Hawks "Reaching" to draft players. .NET Hot Topic

[seabowl]

Almost every year the day after the draft we come on this board to discuss and debate the Hawks reaching for a player they could have gotten later. Some defend the picks while others (like me) think the Hawks outsmart themselves by overdrafting a player they could have gotten later.

So now that the draft is over we hear the Hawks were contemplating taking Taylor (48 pick) with their first pick (27). If they had taken him at 27 the argument would have been as always but it's fact now that he lasted 21 picks later and likely more. My only hope is that the front office realizes that they value many of the players they select differently then most other organizations and they in many cases can get these same players later then they thought. Even with their annual trade down (other than this year) they IMO can move down even further to get their man.

 

[seabowl]

Just to add if they would have taken Taylor at 27, then the argument from those defending taking him in the first round would have said that "you don't know if another team was looking at him and don't know if he were going to be available even 1 pick later". Well there's you factual proof that he was available at least 21 picks later.

 

[Jville]

With all due respect, there is no master gauge or tool with which to compare front offices, media products / presentations or what individual fans visullize / model in their minds.

For me, it's not a hot topic so much as it is an annual exercise in second guessing. Second guessing that is driven by a confluence of a multitude of conflicted grading and ranking perspectives.

But, second guessing can be fun and entertaining. We just need to remember to keep conflicted perspectives civil.

 

[Teahawks]

I look at this like the stock market. Often times, the best stock pickers are no better than average, which led to the rise and continued prudent use of Index Funds.

To me, if the Hawks just took an Index Fund approach in the first round or so, and picked the best consensus player available, they'd probably have some superstars right now. I said in another thread my buddy and I selected TJ Watt and Nick Chubb the last two years, and here we are just two average joes and we could do that. Why did we take them? Well, because we're basically Indexing.

Now, the counter argument is, well, you wouldn't have had drafts like 2012 or found RW3, or, look at Aaron Curry he was the consensus pick!

True, but notice how that wild success only happened once, and it was 8 years ago now. That's like hitting on a stock. You got lucky. Now do the sensible thing, take your fair share of risk in the late rounders where the stakes aren't as high, these would be your homerun stocks..but not every pick like we do now.

 

[chihawk]

...but they didn't select Taylor in the 1st because they realized they didn't need to, and they could wait some and pick him later. That would indicate they did know the market/value. Yes, you don't know if he would have lasted a few more picks, or all the way down to their next regular pick.

I saw a couple of different Baltimore people say they thought Baltimore's LB board was Murray, Brooks, then Queen, but they liked all three.

So if Seahawks didn't pick him at 27, Baltimore very well would have picked him at 28.

 

[Ad Hawk]

I look at this like the stock market. Often times, the best stock pickers are no better than average, which led to the rise and continued prudent use of Index Funds.

To me, if the Hawks just took an Index Fund approach in the first round or so, and picked the best consensus player available, they'd probably have some superstars right now. I said in another thread my buddy and I selected TJ Watt and Nick Chubb the last two years, and here we are just two average joes and we could do that. Why did we take them? Well, because we're basically Indexing.

Now, the counter argument is, well, you wouldn't have had drafts like 2012 or found RW3, or, look at Aaron Curry he was the consensus pick!

True, but notice how that wild success only happened once, and it was 8 years ago now. That's like hitting on a stock. You got lucky. Now do the sensible thing, take your fair share of risk in the late rounders where the stakes aren't as high, these would be your homerun stocks..but not every pick like we do now.

Except that's exactly what JS and PC said they did in picking Brooks, Taylor, and Lewis. They took the best player available for a chosen skill-set and position. The difference is what skiils you're looking at vs. them.

 

[seabowl]

Look we all know it's a guessing game as to who wants to pick who. With that said The last 4-5 years they almost are always picking someone higher (especially in the top rounds) then most others expect. My point was if the Hawks are truly evaluating players differently then most (by the picks they have made they are evaluating differently) then they need not freak and overdraft players when it's likely you can get them later. Examples:

Irvin- good career, was the first I can remember they took early and "shocked" the draft world
McDowell- somewhat surprising
Penny- surprising to most if not all
Collier- surprising again
Brooks- surprising again

Again, I am not complaining about the picks, just rather where in the draft they are selecting them.

 

[Chukarhawk]

look, its obvious they wanted Taylor all along. they traded back up to get him. This is the guy they wanted. lets see if they are right. they aren't reaches if they are already on your board and they are the guys you want. time will tell. were still trying to find out if last years draft was any good. this year we'll have a pretty good idea.

