Seahawks Media Draft Grades

[UK_Seahawk]

Need ESPN Insider but Mel Kiper gave the Hawks an A-

Top needs: WR, CB, C/G, DE

Let's start with this question: Will there be any rookie in the NFL next year who figures to be better than Jimmy Graham? In a health vacuum, I'd say no. And remember, Graham is truly the centerpiece of this draft as he came over for the price of the 31st pick and Max Unger. Every guy drafted this week has the hope of being a star; Jimmy Graham IS a star. That's a good grade on its own. I have to trust that Seattle has vetted Frank Clark's off-field problems and feels comfortable bringing him in. Assuming he's OK there, the value is pretty fair and they could use the pass-rushing help. The pick of Tyler Lockett (they moved up for him) is one of my favorites in the entire draft. The guy is just always open, and anybody who watched the Super Bowl knows how much the Seahawks need pass-catchers who can create some separation. This is your guy. From there you see some decent bets on offensive line help, which we know is an obvious need area. Overall, the combination of adding Graham and Lockett plus the attempt to improve things with some new competitors to win jobs along the offensive line makes this draft a pretty good one for the Seahawks, who seem to always have a developmental plan for their picks. We often have players graded differently, but they know how to coach them up.

That's a more than fair appraisal. I'm not in love with the Frank Clark pick and think four picks in exchange for Lockett was too much, but hey, this could easily be a B+/A- draft when you factor in Jimmy Graham.

Glowinski is a Day One starter at LG, IMO. Lockett is a dynamic returner and slot receiver. Tye Smith has all the tools to be the next great member of the L.O.B. And Sokoli looks like the next Sweezy.

Am I the only one who's nervous that Kiper liked our draft? I never trust that guy.

Dont worry my postman said we did well also.

 

[Maulbert]

I'm stunned. Prisco gave us a B- and was rather complimentary, including rare praise for the Frank Clark pick. Honestly, the way it reads, I think the only reason he didn't give us an A was because he can't admit he thinks we did that well.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...guars-dolphins-ravens-cardinals-score-highest

Best Pick: Second-round defensive end Frank Clark had some off-field issues, but he can flat-out play. Clark is a perfect addition to the Seattle front.

Questionable move: Waiting until the fourth round to pick an offensive lineman. They did draft a couple later, so it's nitpicking.

Third-day gem: Doesn't this have to be a secondary player, considering their recent past? I will go with seventh-round pick Ryan Murphy, a safety who did some good things at Oregon State.

Analysis: They didn't have a first-round pick, trading it away for Jimmy Graham, which I think is a good move. Then John Schneider got two good football players with his first two picks in Clark and Tyler Lockett.

Grade: B-

 

[Sac]

The pundits are tired of JS and PC making them look like arseholes, which is why they're now praising our drafts. This is a good thing, chaps.

This.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

The pundits are tired of JS and PC making them look like arseholes, which is why they're now praising our drafts. This is a good thing, chaps.

This.

Yup. No matter if a writer is a hack or not, being made to look like an outright idiot year after year of drafts by the Seahawks will make one far more complimentary of our picks. I'll take it, because that means we have arrived. We are no longer South Alaska or Egypt.

Another thing to consider is that no matter what you think of the individuals selected with our picks, coming into this draft we had four very distinct positional needs, and we addressed all of them, and with some redundancy. Take for instance this year's Cowboys draft. Everyone said up front that drafting a running back was a primary need, and they did not do it. We saw tons of pretty solid running backs go in this draft, and yet none went to the Cowboys. Now they say "we think we already have guys on this team to address this need", but the fact of the matter is that if we said "we think we have the receivers on our team we need to compete", every single draftnik would bash us horribly for it and call our draft a terrible one.

Whether you think the individual players selected are the "right" choices or not, we still nailed each and every specific need this draft, something that doesn't happen all the time, whether intentionally ignored, or just that players got stolen and the team didn't see enough value in remaining players at that position. The only thing you could nitpick about this aspect of this year's Seahawks draft would be Center. We drafted three solid prospects for the offensive line, and players that we say will be competing for Center, but no one with experience at the position. That brings us down a notch or so, but not much if we've found a solid guy at the position no matter the experience.

Overall a draft that addresses each specific need with redundancy, picks up guys that are considered steals for when they're selected, and scores a bunch of high-potential athletic freaks with the 5/6/7 round "projects", is a great draft. And that, to me, is exactly what the Seahawks did this year.

