How would you grade the Seahawks 2015 draft?

[MontanaHawk05]

I like the players we grabbed well enough, but I'm not thrilled with the Return On Investment. We came in with 11 picks, most of them in the middle rounds -- that's a ton of draft capital. Could we have still gotten Clark and Lockett and kept maybe an additional 4th, if not more?

Only on this forum do fans of a Super Bowl contender worry about a 4th-round pick.

 

[kidhawk]

I'm fairly satisfied with out picks. They went after players in positions we needed to fill. Before the draft, I asked for Offensive Line, Defensive Line, Defensive Back and receiver and that is pretty much what we got. How the talent plays out is yet to be seen, but I trust JS/PC to know better than I which players fit their schemes. I can't wait to see how they pan out come August.

 

[TheRealDTM]

:thirishdrinkers:

Once again players are good and obviously guys they like. Once again I think they completely mismanaged draft capital.

C+

Why do you think they mismanaged draft capital?

He has a staff that watches every snap of every player and he knows what Pete Carroll and John Schneider need more than Pete Carroll and John Schneider do. He also has access to every draft board in the NFL so he knows when and where to draft every player. He has interviewed every player that is eligible to draft. His staff has talked to every coach and teacher that the player has ever had to determine his character like Pete and his staff has. He's just better at everything than Pete and his staff. He was Paul Allen's first choice to hire, but Paul Allen couldn't afford him. He can also win the lottery jackpot any time he wants.

I am his PR rep and I do it for free because he is the only perfect man in the World.

nailed it, A+ grade.

 

[DavidSeven]

I like the players we grabbed well enough, but I'm not thrilled with the Return On Investment. We came in with 11 picks, most of them in the middle rounds -- that's a ton of draft capital. Could we have still gotten Clark and Lockett and kept maybe an additional 4th, if not more?

Only on this forum do fans of a Super Bowl contender worry about a 4th-round pick.

Our front office's historic ability unearth gems in the 4th and 5th rounds definitely plays a big factor in my disappointment in letting those picks go! Wouldn't care as much under the Ruskell regime where those picks would go to waste anyway.

 

[ducks41468]

I'd give it a B/B+, and a solid A if you include Graham. I like the Clark/Poole/Glowinski/Smith/Sokoli picks. My only real complaint is what we gave up to get Lockett, though I like him and think he has the talent to become a starter on this team within a year or two.

 

[AgentDib]

The total cost of the Tyler Lockett acquisition was equal to the 7th pick in the third round according to the traditional chart. #95, #112, #167, #181 = 233.6 points.

The number of picks makes it seem like a big investment but it is really less of an investment than any of the first and second rounders we have drafted previously.

 

[hawknation2015]

The total cost of the Tyler Lockett acquisition was equal to the 7th pick in the third round according to the traditional chart. #95, #112, #167, #181 = 233.6 points.

The number of picks makes it seem like a big investment but it is really less of an investment than any of the first and second rounders we have drafted previously.

The traditional value chart is junk . . . it's why we are almost always looking to trade down for more picks. Every player has a probability of success. More picks means more opportunities, which means a higher overall probability of finding successful players.

 

[xgeoff]

Poole kind of seemed like a whiff to me, but also seemed like a guy you could maybe coach into being another James Carpenter if we get lucky.

Ugh, that is not a good thing

 

[rideaducati]

The total cost of the Tyler Lockett acquisition was equal to the 7th pick in the third round according to the traditional chart. #95, #112, #167, #181 = 233.6 points.

The number of picks makes it seem like a big investment but it is really less of an investment than any of the first and second rounders we have drafted previously.

The traditional value chart is junk . . . it's why we are almost always looking to trade down for more picks. Every player has a probability of success. More picks means more opportunities, which means a higher overall probability of finding successful players.

That is how Baalke does it, but quantity does not guarantee quality. Just look at the forty picks Baalke has made in the past three years.

When a team wants a guy, why risk losing him just to keep extra picks to pick guys that probably won't make the team anyway? They got their guy and were comfortable with what they gave up to get him. It's not like they gave up first round picks for the next three drafts.

 

[hawknation2015]

The total cost of the Tyler Lockett acquisition was equal to the 7th pick in the third round according to the traditional chart. #95, #112, #167, #181 = 233.6 points.

The number of picks makes it seem like a big investment but it is really less of an investment than any of the first and second rounders we have drafted previously.

The traditional value chart is junk . . . it's why we are almost always looking to trade down for more picks. Every player has a probability of success. More picks means more opportunities, which means a higher overall probability of finding successful players.