 

[KinesProf]

The public referring to draft picks as reaches will always be a fool's errand. Us, bloggers, draft pundits etc etc really have no idea and aren't privy to what a player's true value is. Only the teams truly know how a player was graded.

The public thought Josh Jones was a late 1-mid 2, Damon Arnette a 2-3, Prince Tega a 2-3, Hunter Bryant and Thad Moss mid rounders etc etc.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

How do you know all our draft picks are reaches when you haven't seen them play, or how they fit into our schemes and roster?

Did everyone think Metcalf was a reach? How bout Tyler Lockett? How bout Shaquill Griffin? Will Dissly? Carson? Britt? Dickson?

You've got one thing right, every year people think we reach, and every year some of the players prove them wrong, and some prove them right............whatever "reach" means.

It's called the NFL draft, it's not a perfect science. The teams that draft well win, the teams that don't, don't. I'd say a being a perennial playoff team having gone to two SB's, winning one says that Pete and John know what they're doing most of the time in the draft.

 

[Teahawks]

I look at this like the stock market. Often times, the best stock pickers are no better than average, which led to the rise and continued prudent use of Index Funds.

To me, if the Hawks just took an Index Fund approach in the first round or so, and picked the best consensus player available, they'd probably have some superstars right now. I said in another thread my buddy and I selected TJ Watt and Nick Chubb the last two years, and here we are just two average joes and we could do that. Why did we take them? Well, because we're basically Indexing.

Now, the counter argument is, well, you wouldn't have had drafts like 2012 or found RW3, or, look at Aaron Curry he was the consensus pick!

True, but notice how that wild success only happened once, and it was 8 years ago now. That's like hitting on a stock. You got lucky. Now do the sensible thing, take your fair share of risk in the late rounders where the stakes aren't as high, these would be your homerun stocks..but not every pick like we do now.

Except that's exactly what JS and PC said they did in picking Brooks, Taylor, and Lewis. They took the best player available for a chosen skill-set and position. The difference is what skiils you're looking at vs. them.

Not what I'm looking for, I'm talking consensus top picks, not their unique evaluations. Last year would have been probably Montez Sweat over LJ Collier, for instance.


I also think they should do this with clock management. Like, the "ask Madden" button. If it's third and inches, run the ball type of decisions. Obvious, common sense decisions that experts trick themselves out of doing, getting cute.

I truly wonder if the Hawks had autodrafted the last few years how it would have turned out. While our mock draft did produce TJ Watt and Nick Chubb, it also produced Ifedi, so it's not perfect, but it's still better on average than what their picks have been since 2012.

 

[nwHawk]

I like to think of it this way, they invest a ton of time, resources and money to identify players that fit what they want. Skills, attitude and ceiling. Sometimes the hit, and no team hits everytime.

When they draft a guy 5 or 10 spots early, does it really matter? If you want a guy, go get him. If you try to get cute and maximize every trade down another team will jump up a few spots and swipe your guy. Plus, when you go get that guy by either trading up or taking him early the player feels wanted and wants to ball out.

 

[tersal]

The public referring to draft picks as reaches will always be a fool's errand. Us, bloggers, draft pundits etc etc really have no idea and aren't privy to what a player's true value is. Only the teams truly know how a player was graded.

The public thought Josh Jones was a late 1-mid 2, Damon Arnette a 2-3, Prince Tega a 2-3, Hunter Bryant and Thad Moss mid rounders etc etc.

 

[AgentDib]

In my opinion part of this is due to how successfully the Hawks manage to hold their private information. Consider that just a month ago, well after the combine and every bit of tape had been collected, Robert Hunt was a 5th round pick on most mock draft sites. However, he started steadily rising every week. Why? Because the few mock drafters with connections had managed to talk to some scouts, and Hunt was mentioned as a player that they were underrating.

If the Hawks cared about what mock drafters thought, it would be easy to leak their interest in some of their guys so that they shot up the boards as well. If a Seahawks scout told Kiper that they had Darrell Taylor as their 20th best player then Kiper would have moved him way up as a result. Look at all the reports in the week leading up the draft about player X really rising due to anonymous interest. However, the Hawks have clearly done an excellent job preventing leaks from inside the FO (draft targets, McDowell situation, Harvin trade) and so the result is the mock drafters are often surprised by who we like. I don't see that as a negative.

