The good news about this draft

[nash72]

And let me add that we had 12 Pro Bowlers who were either voted in or wound up getting the nod as an alternate last season. So to use that as a measuring stick as to what someone perceives as incompetence in our last 4 drafts is faulty logic. Our veterans are thriving right now and have locked down those positions. That's why we are perennial Super Bowl contenders and are enjoying the best era ever in Seahawks football. Yes, those veterans will eventually have to be replaced and a draft like we just had is a step in that direction. Guys like McDowell, Griffin and Thompson could very well be our Pro Bowlers 4 years down the road.

How many of those 12 were from the last 4 drafts?

 

[MagnificentSeven]

And let me add that we had 12 Pro Bowlers who were either voted in or wound up getting the nod as an alternate last season. So to use that as a measuring stick as to what someone perceives as incompetence in our last 4 drafts is faulty logic. Our veterans are thriving right now and have locked down those positions. That's why we are perennial Super Bowl contenders and are enjoying the best era ever in Seahawks football. Yes, those veterans will eventually have to be replaced and a draft like we just had is a step in that direction. Guys like McDowell, Griffin and Thompson could very well be our Pro Bowlers 4 years down the road.

Faulty logic would be to look at the last four draft classes, observe only one player who has gone to the Pro Bowl from them that wasn't a coaching reclamation job who was otherwise going to get cut (Justin Britt), and pass them off as examples of this front office's genius.

We had great drafts in 2011 and 2012, since then it's been very iffy. Maybe the early successes were the outliers.

Yes, this is the best era in Seahawks football....but we are heavily reliant upon guys who are now 7 and 8 year old vets to carry the team. Ask the Cardinals how things work out when your team suddenly gets "old" overnight...you go from Championship contenders to picking in the wrong half of the first round.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And let me add that we had 12 Pro Bowlers who were either voted in or wound up getting the nod as an alternate last season. So to use that as a measuring stick as to what someone perceives as incompetence in our last 4 drafts is faulty logic. Our veterans are thriving right now and have locked down those positions. That's why we are perennial Super Bowl contenders and are enjoying the best era ever in Seahawks football. Yes, those veterans will eventually have to be replaced and a draft like we just had is a step in that direction. Guys like McDowell, Griffin and Thompson could very well be our Pro Bowlers 4 years down the road.

How many of those 12 were from the last 4 drafts?

Please read the entire post. It's because we have 12 veteran Pro Bowlers -- which has to be among the league leaders -- we a) don't have as many positions open as other teams for young guys to ascend and become Pro Bowlers and b) by making the playoffs the last 5 years, we are at the back of the line in the draft order. But like I said, the strategy this year was to accumulate as many picks and replenish for the future. In 4-5 years, I could very easily see this class produce 2 to 4 Pro Bowlers and 4 or 5 full time starters as our veterans move on.

 

[Skansi82]

Agree that the last 4 drafts have been pretty lean, but you also have to consider that those draftees were trying to crack solid, Super Bowl winning/perennial playoff rosters.

For example, Frank Clark playing behind Bennett/Avril last year:

Avril: Snaps-832 TFL-1 Sacks-11.5 Tackles- 20 solo, 19 asst. Pro Bowl

Bennett: Snaps-565 TFL-9 Sacks-5 Tackles- 24 solo, 10 asst. Pro Bowl

Clark: Snaps-682 TFL-6 Sacks-10 Tackles- 25 solo, 22 asst. no Pro Bowl

I know it's not apples to apples, but you get the point. Spencer Ware didn't even make our squad and had a borderline pro bowl year last season for KC.

 

[nash72]

And let me add that we had 12 Pro Bowlers who were either voted in or wound up getting the nod as an alternate last season. So to use that as a measuring stick as to what someone perceives as incompetence in our last 4 drafts is faulty logic. Our veterans are thriving right now and have locked down those positions. That's why we are perennial Super Bowl contenders and are enjoying the best era ever in Seahawks football. Yes, those veterans will eventually have to be replaced and a draft like we just had is a step in that direction. Guys like McDowell, Griffin and Thompson could very well be our Pro Bowlers 4 years down the road.

How many of those 12 were from the last 4 drafts?

Please read the entire post. It's because we have 12 veteran Pro Bowlers -- which has to be among the league leaders -- we a) don't have as many positions open as other teams for young guys to ascend and become Pro Bowlers and b) by making the playoffs the last 5 years, we are at the back of the line in the draft order. But like I said, the strategy this year was to accumulate as many picks and replenish for the future. In 4-5 years, I could very easily see this class produce 2 to 4 Pro Bowlers and 4 or 5 full time starters as our veterans move on.

