Drafting for immediate needs

[Year of The Hawk]

In recent history need drafting gave us; Tubbs, Koren, Jerramy, McIntosh. We saw a regime which followed the rube mentality, using the draft as the finger in the dyke (giggle). It didn't work.

But, fret not. The 2016 class will have more blue shirts than red. Hawks need an infusion of young, cheap talent. This draft will have some immediate contributors.

I do believe we do have immediate needs but why do you feel we will have immediate contributors? Thinking our front line will improve from its current state through this years draft is wishful thinking. Maybe next year but we would have to get very lucky to find someone who could contribute significantly there first year (no way 2 guys like that). We might get some depth pieces overall and maybe a starter but not mass improvement right away.

 

[sutz]

In recent history need drafting gave us; Tubbs, Koren, Jerramy, McIntosh. We saw a regime which followed the rube mentality, using the draft as the finger in the dyke (giggle). It didn't work.

But, fret not. The 2016 class will have more blue shirts than red. Hawks need an infusion of young, cheap talent. This draft will have some immediate contributors.

I do believe we do have immediate needs but why do you feel we will have immediate contributors? Thinking our front line will improve from its current state through this years draft is wishful thinking. Maybe next year but we would have to get very lucky to find someone who could contribute significantly there first year (no way 2 guys like that). We might get some depth pieces overall and maybe a starter but not mass improvement right away.

Hmmm, I don't think people are really thinking we'll get immediate OL help in the draft. That's why so many posters are not on the "we gotta draft OL in Rd 1" bandwagon. My thought, and I think many around here agree, is that we probably have enough O-line talent to at least be better in the 1st half of 2016 than we were last year in the 1st half of the season. We do have some guys that have been backups for a year or so that could step up, and we've brought in some FA depth players that could contribute materially.

Obviously, we will draft OL, and probably early, though DT is a bit of a need, too. I don't think that JS&PC really think they are going to somehow "save" the team by drafting a center in Rd 1. I don't think that they believe the team needs saving.

Oh, and pe, the word is "dike." :laugh:

 

[Jerhawk]

Imo, the team may have changed their draft philosophy now as opposed to three to five years ago when they were still building the roster. Their 2010, 11, 12 drafts were all about getting the best guy available. But that was when we were still re building. There were barely any stars on this roster. You could argue they were building around lynch on offense and Thomas on defense.

Now that the team is in a position to compete for championships, I feel like drafting for need has to play a small part into their draft board. I highly doubt they would take a free safety or middle linebacker in the second round unless they were planning on switching positions.

I'm all about the "always compete" approach, you don't want these guys to get comfortable in their positions. They perform better when looking over their shoulders. But drafting to fill a need should play a part when coach and JS are building their draft board.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not sure why they usually decide to draft players who aren't as good as them with those picks we get each year.

John and Pete feel sorry for the other teams who aren't as good at drafting, so Roger Goodell made us take a couple years off of drafting late round Pro Bowl caliber players.

 

[bjornanderson21]

Sounds like some are calling for a more coordinated effort to assure our draft picks are made to fill immediate holes in the roster.

That is not what made the Seahawks great.

The Seahawks don't draft Wilson when they have Flynn by that logic.

The Seahawks draft with the goal of getting the best chance at getting a very good to GREAT player. Not drafting to fill a hole or drafting to get the best chance someone sticks.

I ran the data a while ago but I think it is close, generally 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 draft picks work out and turn into high quality players. That assumes 1-2 years on-field play. Our 1st round does not hit as often as some of the better teams in the league, but our 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks do.

Last year, we actually had a substantially above the mean # of picks work out for us, so maybe that has changed - but generally even the 1st round pick isn't guarantee you get a keeper. What you do know, is the keepers tend to not just be productive but exceptional performers.

I don't see any reason to change what is working, unless you feel that the holes being created through attrition/loss are so significant we have to rely on the draft to fill them immediately. The danger is that by leaving the draft process that gave us advantages, we start focusing more on factors the typical team does (% makes a roster spot) and consequently get a more typical draft.

I don't believe the success is all due to a tremendous development program. We clearly find people that are worth the risk, take the risk on them, and when they work out we benefit. Leaving the risk off the table means walking away from a lot of that reward too.

How do you know the Flynn signing wasn't a hedge in case they missed out on Wilson whom they had already been eyeing? Flynn also had very little NFL experience, so while he was definitely viewed as a valid QB option he didn't have the job locked up or anything.

Team's don't want to miss out on a potential pro-bowler just because they don't have a "need" at the position, but at the same time you only have so many ways to fill a hole: FA (including UDFA), draft, and trades.