That is how Baalke does it, but quantity does not guarantee quality. Just look at the forty picks Baalke has made in the past three years.

When a team wants a guy, why risk losing him just to keep extra picks to pick guys that probably won't make the team anyway? They got their guy and were comfortable with what they gave up to get him. It's not like they gave up first round picks for the next three drafts.

Baalke's worst draft, in 2012, had just seven players. Fortunately, we haven't had a draft with just seven players since the Aaron Curry draft.

I do feel there was a significant opportunity cost in not selecting Lockett at No. 63 and waiting until No. 95 to pick Clark. People think Clark would have been selected in the 3rd Round . . . I just disagree given his two arrests, his mere five sacks last season, and 4.79 40 time. And if Clark was selected, I would have been more than happy with Trey Flowers or Davis Tull. It ultimately meant three fewer chances to find another elite player.

 

[rideaducati]

The total cost of the Tyler Lockett acquisition was equal to the 7th pick in the third round according to the traditional chart. #95, #112, #167, #181 = 233.6 points.

The number of picks makes it seem like a big investment but it is really less of an investment than any of the first and second rounders we have drafted previously.

The traditional value chart is junk . . . it's why we are almost always looking to trade down for more picks. Every player has a probability of success. More picks means more opportunities, which means a higher overall probability of finding successful players.

That is how Baalke does it, but quantity does not guarantee quality. Just look at the forty picks Baalke has made in the past three years.

When a team wants a guy, why risk losing him just to keep extra picks to pick guys that probably won't make the team anyway? They got their guy and were comfortable with what they gave up to get him. It's not like they gave up first round picks for the next three drafts.

Baalke's worst draft, in 2012, had just seven players. Fortunately, we haven't had a draft with just seven players since the Aaron Curry draft.

I do feel there was a significant opportunity cost in not selecting Lockett at No. 63 and waiting until No. 95 to pick Clark. It ultimately means three fewer chances to find another elite player.

It could also have meant not getting either player they specifically targeted.

 

[hawknation2015]

Baalke's worst draft, in 2012, had just seven players. Fortunately, we haven't had a draft with just seven players since the Aaron Curry draft.

I do feel there was a significant opportunity cost in not selecting Lockett at No. 63 and waiting until No. 95 to pick Clark. It ultimately means three fewer chances to find another elite player.

It could also have meant not getting either player they specifically targeted.

What do you mean not getting either? Lockett was available at No. 63.

I don't think Clark would have been selected in the 3rd Round . . . I just disagree with that assumption given his two arrests, his mere five sacks last season, and 4.79 40 time. And if Clark was selected, I would have been more than happy to get Trey Flowers or Davis Tull.

Ultimately, I just don't believe the risk of losing Clark (in exchange for someone like Flowers or Tull) was worth giving up three more players in the draft.

 

[rideaducati]

Baalke's worst draft, in 2012, had just seven players. Fortunately, we haven't had a draft with just seven players since the Aaron Curry draft.

I do feel there was a significant opportunity cost in not selecting Lockett at No. 63 and waiting until No. 95 to pick Clark. It ultimately means three fewer chances to find another elite player.

It could also have meant not getting either player they specifically targeted.

What do you mean not getting either? Lockett was available at No. 63.

I don't think Clark would have been selected in the 3rd Round . . . I just disagree with that assumption given his two arrests, his mere five sacks last season, and 4.79 40 time. And if Clark was selected, I would have been more than happy to get Trey Flowers or Davis Tull.

Ultimately, I just don't believe the risk of losing Clark (in exchange for someone like Flowers or Tull) was worth giving up three more players in the draft.

They didn't do it that way because then some idiot would say something along the lines of "why the hell would you take Lockett at 63? He would have been available later and they should have taken Clark!" "Why can't the Seahawks front office figure out that the draft was really deep at wide receiver? They let a really good DE get away."

 

[hawknation2015]

Baalke's worst draft, in 2012, had just seven players. Fortunately, we haven't had a draft with just seven players since the Aaron Curry draft.

I do feel there was a significant opportunity cost in not selecting Lockett at No. 63 and waiting until No. 95 to pick Clark. It ultimately means three fewer chances to find another elite player.

It could also have meant not getting either player they specifically targeted.

What do you mean not getting either? Lockett was available at No. 63.

I don't think Clark would have been selected in the 3rd Round . . . I just disagree with that assumption given his two arrests, his mere five sacks last season, and 4.79 40 time. And if Clark was selected, I would have been more than happy to get Trey Flowers or Davis Tull.