 

[hawknation2015]

Rotoworld gave us the highest grade in the NFC West:

Overview: The Seahawks' grade includes the pre-draft acquisition of Jimmy Graham, while keeping in mind that the move cost No. 31 and stud C Max Unger. Seattle was obviously in absolute love with Lockett, sending fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-rounders to the Redskins in order to land the dynamic slot receiver/return man. While Clark's off-field history is worrisome, he offers difference-making talent as a 4-3 end. Underrated throughout the pre-draft phase, Glowinski could become a year-one starter at guard or center. Poole, Gwacham, Sokoli, and Murphy are athleticism-based projections. Albeit long speed-deficient, Smith is an intriguing press-corner prospect with plus length. I really would have liked to see Seattle draft a big wide receiver for Russell Wilson's sake. Still, my sense is there will be more year-one impact from this class than most expect. It becomes an excellent group if some of the late-round projects hit.

Grade: B-

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/5 ... rades?pg=2

 

[Missing_Clink]

2010: A+
2011: A-
2012: A+++++ all-time great status
2013: D
2014: D
2015: Initial C- seems about right

Seeing a disturbing trend here

 

[seahawks187]

Terry Blount gave us a thumbs down =)

 

[oldhawkfan]

That's a more than fair appraisal. I'm not in love with the Frank Clark pick and think four picks in exchange for Lockett was too much, but hey, this could easily be a B+/A- draft when you factor in Jimmy Graham.

Glowinski is a Day One starter at LG, IMO. Lockett is a dynamic returner and slot receiver. Tye Smith has all the tools to be the next great member of the L.O.B. And Sokoli looks like the next Sweezy.[/quote]

Not to nit pick but they didn't really give up 4 picks for Lockett. They traded up in round three by exchanging picks. Those picks essentially cancel each other out. My guess is that they initially offered two additional picks but the Redskins just finished watching Draft Day with Kevin Costner the day before and figured they could get three number ones from Seattle. Schneider laughed and said how about a 4th, 5th and 6th? So they really only have up three picks to move up not four.

 

[Skeeve]

Brian Baldingers draft grade, woot, A :shock: . Only talks about the first two draft choices but he gets it.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks/0ap3000000490708/2015-Draft-Grade-Seahawks

 

[Hawkpower]

2010: A+
2011: A-
2012: A+++++ all-time great status
2013: D
2014: D
2015: Initial C- seems about right

Seeing a disturbing trend here

A disturbing trend if those grades were anything other than your armchair opinions I guess.

I'm sure our FO is very concerned about random dudes on the internet not liking their trends......

 

[DavidSeven]

I think it's perfectly fair that the media start giving us average/mediocre draft grades again. Of course, everyone's just guessing at this point so it means nothing.

We made fools of them from 2010-2012, but we haven't exactly blown people back with our 2013 and 2014 drafts (yet). There is almost no way our 2013 draft is turning into an "A" at this point. There is still a chance for 2014, but it had none of the immediate stars from 2010, 2011 or 2012 -- P-Rich flashed, but those flashes weren't but quite as exciting as early flashes from Earl, Sherm, Doug, Russell, Bobby, Bruce...

 

[seabowl]

The only reason why any of the "experts" are grading B and above is due to respect for PC/JS. If these players were drafted by almost any other team it would be hard to find any "expert" to give this draft class a grade of C or better.

 

[hawknation2015]

Not to nit pick but they didn't really give up 4 picks for Lockett. They traded up in round three by exchanging picks. Those picks essentially cancel each other out.

Yes, they traded up in the 3rd Round with three picks. However, saying they traded three picks in exchange for Lockett would be incorrect. They gave up FOUR picks (Nos. 95, 112, 167, and 181) for the 69th pick, which they used to take Lockett. The Redskins received four of our picks, while we received one of theirs.

Personally, I wish they had taken Lockett at No. 63 and then waited until the end of the 3rd Round for Clark, whose arrests and lack of quality tape probably would have left him available. Schenider felt that the drop off in pass rushers after Clark was too steep to risk him being taken ahead of us in the Round Three. I don't agree with that logic, as Clark was viewed almost exclusively as a 4-3 DE and Owa Odighizuwa, Eli Harold, Henry Anderson, Danielle Hunter, Geneo Grissom, Trey Flowers, Davis Tull, etc. were still on the board. They very easily could have waited until No. 95 to select Clark, saving them three additional draft choices.

 

[scutterhawk]

I really think these analysts need to stick to the talent of the player when it comes to critiquing ones draft selection. I'm not saying don't bring up his off the field issues but to say Clark was a reach solely on past digressions is disingenuous. I have not seen anyone, articles nor television, arguing against or saying Clarke's talent and size was a "reach".