See the gaping holes we have on OL. The choice was between overpaying Sweezy/Okung/FA or filling 1 or 2 spots in the draft. They chose not to overpay a FA which means if they don't fix the OL in the draft then our only other chance is to sign a vet after cutdowns or trade for one.

If the Hawks don't draft OL because they were always #2 available on their big board when it's time to pick, that would be a mistake and a failure.

If a team has ZERO holes, it can afford to draft purely on BPA. When a team DOES have holes they need to incorporate that into their strategy otherwise they risk putting a terrible unit on the field.

With our cap situation we really can't afford NOT to draft for needs this year.

That would be why we signed free agents and will pick up cuts, targeting a need handcuffs you, you rate your players, you rate your weakness and if your number one player is available for a number 2 weakness you take him if your other players ranked for your number one is already gone, you don't take a lower ranked player just to fill a need you deem as number one.

We signed cheap linemen that graded poorly. That isn't filling holes, it's just adding bodies in case we DON'T get some good linemen in the draft.

Also, drafting a starter who is better than you current starter improves the team MORE than drafting a backup.

Even if the drafted starter has a slightly lower grade than the drafted backup at another position, you are improving the starting unit (which has a greater effect than improving backups).


Question: if a team doesn't have a legit starting QB, but they never have a QB ranked #1 on their draftboard when its time to pick, should they really wait 10 years for one to finally fall to them?

Franchise QBs are almost never available in FA, so you can't sign one in FA.
Franchise QBs are almost never available via trade, so you can't trade for one.

If a team has a need at QB, the draft is virtually the only way to successfully fill that need.

It would be foolish to avoid drafting a QB for a decade because the team always had a different player rated slightly higher.

And now let's go the other way. What if a QB is the highest rated player for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rounds? Does that mean that we should draft 4 QBs in the first 4 rounds?

Drafting 4 QBs would be really stupid, but if they are the BPA then that is what you would do with a pure BPA mentality
.
Again, BPA is great when you have no holes, but on a team with holes they would almost never get filled with your strategy. Any position that we suck at would continue to suck because you would be refusing to address the needs.

 

[bjornanderson21]

In recent history need drafting gave us; Tubbs, Koren, Jerramy, McIntosh. We saw a regime which followed a rube mentality, using the draft as the finger in the dyke (giggle). It didn't work.

But, fret not. The 2016 class will have more blue shirts than red. Hawks need an infusion of young, cheap talent. This draft will have some immediate contributors.

Need drafting also gave us:

Okung
Thomas
Wilson
Lockett
Irvin

Drafting for needs doesn't guarantee you a good pick, and neither does drafting BPA.

We wasted a 2nd rounder on Michael because he was rated highly on the Hawks board despite not having a need.

A pick is only as good as the player they pick.

 

[chris98251]

In recent history need drafting gave us; Tubbs, Koren, Jerramy, McIntosh. We saw a regime which followed a rube mentality, using the draft as the finger in the dyke (giggle). It didn't work.

But, fret not. The 2016 class will have more blue shirts than red. Hawks need an infusion of young, cheap talent. This draft will have some immediate contributors.

Need drafting also gave us:

Okung
Thomas
Wilson
Lockett
Irvin

Drafting for needs doesn't guarantee you a good pick, and neither does drafting BPA.

We wasted a 2nd rounder on Michael because he was rated highly on the Hawks board despite not having a need.

A pick is only as good as the player they pick.

We needed a player at every position with Okung and Thomas, yeah waiting till the third round was definatly targeting a need player with Wilson, waiting till the third round for Lockett was really a need also, Irvin was the only true need pick I think we used that was somewhat a question. I mean Wilson is a Franchise QB.

Also Franchise QB's not available in trade and Free Agency, so Manning and Palmer are not Franchise QB's then? Or Kaepernick for that matter depending on who's value chart you want to use.

 

[TwistedHusky]

BPA is a tremendously subjective term, because "best" is not really every nailed down.

My contention is that the Seahawks (IN BPA) are more willing to overweight the ceiling/potential of a player vs the standard team overweight on chances the player becomes a productive NFL player.

The Seahawks are more willing to fail in order to get a better chance at a great player. But this means a draft strategy to fill holes does not work, because you have to assume that some of the picks won't translate (that is your failure %).

For the Seahawks to immediately shift to trying to get the picks to translate to filling the hole immediately, they lose the advantage they had at getting a better player that pops, vs just a standard average production.

And it is pretty easy to see that, maybe a few years like 2012 where everyone made an NFL roster being the exception. Generally our success rate at the lower rounds is higher than league average, and our success rate in the early rounds is lower. But overall draft production is higher vs the league, visibly.

