New seven round Seahawks mock draft

[Recon_Hawk]

English, I get why it makes sense to you. We just have some differing opinions.

First, I think the contract signed by Lynch is basically a two year deal with a team 3rd year option. The $5 million cap hit in year 2 is way to high to just cut him (barring any major injury) and the $11.5 salary is to high for Lynch to walk away from. It's true he's threaten to retire, but that's been as much about a new contract as it's anything else. For Lynch, it's about respect and his latest deal is among the highest in the league. He should be much happier than before.

Second, I do think finding Lynch's replacement this year is being over prepared. Yes, it will be vital to find a running back who can be an every down guy, but historically it's one of the easiest positions to replace and can be found throughout the draft. Spending a late rd draft pick on a RB they like (as they did with Spencer Ware) makes more sense to me.

Lastly, if by some chance Lynch does retire and they don't re-sign Turbin, they start the 2016 year with Cmike and a RB from this class who both will have limited snaps, if any at all. How are they any closer to finding Lynch's replacement in that case? I'll say this again - They will have no idea that this new RB is a possible starter or a Turbin replacement because he won't get any playing time. They are just as well off spending a high pick in 2016 (which historically could easily be the best the #1 RB in the draft) and have 4 years on his contract left.

 

[nanomoz]

I'd be shocked if Seattle didn't work hard to come away with Coates. He is a unique talent, looking about 4 inches taller and 30 lbs heavier when he closes to the ball or initiates contact after the catch. His flaws are troubling but coachable, and Seattle has shown patience with drops for players that can stretch the field.

That said, I really prefer Devin Smith.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Second, I do think finding Lynch's replacement this year is being over prepared.

Lastly, if by some chance Lynch does retire and they don't re-sign Turbin, they start the 2016 year with Cmike and a RB from this class who both will have limited snaps, if any at all. How are they any closer to finding Lynch's replacement in that case? I'll say this again - They will have no idea that this new RB is a possible starter or a Turbin replacement because he won't get any playing time. They are just as well off spending a high pick in 2016 (which historically could easily be the best the #1 RB in the draft) and have 4 years on his contract left.

Firstly, I'm the one arguing it's being over prepared. There's nothing wrong with that. They drafted Christine Michael two years ago to potentially replace Lynch. Now he's potentially a year away from the end we're saying 'no they're not going to draft a stash'? That suggestion is the only thing that doesn't make sense.

Secondly, why does it matter if you have a running back without loads of snaps? When has that ever been necessary? I mean, you want to wait until next year to draft a guy if Turbin and Lynch depart. That's the same situation! You're saying they could spend a high pick in 2016. Why would you want to HAVE to do that? What if it's a bad class? Are you going to force the issue when you might have to replace Okung? Or Mebane? Or Cary Williams?

You're kind of missing the entire point. If you see a mid-round running back you really like in this class who can potentially replace Lynch, you might as well take the guy. The worst case scenario is he replaces Turbin next year as the primary backup. It doesn't matter if he doesn't take any snaps this year. They took Christine Michael in round two in 2013 and he's done barely anything for two years (and it'll be three this year if he makes the team). Whatever happens you're prepared to a.) replace Lynch b.) replace Turbin. And if Lynch does retire you've at the very least not forced yourself into a corner in the 2016 draft.

It's a late third rounder. It's not a first round pick. The Seahawks drafted Turbin in the early fourth round to be a backup and yet it doesn't make sense to draft his probable replacement in the late third because it's not an absolute need right now?

I can accept the suggestion that Davis isn't good enough or that you don't like the player. I can't accept that it doesn't make sense to do some forward planning here.

 

[Largent80]

All the picks make sense, but for me I see us needing left side of the 0-line. Okung has 1 year left on his deal, Bailey isn't an automatic plug in at LG. Drafting for the future at LT would be a smart move IMO, also a G/C.

WR is obviously a need as is CB in spite of the FA signing. We also lost J.Johnson, so the depth there has taken another hit. Actually in 2 years we have lost 5 DB's.