Understood. Once again, thank you Scot McCloughan.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Skansi lays it out nicely with stats above. That's the point I was getting at. We are positioning players in the wings so that as our veterans move on, we will be set to replenish and then they take their turn at becoming Pro Bowlers.

I understand your point about the cupboard becoming bare like it happened in Arizona (too bad, so sad), but the signs are there that our FO isn't about to let that happen.

 

[nash72]

I understand your point about the cupboard becoming bare like it happened in Arizona (too bad, so sad), but the signs are there that our FO isn't about to let that happen.

I am on your side with some of this Sioux. There is going to be a lot of chord cutting going on the next few years.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I understand your point about the cupboard becoming bare like it happened in Arizona (too bad, so sad), but the signs are there that our FO isn't about to let that happen.

I am on your side with some of this Sioux. There is going to be a lot of chord cutting going on the next few years.

So let's enjoy the hell out of the right here, right now. A team is always forced to fight the NFLs quest for parity. We all know that. And our front office knows that. I don't think it was a coincidence that we amassed 11 picks in this year's draft. I'm figuring we'll do something similar next year. We'll ride that great wave of talent we have now for a few more seasons, filling in here and there as needed, and then bank on these big draft classes to replenish when 4 or 5 of our stellar guys finally succumb to Father Time. It's all you can do.

 

[mikeak]

Agree that the last 4 drafts have been pretty lean, but you also have to consider that those draftees were trying to crack solid, Super Bowl winning/perennial playoff rosters.

For example, Frank Clark playing behind Bennett/Avril last year:

Avril: Snaps-832 TFL-1 Sacks-11.5 Tackles- 20 solo, 19 asst. Pro Bowl

Bennett: Snaps-565 TFL-9 Sacks-5 Tackles- 24 solo, 10 asst. Pro Bowl

Clark: Snaps-682 TFL-6 Sacks-10 Tackles- 25 solo, 22 asst. no Pro Bowl

I know it's not apples to apples, but you get the point. Spencer Ware didn't even make our squad and had a borderline pro bowl year last season for KC.

This I agree with 100%. The issue I had with this was prior years trading back and going for a more shotgun approach. With the roster we had we should have been trading up to get better but fewer players

This year trading back - we have more holes now that needs to be filled partially because so few of our draft picks from the past stuck

We had two players in the 2013 draft that were very good for other teams last year

Ware and Benson Mayowa (UDFA)-- both of them were impressive enough to quite a few that there were surprises when they were cut. Mayowa was GREAT in the pre-season against backups but needed more time and we didn't have room on the roster.

Jordan Hill was re-signed by the Lions this offseason - not a star but still on an NFL roster

Part of why I think we look back on the 2017 draft and think it was great is because of the large holes and that these guys will get time with the coaches and plenty of opportunities. I really hope that the next time we are loaded we just draft fewer guys and get away from the shotgun approach alternatively lets trade the picks for future draft picks

 

[cheese22]

I've learned, in the last few years, I watch so many highlights and do so many mocks that I have favorites. When the real deal goes down, if my faves are available and we don't pick them, I don't like the pick. And vise versa with players I convince myself that i don't like. I guess I just need to have more faith in the front office and wait a couple years to pass judgement.

 

[Grahamhawker]

Agree that the last 4 drafts have been pretty lean, but you also have to consider that those draftees were trying to crack solid, Super Bowl winning/perennial playoff rosters.

For example, Frank Clark playing behind Bennett/Avril last year:

Avril: Snaps-832 TFL-1 Sacks-11.5 Tackles- 20 solo, 19 asst. Pro Bowl

Bennett: Snaps-565 TFL-9 Sacks-5 Tackles- 24 solo, 10 asst. Pro Bowl

Clark: Snaps-682 TFL-6 Sacks-10 Tackles- 25 solo, 22 asst. no Pro Bowl

I know it's not apples to apples, but you get the point. Spencer Ware didn't even make our squad and had a borderline pro bowl year last season for KC.

Those are good examples for how the starting roster is hard to crack. But look at the depth (or lack thereof). We have way too many revolving door UDFAs that replaced what should have been decent depth from 2013-15 drafts, especially on defense. Terrell? McCray? Marsh? KPL? Coyle? That is not quality depth. Some of it was bad luck with a few players (Simon?), but it started with weak drafts.

That said, I'm still optimistic about the 2016 and 2017 draftees.

 

[sdog1981]

Did I miss something? Frank Clark had 10 sacks last season.

http://www.nfl.com/player/frankclark/2552629/profile

 

[titan3131]

Yeah lets judge before they even get to camp. I mean what team could compete with a majority of late round picks and UDFA players. I am sure this class will wash out and probably never even play a down in a regular season game. Thanks to all your vision I have no need to watch next season.

