I don't see a "nice read" I see backhanded compliments. I see grudging concessions.
Let's just get it out in the open here. The Seahawks were hamstrung by one player. The salary cap demands that any given player must play at the level of his contract. The bigger the contract, the greater burden that player must carry. The Seahawks had a defense led by a Hall of Fame middle linebacker that was predictably worn out by halftime from incessant first half "three and outs". They spent too much time on the field, and over time, it incrementally soured the entire building's aura. The entire decade was a slow process of degradation despite the fact that the team was consistently winning games. Good enough to be in the hunt, but never good enough to get over the hump.
All of which inevitably led to......
For nearly an entire decade, the Seahawk organization consistently picked in the second half of the first round because they consistently won enough games to entrench them there. Further, you can't base a decade of player evaluation upon recency bias. Despite some failures (that EVERY team endures) and even when the top of the draft didn't pan out, there was a Chis Carson, or Poona Ford, or Damien Lewis, or Colby Parkinson drafted/acquired in later rounds that proved merit. In other words, players that were equal to their salary. The cap isn't big enough to have a star at every position. In the end, you have to have a roster comprised mostly of affordable players whose play is worth their contract, and this is an entirely different animal than merely declaring if a given player is "good" or "bad".
The root cause of the perception problem begins with the "instant analysis" folks that pass final judgment on a given player based entirely upon their rookie season. Or even worse, when a given pick doesn't align with some internet pundit's prediction before that player even arrives for his first camp. Which is followed by the "grass roots" message board campaign to call that pick a failure before the player even has a chance to prove himself.
The real truth is this. You cannot adequately evaluate a draft until at least two years afterwards. You can't fully evaluate a player until he has had at least two seasons under his belt. The common standard used to be three, but collective bargaining salary requirements combined with the salary cap have shortened that time span to two years. Players have to be thrown into the fire a year sooner than they were a couple decades ago because the veteran minimum salary escalations impact the "worth his contract" equation sooner. <edit added> In other words, a return on the initial investment must be realized before the collective bargaining agreement mandated four-year rookie contract has halfway expired. The net effect of this, however, has been a dilution to the overall quality of the game.
I despise cherry picked statistics from self-perceived "experts" that imply they could do so much better. Heck, even the very bright and rightfully respected Mike Mayak is discovering that this isn't an exact science. Put Mel Kiper in his place and you would see similar (likely worse) results. Take all of the fore mentioned points into consideration when you embark on this "nice read" written by a no name author for "USA TODAY" who happens to have zero credentials.