 

[penihawk]

Still makes no sense.

Basically drafting a RB high is saying Seattle is planning on the worse case scenario where 1. Lynch retires. 2. Cmike isn't a viable contributor. 3. They don't re-sign Turbin.

Just my feeling but Seattle's not extending lynch 3 years unless they feel he's willing to play for at least two more years. If that's the case they don't also think they need to draft a RB who will see zero snaps during the regular season and put them into a situation in 2016 where they know nothing more about the guy then they do right now.

Cause that's the truth. They won't know if he's a starter possible because he won't get the carries to prove anything. He could be a Turbin replacement or just another Cmike stay on the bench guy.

I'm not sure why you're struggling to grasp why it makes sense.

Lynch's deal is essentially a year by year contract. He's threatened to retire for two consecutive years. He might play for the full three, but his cap hit this year is $8.5m and it grows rapidly to $11.5m and then $12.5m the next two years. That to me does not look like the structure of a contract that says Seattle expects he'll be here long term, especially when the Russell Wilson cap hits (and Bobby Wagner's, Richard Sherman's, Earl Thomas') are all set to grow annually. I think they're willing to work around Lynch if he wants to play, but the deal suggests they were able to give him some nice up front cash while knowing they won't necessarily face league-leading cap hits for a running back when they have to pay so many other key players major money.

Then you factor in how vital Lynch is to the team. Replacing him, whether it's for 2016 or whenever, is going to be the hardest thing PC and JS have to deal with. This isn't something you do on a whim. "Oh Lynch is retiring? Better look at running backs this year then." You can't over-prepare for this eventuality. If Lynch quits after 2015 you have one contracted running back on the roster. One. And that guy is a second round pick who in two years with the team hasn't even been trusted to be the #2 back. So to be optimistic on Christine Michael's future with the team is to take a giant leap of faith.

If you see a running back in this class you really like with starter potential, from Seattle's point of view it makes perfect sense to stash them. That way in 2016 you have a better competition if Lynch retires and the worst case scenario is you have Turbin's cheap replacement already on the roster. It's clear they're willing to take this approach because they drafted Michael for the future. They didn't spend that 2013 second round pick expecting an immediate impact because they had Lynch. Spending a third round pick when Lynch is closer to the finish line now doesn't make sense? Come on.

Why Davis? Well, he protects well, he's a good pass catcher and he can be a physical runner. That's basically Turbin's skill set. Replacing Turbin (fourth rounder) with Davis (late third rounder) is not a bad transition in terms of cost. Plus however long Lynch is going to play on for he's likely to be increasingly spelled. So Davis would get his opportunities.

They're clearly intrigued by him. They brought Michael in for a visit and drafted him in round two. What if they similarly like Davis? For me it's a projection built on good foundations even if you don't like the player (personally I'm not a big Mike Davis fan).

Doesn't mean it'll happen. But it certainly makes sense.

The only way I can justify spending a 2nd or 3rd on a rb is if it was for a back that we don't currently have on the roster. Ameer Abdulah

The Seahawks don't use backs like that. They like physical, tough runners with plus athleticism. You don't need to deviate from that, especially with the realistic prospect of only having Michael contracted in 2016.

LOL! OK please put on the tape where Turbin and CMike fit that description?

I guess I just look at this team a little bit different on this one and hope that we don't get mired down the next five years looking for Lynch2. That guy don't exist and quite frankly I believe this offense must slowly morph into something a little different than what it is currently to keep playing in Feb. imo.

As for the stashing players, I get the point of the mock exercise here but I just think for me and most here M. Davis is pretty underwhelming to say the least. Thats what makes all this fun to pay attention to is the fact everyone sees the team and our needs a bit different. In the end it really doesn't matter what we think.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

I'm not against finding a Lynch replacement and you're right, a late 3rd rd pick isn't early and I have been missing the point somewhat of this hypothetical scenario. I guess I just don't see this playing out, that is that Lynch's replacement is there at the end of the 3rd rd and is not instead just another decent backup.