Ultimately, I just don't believe the risk of losing Clark (in exchange for someone like Flowers or Tull) was worth giving up three more players in the draft.

They didn't do it that way because then some idiot would say something along the lines of "why the hell would you take Lockett at 63? He would have been available later and they should have taken Clark!" "Why can't the Seahawks front office figure out that the draft was really deep at wide receiver? They let a really good DE get away."

They have shown pretty consistently that they don't care what reactions they get from their draft decisions. Lockett was almost certain to be gone by the middle half of the 3rd Round; they knew Houston wanted him. Clark, on the other hand, had some serious hangups that probably would have made him available at No. 95. It was a genuine tradeoff between giving up three picks and risking that Clark would be taken somewhere in the 3rd Round. Personally, I don't think they made the right tradeoff, but you are free to disagree.

 

[rideaducati]

They didn't do it that way because then some idiot would say something along the lines of "why the hell would you take Lockett at 63? He would have been available later and they should have taken Clark!" "Why can't the Seahawks front office figure out that the draft was really deep at wide receiver? They let a really good DE get away."

They have shown pretty consistently that they don't care what reactions they get from their draft decisions. Lockett was almost certain to be gone by the middle half of the 3rd Round; they knew Houston wanted him. Clark, on the other hand, had some serious hangups that probably would have made him available at No. 95. It was a genuine tradeoff between giving up three picks and risking that Clark would be taken somewhere in the 3rd Round. Personally, I don't think they made the right tradeoff, but you are free to disagree.

So, they KNEW someone wanted Lockett, but they had no idea if anyone liked Clark? They only did their homework for picks after the second round? Okay. I'm sure you're right. Besides bitching and moaning, what can you do about it now?

 

[hawknation2015]

They didn't do it that way because then some idiot would say something along the lines of "why the hell would you take Lockett at 63? He would have been available later and they should have taken Clark!" "Why can't the Seahawks front office figure out that the draft was really deep at wide receiver? They let a really good DE get away."

They have shown pretty consistently that they don't care what reactions they get from their draft decisions. Lockett was almost certain to be gone by the middle half of the 3rd Round; they knew Houston wanted him. Clark, on the other hand, had some serious hangups that probably would have made him available at No. 95. It was a genuine tradeoff between giving up three picks and risking that Clark would be taken somewhere in the 3rd Round. Personally, I don't think they made the right tradeoff, but you are free to disagree.

So, they KNEW someone wanted Lockett, but they had no idea if anyone liked Clark? They only did their homework for picks after the second round? Okay. I'm sure you're right. Besides bitching and moaning, what can you do about it now?

Absolutely nothing, just stating my opinion. I think they tend to lock on to certain players at times, picking those specific players ahead of what I personally think are better players, i.e. trading down and picking Richardson last year when they could have had Bitonio.

Schneider knew a team was about to pick Lockett, but in comparison, his understanding of teams' interest in Clark around that range was sort of "vague." He thought there was a big drop-off in pass rushers after Clark, so it was a risk in that regard if Clark was picked before No. 95.

 

[rideaducati]

They didn't do it that way because then some idiot would say something along the lines of "why the hell would you take Lockett at 63? He would have been available later and they should have taken Clark!" "Why can't the Seahawks front office figure out that the draft was really deep at wide receiver? They let a really good DE get away."

They have shown pretty consistently that they don't care what reactions they get from their draft decisions. Lockett was almost certain to be gone by the middle half of the 3rd Round; they knew Houston wanted him. Clark, on the other hand, had some serious hangups that probably would have made him available at No. 95. It was a genuine tradeoff between giving up three picks and risking that Clark would be taken somewhere in the 3rd Round. Personally, I don't think they made the right tradeoff, but you are free to disagree.

So, they KNEW someone wanted Lockett, but they had no idea if anyone liked Clark? They only did their homework for picks after the second round? Okay. I'm sure you're right. Besides bitching and moaning, what can you do about it now?

Absolutely nothing, just stating my opinion. I think they tend to lock on to certain players at times, picking those specific players ahead of what I personally think are better players, i.e. trading down and picking Richardson last year when they could have had Bitonio.

Schneider knew a team was about to pick Lockett, but in comparison, his understanding of teams' interest in Clark around that range was sort of "vague." He thought there was a big drop-off in pass rushers after Clark, so it was a risk in that regard if Clark was picked before No. 95.