That could have changed since I last looked that #s, I mean the early rounds last year worked out fine - as a for instance, but that seemed to be the methodology they were using when we last looked over the data.

Is the argument that we have to fill holes so significant that we have to move away from what is clearly working? And then if so, what will the cost be in lost opportunities that translate to future football production?

 

[Schadie001]

Sounds like some are calling for a more coordinated effort to assure our draft picks are made to fill immediate holes in the roster.

That is not what made the Seahawks great.

The Seahawks don't draft Wilson when they have Flynn by that logic.

The Seahawks draft with the goal of getting the best chance at getting a very good to GREAT player. Not drafting to fill a hole or drafting to get the best chance someone sticks.

I ran the data a while ago but I think it is close, generally 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 draft picks work out and turn into high quality players. That assumes 1-2 years on-field play. Our 1st round does not hit as often as some of the better teams in the league, but our 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks do.

Last year, we actually had a substantially above the mean # of picks work out for us, so maybe that has changed - but generally even the 1st round pick isn't guarantee you get a keeper. What you do know, is the keepers tend to not just be productive but exceptional performers.

I don't see any reason to change what is working, unless you feel that the holes being created through attrition/loss are so significant we have to rely on the draft to fill them immediately. The danger is that by leaving the draft process that gave us advantages, we start focusing more on factors the typical team does (% makes a roster spot) and consequently get a more typical draft.

I don't believe the success is all due to a tremendous development program. We clearly find people that are worth the risk, take the risk on them, and when they work out we benefit. Leaving the risk off the table means walking away from a lot of that reward too.

How do you know the Flynn signing wasn't a hedge in case they missed out on Wilson whom they had already been eyeing? Flynn also had very little NFL experience, so while he was definitely viewed as a valid QB option he didn't have the job locked up or anything.

Team's don't want to miss out on a potential pro-bowler just because they don't have a "need" at the position, but at the same time you only have so many ways to fill a hole: FA (including UDFA), draft, and trades.

See the gaping holes we have on OL. The choice was between overpaying Sweezy/Okung/FA or filling 1 or 2 spots in the draft. They chose not to overpay a FA which means if they don't fix the OL in the draft then our only other chance is to sign a vet after cutdowns or trade for one.

If the Hawks don't draft OL because they were always #2 available on their big board when it's time to pick, that would be a mistake and a failure.

If a team has ZERO holes, it can afford to draft purely on BPA. When a team DOES have holes they need to incorporate that into their strategy otherwise they risk putting a terrible unit on the field.

With our cap situation we really can't afford NOT to draft for needs this year.

You are probably going to be very disappointed come draft day, because Seattle drafts plays who THEY have ranked very high regardless of their position. If you listen to Pete and John they aren't as concerned with our Oline as the 12's seem to be. Our line looked pretty much the same going into the draft last year if you take out Okung and we didn't go crazy and draft Oline. We pick guys who they feel will fit in to our schemes and even those who they believe are maybe good players but really good in one specific area that we can use...ala Bruce Irvin. All I'm saying as are a bunch of other people who have watched Seattle draft in the PC/JS era is we don't pick who everyone says we should or thinks we need, ever. See our draft grades after the last 4 drafts.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We signed cheap linemen that graded poorly. That isn't filling holes, it's just adding bodies in case we DON'T get some good linemen in the draft.

So what other part of the team would you like to decrease the cap commitment on in order to upgrade the O-line?

People think our O-line is a mistake, it's not. It's a calculated risk John and Pete have obviously decided to save money on by trusting Cable to make lemonade out of lemons in order to have a a nasty top tier defense.

Obviously that philosophy hasn't worked our perfectly, but if you're going to criticize the team's handling of drafting and acquiring FA's on the O-line, then you need to tell us what part of the team we can take from. Cause you can't have it both ways.

 

[hawk45]

We signed cheap linemen that graded poorly. That isn't filling holes, it's just adding bodies in case we DON'T get some good linemen in the draft.

So what other part of the team would you like to decrease the cap commitment on in order to upgrade the O-line?

People think our O-line is a mistake, it's not. It's a calculated risk John and Pete have obviously decided to save money on by trusting Cable to make lemonade out of lemons in order to have a a nasty top tier defense.

Obviously that philosophy hasn't worked our perfectly, but if you're going to criticize the team's handling of drafting and acquiring FA's on the O-line, then you need to tell us what part of the team we can take from. Cause you can't have it both ways.

Tight End.