That's the more likely result and with that opinion I still wouldn't want to spend a mid round pick on a RB this year who may but probably won't be Lynch's replacement.

At least by waiting till next year they would know if Lynch is retiring. They would know if they want to re-sign Turbin or not. They would have a 3rd year to further figure out Cmike. They could spend a higher pick on a player with the better chance of being the lead back.

That's a bit different then playing the what-if scenario.

To answer why I think it matter to have a running back who is seeing snaps. Cmike is the answer. We're talking about replacing Lynch because none of us know what they have in Cmike because he's barely seen the field after two years. Draft a RB this year and we could be saying the same thing about him.

If we're talking worse case scenario (if I can call it that) imo it's that Lynch plays the next two years (great!) and Cmike deservingly moves into the backup role (great!). That would mean the RB they draft this year isn't a Turbin replacement then, but a Cmike replacement - a #3 RB who rides the bench the next 2 years without any real snaps and in 2017 we're discussing the same thing we are today of who to draft to play ahead of the guy who hasn't seen the field.

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

IIRC, Punt returner Walters was ranked middle of the pack last year (#17 of 32?) with an average punt return of something like 7.1 yards per return. I also recall that Golden Tate was one of the better punt returners when here and he’d occasionally bust one for long yardage and IIRC had an average about 11.5-yards +/-

IMO, Walter’s roster position is one that needs significant improvement. There are several viable options in the upcoming draft. Specifically Lockett, McBride & Agholar would bring competent WR play as well as punt return duties. Failing to get one of those guys, a later round 6-7 flier on RB-Marcus Murphy (a true return specialist as well as a fairly competent RB) would at least address the problem.

2014: Draftable National leaders in punt returns (only players that played 75% of their games and had a minimum 0f 1.2 punt returns per game average.) per - http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/nat ... ort01.html

#1 = WR-Tyler Lockett, avg = 19.14
#5 = WR-Kaelin Clay, avg = 15.04
#6 = WR-Andre Debose, avg = 14.04
#7 = WR-Jamison Crowder, avg = 14.04
#15 = WR-J. J. Nelson, avg = 10.65
#18 = RB-Marcus Murphy, avg = 10.41
#19 = WR-Nelson Agholor, avg = 10.37 (2013 was #2 with 19.04 avg)
#64 = WR-Justin Hardy, avg = 4.13

Tyler Lockett, WR/KR/PR;
2014: WR-Lockett's Long Punt Returns:
20+yds= 8,
30+yds= 5,
40+yds= 4,
50+yds= 2,
Per: http://www.cfbstats.com/2014/leader/nat ... ort01.html

Lockett is 2-nd on this list, RB-Marcus Murphy is tied for 4-th, WR-Andre Debose is tied for 4-th, Ty Montgomery is tied for 13th, Nelson Agholor is tied for 28-th. No other impactful punt returners that are currently possible considerations for the Seahawks show up. There may be some options with some of the small school guys but stats are much harder to find for FCS schools. IE: WR-Tre McBride has decent #'s as a KR/PR. ""Experienced lining up inside and outside. Extensive special teams experience as both a kick returner (23.1 average) and punt returner (11.1) over his career."" - http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/play ... re-mcbride

 

[ivotuk]

Good stuff English.

Appreciate the KR/PR breakdown Camano, as I think that's one of the most valuable positions we need to fill.

Field position is huge in football and we saw how devoid of talent we were in that area last year. Tate spoiled us.


Tre McBride's Pro Day:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ry-pro-day

NFL Combine for McBride

http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/tre ... id=2552428

Tre McBride Shrine Game

WR Tre McBride, William & Mary (6-1, 205)

"Entering the week, McBride was my highest-rated Shrine Game prospect and after a full week of practice, that hasn't changed. At 6-foot-1 and 205 pounds with 4.50 speed, he doesn't have imposing size or blazing speed, but he prides himself on the details, selling routes and using his foot quickness in his breaks to create just enough separation. McBride did an excellent job attacking the ball in the air with his quick eyes and hands, also taking reps as a punt returner."

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl- ... nfl-scouts