I look at this like the stock market. Often times, the best stock pickers are no better than average, which led to the rise and continued prudent use of Index Funds.

The difference is information. The Seahawks have an enormous amount of inside information here compared to the typical mock consensus. Brooks was a player coming off a major injury who didn't test at the combine, but the Seahawks had the opportunity to have their own medical staff evaluate him twice. If I am making a mock draft as a member of the public I have no idea what those results are, so inherently I am at a major disadvantage. Taking 100 analyses with poor information and averaging them together is not better than using one with good inside information.

 

[seabowl]

Part of drafting well is anticipating what others will be doing. Do you really think that Bruce Irvin, Collier, Penny etc.. were rated as highly on other teams boards as the Hawks. I'm just not buying it. Irvin and Collier IMO in particular were waaay overdrafted. Yes I remember reports that Cleveland was interested in Penny too but overall I think we can play the draft better. Someone mentioned so what if they draft someone 5-10 slots higher then they should? Big capital can be gotten for even trading down a few slots in the high rounds.

Look JS/PC are going to draft the players they want. It's just using the draft to their advantage that I have some issue with.

 

[DJrmb]

Bruce Irvin was going to go at 16 (one pick after Seattle) if they hadn't taken him.

After they took Irvin 15th overall, the Seahawks received a call from New York Jets headquarters. The Jets "good-naturedly" cursed at the Seahawks for taking the guy they planned to draft one pick later

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...-cursed-out-seahawks-for-drafting-bruce-irvin

This can be done with just about all of the guys you list as "reaches". The only reason this is a hot topic is because every year you guys bring up the same stuff which has already been proven wrong. If the guy Seattle drafted was going to be drafted by the next team to pick after them how can you call that a reach?

Penny was going in the 1st round as well. There were reports that a team similarly called the Seahawks after they picked him and even offered to trade for him (thought to be NE)... Not a reach.

McDowell was considered a consensus top 15 talent, and was mocked in the 20's before the draft. Not a reach.

The only real reach was Collier. The team even basically admitted it saying they weren't expecting the draft to go the way it did and they had to take him because there was a drop off after him.

 

[Teahawks]

I'm not saying the public holds a candle to JS/PC. Just because mine and other mocks picked pro bowlers the last few years just based on consensus lists, a monkey could have done it. I understand that the public knows less, and that on average most draft picks never turn into superstars.

But it's not about mock drafts or the public. It's about results, and frankly, in the upper rounds, they're not great, and that's a fact. Look, if you're passing up great players several years in a row who were available all around the spots you were picking, to me that says something about talent eval.

It certainly works out well in the mid and later rounds, arguably they're the best in the biz there. But the first few? Yikes.

 

[tersal]

The public referring to draft picks as reaches will always be a fool's errand. Us, bloggers, draft pundits etc etc really have no idea and aren't privy to what a player's true value is. Only the teams truly know how a player was graded.

The public thought Josh Jones was a late 1-mid 2, Damon Arnette a 2-3, Prince Tega a 2-3, Hunter Bryant and Thad Moss mid rounders etc etc.

Thank you KinesProf. Words of Wisdom!

May I add there is something called coaching and player development. Teams also draft on what they think a player can become. This year was unusual the Hawks liked Taylor due to having him visit something they could not do with others.
After interviewing they believe they can mold him into a productive NFL pass rusher. The College production and athleticism are there we will see.

Finally, an example Joe Burrow LSU added a new position coach Joe Brady and burrow becomes the draft's number one pick. JoeBurrow was not considered a day one pick the year before. Coaching and system.

 

[Maelstrom787]

If Darrell had been selected at 27, I'd be more receptive to posts calling it a "reach."

But Jordyn Brooks wasn't a reach, if that's what is being implied. He was almost certainly gone by 33, either to Baltimore or Cincinnati.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I like to think of it this way, they invest a ton of time, resources and money to identify players that fit what they want. Skills, attitude and ceiling. Sometimes the hit, and no team hits everytime.

When they draft a guy 5 or 10 spots early, does it really matter? If you want a guy, go get him. If you try to get cute and maximize every trade down another team will jump up a few spots and swipe your guy. Plus, when you go get that guy by either trading up or taking him early the player feels wanted and wants to ball out.

One question. Do you think they are looking at whether the person has reached his ceiling or whether he is still on baseline and has a lot of room to reach his ceiling?

I believe they look at measureables and see if there is proof in his resume that he has potential to improve. His resume is his college effort and what he has done on the training and the field.

Just curious.