Wilson with a tick more time throwing to the same WRs he lit it up with last year to me seems like it is more likely to result in better passing numbers than Wilson behind the same crap line zeroing in on a Graham who isn't as athletic as he was.

If they had resisted going after that shiny skill player in Harvin and Graham they would have had oceans of money for the OL compared to what they're spending on it now.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We signed cheap linemen that graded poorly. That isn't filling holes, it's just adding bodies in case we DON'T get some good linemen in the draft.

So what other part of the team would you like to decrease the cap commitment on in order to upgrade the O-line?

People think our O-line is a mistake, it's not. It's a calculated risk John and Pete have obviously decided to save money on by trusting Cable to make lemonade out of lemons in order to have a a nasty top tier defense.

Obviously that philosophy hasn't worked our perfectly, but if you're going to criticize the team's handling of drafting and acquiring FA's on the O-line, then you need to tell us what part of the team we can take from. Cause you can't have it both ways.

Tight End.

Wilson with a tick more time throwing to the same WRs he lit it up with last year to me seems like it is more likely to result in better passing numbers than Wilson behind the same crap line zeroing in on a Graham who isn't as athletic as he was.

If they had resisted going after that shiny skill player in Harvin and Graham they would have had oceans of money for the OL compared to what they're spending on it now.

Gimme one more year and I might be on your bandwagon. I need to see what a healthy Graham can do in his 2nd year before completely agreeing with you.

What I'd like to see us do is go after big Zach Miller blocking type TE in the middle rounds to develop so we don't need Graham next year..........then we can spend more on the O-line.

 

[Jimjones0384]

You don't need to pull money from other areas of the team if you draft well. Thanks to the cba, nfl teams don't have to break the bank on their first contracts. We need interior o line help badly. If we can draft a starting center and/or guard, our line might greatly improve right off the bat. If some stud player falls 20 spots to us in the first round, then we take him. But seeing how that won't happen, the interior o linemen that will be there at 26 are every bit as good as the other players that will be there. There may even be a tackle or two there that would work for the first round. There arent any can't miss guys in this draft, it's a roll of the dice. I personally believe ryan kelly is the best pick at 26. Would be nice to have an anchor like him for the next decade plus.

 

[vin.couve12]

Just trade all your draft picks away for the young up and comers and studs like my brother does in Madden. You only need to keep the roster minimum requirements.

 

[jammerhawk]

Drafting for need usually always works out poorly, or is expensive in terms of draft position. There are rare exceptions, but it usually always works out best to draft from positions of depth in the respective draft, and the Seahawks use of physical minimal parameters for respespective position seemingly is working to deliver players who can be superior in terms of physicality. For the most part however success in the draft is hard to predict and to achieve and having more picks to choose a team from works better than having fewer, simply having a larger sample size to work from.

Since Jn'P have been together it is easy to criticize their errors but they have built a solid team. They value athleticism, the ability to be positionally unique, but arguably physically superior and have their own draft values that are more team centric than perhaps some other teams. In short they perceive value different than many 'experts' leading to much confusion and confoundment from those folks. The experts, except for those who pay attention to this team, are still mostly not understanding the teams draft 'rules'.

Without a doubt the FO is not perfect but there is little doubt they have drafted considerably better than average by ignoring the noise n't and doing things their way by drafting players that improve the depth or improve the positons drafted based upon their view of their own team. It is clear as well the team is bigger, faster, stronger, and simply better than with any previous FO regime. It seems to me they don't regularly draft for immediate needs but rather focus upon improving competition within various positional groups. As well they seem to plan their positional needs for competitive depth by being observant of relative positional depth in drafts, draft to draft. However they are willing to swing for the fence when they target a player regardless of perceived value to outsiders.

Each year I find myself more and more pleased with their haul and often very surprised by some of their choices. The team just seems to be slowly improving and getting strongerand more genuinely competitive. It is starting to be easier to understand somewhat their methodology but is still hard to assess their comparative positional evaluations until after the fact. There are of course the odd exceptions and yet when the team says they intend to focus upon a positional group it happens and there is improvement.

I like the analysis we all do to understand positional parameters, i.e.: SPARQ, SLA, arm length, explosiveness, the TEF, strength, anchor, nastiness, playing success, and chip on the shoulder mentality. Clearly collectively the understanding increases of who the team may be interested in a measureables sense. They do like players who have the ability to be difference makers or superior athletes at their respective position or at a position the FO see as the best fit respectively for each player drafted, Mostly they want guys who will fit with what the team wants to do and players who will simply compete to make the whole better.

Whenever they are forced to draft for need they follow most of the rules above, but that is not frequent.