eagles with the Drream team, that worked well. No training or coaching needed just plug and play, trade away all the damn draft picks so our coaches can work on how to perfect the inside slant route.

 

[rideaducati]

NFL,com:
Bottom line: Moving up to get Lockett was a big win. Otherwise, the team's braintrust reached on almost all of its picks as the Seahawks look to restock the back end of the roster. There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent..

This cold-eyed assessment seems to hit the nail on the head.

Okay, but that assessment is not being touted by any of his peers.

 

[mikeak]

Yeah we should just sign all high priced vets like the Redskins did or the Eagles with the Drream team, that worked well. No training or coaching needed just plug and play, trade away all the damn draft picks so our coaches can work on how to perfect the inside slant route.

Who said that?

 

[GeekHawk]

In a word, pedestrian. Right?

Well, you know, they just don't command a double team.

 

[Willyeye]

I love this last quote from this blog:

There are a lot of athletes in this class, and maybe some will pan out, but they're betting a lot on coaching up raw talent.

"Betting a lot" is a silly way to criticize what is exactly Pete's job, and what our coaching staff is so good at.

I'll take that bet, too!

The issue is time. We have a loaded roster so you a very short time to coach up a guy to be almost as good as someone on the 53-man roster. If you achieve that then you determine if the drop-off and potential is worth cutting a veteran.

Seahawks has less time for this than many other teams since we have better players.

It is why Jacksonville can take our cast-off work them for 1-2 years and then people will go "crap we cut a future star player". Their drop-off is less and an untrained athletic player may be an upgrade

You are correct in what you are saying, but that becomes a problem with this year's Hawks draft class because they are described as being more raw than most.

For a team that can afford the least amount of time, we took guys that supposedly will need the most time. Only the very bottom of our depth can be used on guys like that.

There is a very good chance that our draft picks get cut or are not as good as the vet who gets cut to make room for them (salary cap saving issue, contract length, etc.).

The one good thing about this draft regarding what you said here is that, although a lot of people are whining about giving up 4 picks (ridiculous logic considering the 3rd round picks were just traded, 3rd round pick for 3rd round pick; the trade really only cost 3 picks) for Lockett, when it's plain to see that those other 3 picks would most likely not have materialized into players that make the 53-man roster. As it is, including the 12- UDFA's, we currently have 97 people on the roster, which means we will be cutting 7 guys real soon.

 

[Willyeye]

So your saying that the Centers we have on the team now all of them suck I disagree . Marpet was probably the Center they wanted and he was off the board so I disagree that they should have gone Center at 63 there wasn't one there that was an upgrade over what we have.

I would say I don't have a lot of faith in the centers we have, and I hope they prove me wrong. I think we targeted Clark at 63, they put to much research into him if they weren't targetting him as the guy. I doubt we will ever know all the rankings for the players they were targetting in the 2nd so we don't know if he was the guy or the backup.

Regarding Centers, Unger missed 10 games last year, and we went 4-2 in the 6 games he started (he also missed 3 games in 2013). Patrick Lewis started 4 games last year, and we were 4-0 in those games. Lemuel Jeanpierre started 3 games and we were 3-0 in those games. I don't understand why you wouldn't have faith in them? Considering we got Graham for Unger, adding Graham should make things somewhat easier on Russell...maybe he can start getting rid of the ball a little quicker...a faster release for Russell puts a lot less stress on the O-Line.

 

[hawkfan68]

I thought I saw a post that stated Browner is elite. Browner is not elite. He's good but nowhere is he at level of Revis, Sherman, etc. That's elite. That's like saying Andy Dalton is an elite QB.

 

[Willyeye]

Problem is that Lockett's a SLOT guy unless he can prove otherwise. But he's not supplanting Doug at that position anytime soon. If he does, then he forces Doug to play even more snaps out of position as outside WR -- not ideal.

JS has already basically confirmed that we drafted him to be a return specialist. We can be hopeful about his receiving skills obviously, but that is all secondary to what we drafted him for (according to the GM). For Year 1, I see him as Returner/backup slot receiver (basically an upgrade on Walters). Nothing wrong with that at all for a 3rd rounder, but outside of that, we gave up way, way too much to the Redskins to get there.

The fact that our own FO views him in such a limited role worries me. That and the fact that in an already shallow WR corps we potentially now have 2 WR's who are primarily there for their special teams skills. He'll have to be Devin Hester/Dante Hall good to justify what we gave up to get him if all he's gonna be is a return specialist.

What exactly did we give up for him? A 4th, a 5th, and a 6th. Immediately after the draft, the Hawks signed 12 UDFA's, some of them pretty good. Our roster currently stands at 97. We will be losing 7 guys in a couple of months (had we not that number would be 10), and losing another 37 shortly thereafter. Given all the guys coming back from the IR before the preseason, where in the heck do you propose we would have put THREE MORE GUYS? Frankly, we didn't have enough room to have kept 11 draftees this year anyway. We really lost nothing.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Already lost 5. And by the way Lockett isn't just a slot guy. He's pretty much a straight comp to Pittsburgh's all world outside guy but FASTER and just as quick.

The guy was the ONLY player worth a damn at K-State yet performed at an elite level when EVERYBODY and their mother knew exactly what was coming. While paired with horrible quarterbacks no less.

More interesting to me is that he seems like he's Wilson's brother from another mother almost in the literal sense.

 

[Ozzy]

WE absolutely killed it on the Lockett pick and I can guarantee they view him as more than a slot guy but they're going to make him earn it which is the right thing to do. Somewhat surprised people are upset that we gave up "too much" to grab this guy.

Mizzou killed it above, good post.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Great draft, yet again. And as far as last years' draft, how can anyone say it was a bad one, after one season?