If you understand teams' interest in players so much better than the Seahawks front office, why don't you offer them your services? If you are so much better at it than they are, I'm sure you should be paid.

 

[hawknation2015]

Absolutely nothing, just stating my opinion. I think they tend to lock on to certain players at times, picking those specific players ahead of what I personally think are better players, i.e. trading down and picking Richardson last year when they could have had Bitonio.

Schneider knew a team was about to pick Lockett, but in comparison, his understanding of teams' interest in Clark around that range was sort of "vague." He thought there was a big drop-off in pass rushers after Clark, so it was a risk in that regard if Clark was picked before No. 95.

If you understand teams' interest in players so much better than the Seahawks front office, why don't you offer them your services? If you are so much better at it than they are, I'm sure you should be paid.

No reason to be snide with one another. If we all agreed with everything the team did, there wouldn't be much need for this message board. Picking Clark as high as they did was a legit trade off that ultimately cost them three picks, but also eliminated the risk that they wouldn't get Clark. You think it was a good trade off, and I disagree. Let's leave it at that and move on.

 

[rideaducati]

Absolutely nothing, just stating my opinion. I think they tend to lock on to certain players at times, picking those specific players ahead of what I personally think are better players, i.e. trading down and picking Richardson last year when they could have had Bitonio.

Schneider knew a team was about to pick Lockett, but in comparison, his understanding of teams' interest in Clark around that range was sort of "vague." He thought there was a big drop-off in pass rushers after Clark, so it was a risk in that regard if Clark was picked before No. 95.

If you understand teams' interest in players so much better than the Seahawks front office, why don't you offer them your services? If you are so much better at it than they are, I'm sure you should be paid.

No reason to be snide with one another. If we all agreed with everything the team did, there wouldn't be much need for this message board. Picking Clark as high as they did was a legit trade off that ultimately cost them three picks, but also eliminated the risk that they wouldn't get Clark. You think it was a good trade off, and I disagree. Let's leave it at that and move on.

I just think it is amusing that YOU know more about the draft than a man that puts THOUSANDS of hours each year into the draft. Not only that, but he has many people working for him that also put THOUSANDS of hours into scouting for him. He also has people that interview coaches and teachers all the way back to middle school for some of these players. He speaks to general managers across the league on a daily basis, yet YOU know more about what other teams have in mind when it comes to the draft.

That would be like me stating that I know your job better than you know your job. I probably DO know your job better than you know it because for you to know so much about the draft and all the players in it, you certainly don't have time left to do your job.

 

[hawknation2015]

Absolutely nothing, just stating my opinion. I think they tend to lock on to certain players at times, picking those specific players ahead of what I personally think are better players, i.e. trading down and picking Richardson last year when they could have had Bitonio.

Schneider knew a team was about to pick Lockett, but in comparison, his understanding of teams' interest in Clark around that range was sort of "vague." He thought there was a big drop-off in pass rushers after Clark, so it was a risk in that regard if Clark was picked before No. 95.

If you understand teams' interest in players so much better than the Seahawks front office, why don't you offer them your services? If you are so much better at it than they are, I'm sure you should be paid.

No reason to be snide with one another. If we all agreed with everything the team did, there wouldn't be much need for this message board. Picking Clark as high as they did was a legit trade off that ultimately cost them three picks, but also eliminated the risk that they wouldn't get Clark. You think it was a good trade off, and I disagree. Let's leave it at that and move on.

I just think it is amusing that YOU know more about the draft than a man that puts THOUSANDS of hours each year into the draft. Not only that, but he has many people working for him that also put THOUSANDS of hours into scouting for him. He also has people that interview coaches and teachers all the way back to middle school for some of these players. He speaks to general managers across the league on a daily basis, yet YOU know more about what other teams have in mind when it comes to the draft.

That would be like me stating that I know your job better than you know your job. I probably DO know your job better than you know it because for you to know so much about the draft and all the players in it, you certainly don't have time left to do your job.

This is such a tired refrain every time someone has the audacity to disagree with a team decision. Not every decision Schneider makes is going to be 100% perfect 100% of the time. That doesn't mean anyone else knows better; it just means they disagree on the particular approach that was taken.

There are always tradeoffs with all of these decisions . . . and I don't trust anyone more than Schneider to navigate the process. Just like I wouldn't want anyone except Carroll as HC. Does that mean Carroll is perfect in everything he does and totally immune to criticism? You would have to be pretty mindless to think so.

You must think it also wrong to ever form an opinion on a political issue, since you lack the time and resources of a politician. What a narrow mindset that must be.