This ^
A legitimate analyst?, that is a major reach.
When it comes to grading out an athlete, you have to leave any off field issues on the shelf and out of the evaluation, he's allowing his own personal peeves to override his supposed neutrality.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Yes, they traded up in the 3rd Round with three picks. However, saying they traded three picks in exchange for Lockett would be incorrect. They gave up FOUR picks (Nos. 95, 112, 167, and 181) for the 69th pick, which they used to take Lockett. The Redskins received four of our picks, while we received one of theirs.

C'mon, I know by now this is beating a dead horse, but really, we can't count anything but net gains/losses for the pick. Two picks cancel each other out. If we'd have traded five picks to the Redskins in exchange for seven picks to move down in the draft, would we say we gave up five picks to move down? Of course not. we'd have gotten two picks from them. And they wouldn't have lost seven picks, but only two. It's pretty basic math, folks. Of course, they don't seem to be teaching that in school anymore.

As for the draft, eh, true grades won't really be evident for a few years, which is why it's also premature to grade last year's and even the one from the year before that. Two years ago, the 2011 and 2012 drafts looked pretty promising, but were viewed then nowhere near how we view them now. Those drafts are colored by back-to-back trips to the Super Bowl with the players chosen in those drafts as major contributors. It may be that two years from now, we'll look at the 2013 and 2014 drafts with the same view we now see those "A+" drafts.

 

[hawknation2015]

If we'd have traded five picks to the Redskins in exchange for seven picks to move down in the draft, would we say we gave up five picks to move down?

No, I would say we traded five picks in exchange for seven picks. What is so difficult about that?

We traded four picks for the one pick we used on Lockett. If we had only traded Nos. 112, 167, and 181 for the 69th pick, would you say we traded two picks to move up? That would not be accurate either.

What we did was the virtual equivalent of trading four picks in exchange for Lockett. Imagine that the Redskins had first selected Lockett with the 69th pick and then traded him to us for four of our picks (Nos. 95, 112, 167, and 181). It is the exact same result: we get Lockett, they get four of our picks.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

They're already starting to come in, and Bryan Fischer of NFL.com wasn't terribly impressed. Gave us an overall grade of C-. Heh. In two years, he'll know how wrong he was. Post 'em as you find 'em.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...nfl-draft-quicksnap-grades-for-nfc-west-teams

What grade did we get when we drafted Richard Sherman? What about Russell Wilson? These guys punish teams who don't go by their mock draft--they're chuckle-pukes.

 

[Sports Hernia]

2010: A+
2011: A-
2012: A+++++ all-time great status
2013: D
2014: D
2015: Initial C- seems about right

Seeing a disturbing trend here

Subjective rubbish.

BINGO, fantasy football and Facebook/Twitter have made everyone an "expert".

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Analysis of our 2012 draft.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1163 ... rd/page/29

Grade: D


Summary

The Seahawks received our lowest Round 1 grade for their reach to grab Bruce Irvin at No. 15 overall. They messed up again in Round 3 with Russell Wilson after having signed Matt Flynn this offseason. Neither pick makes much sense to us.

Bobby Wagner and Robert Turbin saved the Seattle draft, but two of its first three picks were just bad.

Ha ha! Thanks for posting that.

 

[Hasselbeck]

2010: A+
2011: A-
2012: A+++++ all-time great status
2013: D
2014: D
2015: Initial C- seems about right

Seeing a disturbing trend here

Warning: Piping hot take here!!

The disturbing trend is you graded last years draft a D .. when 4 guys missed a lot of time with injury (Richardson, Norwood, KPL and Marsh) .. Britt started the whole year and got better as the year went on. Staten, Pinkins and Scott were all project players that no one expected to see on the field.. and Kiero Small was claimed off our PS so someone apparently liked him.

Then you grade this years draft when its May 3rd and not a single player has played an NFL game yet :lol: :lol: :lol:

As for 2013..
1st - Harvin (trade did indeed flop)
2nd - Michael (not sure what he really brings to the table because Marshawn has been so good the last two years)
3rd - Hill (was a monster this season before injury)
4th - Harper (cut)
5th - Jesse Williams (has had health issues.. still no idea what he brings on defense)
5th - Simon (has had his ups and downs but could still be a very productive corner)
5th - Willson (basically like Simon.. only as a TE)
6th - Ware (DUI, cut)
7th - Seymour/Powell/Bowie/Jared Smith (Seymour and Bowie each landed on another roster.. other two were 7th rounders that didn't pan out.. big woop)

So... the 2013 draft was nowhere near a D in my book .. and the 2014 draft looks even better than that.. so in sum.. you are wrong.