What grade would you give the first 3 rounds? Honestly, on paper the draft looks awful. Hopefully some of the players do pan out.

How does it look terrible? All you've done is complain but not give any examples on why the draft was such a disaster.

Passed and didnt take a chance on any kind of left tackle for Russ. Passed on many superior DB's than the ones we got regardless if they claim they got who they wanted or not. Picked 5th or 6th round talent to early in Pocic (will never understand that pick). People on here thinking that McDowell is the next Cortez Kennedy or Warren Sapp is kind of over the top. The guy has a questionable work ethic and only had 1.5 sacks last season and he's going to be our messiah and fix our interior pass rush issues? Players should be able to get 1.5 sacks by accident.

Not saying some of these guys wont turn out to be decent, but I question the unconventional draft process that passes over the higher regarded players. The drafts in the past 4 years havent done much at all (Lockett did make the pro bowl for ST's I guess), but everybodys convinced JS is a genius when it was Scot McCloughan that did the heavy lifting. In my opinion Schneider has something to prove and this draft is questionable at best.

Can you go watch McDowell film vs ND the best cfb oline? By your logic bennett is trash because he only got 5 ish sacks Last year. The best players like McDowell And BENNETT get double teamed often, making opportunities for teammates. In Maliks case everyone on his defense was trash. None of them are good, none Will be nfl players. It's easy to stop one guy when the rest are playing at high school level.

 

[Hawks46]

Yeah lets judge before they even get to camp. I mean what team could compete with a majority of late round picks and UDFA players. I am sure this class will wash out and probably never even play a down in a regular season game. Thanks to all your vision I have no need to watch next season.

What grade would you give the first 3 rounds? Honestly, on paper the draft looks awful. Hopefully some of the players do pan out.

Pocic was regarded by draft pundits as a good pick. You have to put it in context.

How do our FA pick ups pan out ? if Joekel comes in and plays LT at league average, and either Pocic or the guy we got from Houston upgrade Ifedi at RG, and Ifedi slides over and plays better than Gilliam (not hard) we've upgraded our entire OL.

Plus we got McDowell and some other picks.

On paper we did really well. It's hard to grade the draft before they even get to OTA's.

 

[cheese22]

They were picking for depth. That means versatility is a very important trait. So is attitude and brains and potential. Every expert said McDowell has the ability to be the best lineman drafted. That means Seattle is the perfect landing spot for him. (How many of you thought Frank Clark's name would only be heard on the field and not on the news for being involved in something stupid?) Let's just say that he gets it. He learns that he can't take plays off, he has to fulfill his assignment and before he realizes it, he's a part of something pretty special. Wouldn't that be enough to motivate even the most stubbornly inconsistent player? We added dynamic ability up front and athletic torpedoes to the secondary for depth. I can't see any way that our lines aren't both better than last year. No big splashy fan's, just subtle upgrades from what was already a good team. We didn't need All-pro's, we needed role player's with high floors. We got guys who will contribute now and guys who will need a year to be ready, but once they are ready they will contribute.
And besides the draft, they signed several solid role player's. So, in essence, we drafted high potential rookies and signed high floor veterans to guarantee they don't have to count on the rookies to stay above water. If Griffin and Hill don't cut it, we don't have to live with their floor. We have proven veterans to use who may not have the potential of the draftees, but we know what the minimum contribution will be. If JS and PC hit it right, we don't have to live with the solid but unspectacular vets, we'll be able to count on the high ceiling of the draftees. I guess the vet signings are insurance against the draftees not making magic in a bottle.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Please read the entire post. It's because we have 12 veteran Pro Bowlers -- which has to be among the league leaders -- we a) don't have as many positions open as other teams for young guys to ascend and become Pro Bowlers and b) by making the playoffs the last 5 years, we are at the back of the line in the draft order.

I have to reject this conclusion.

Not because it isn't otherwise sound. Or in the case of B, actually true.

But to accept the conclusion, then we'd expect to see two specific traits of the team in that time:

1. No depth issues at all (we don't have openings remember?)
2. Very few drafted and UDFA players making the team

If it were so difficult to make the team, then that would necessarily mean that our depth simply outclassed rookies in quality. And that we'd be jettisoning draft classes by the truckload.


But we don't see either of those things (lack of depth has derailed one SB win, and the subsequent runs the past two years).

In addition, Seattle has led the league in numbers of rookies making the final 53. And probably been in the top 10 every single year since the 2013 draft.

The reality is, Seattle relies on rookies heavily. And they do make the team. In fact, Seattle has made quite a reputation as a team willing to showcase young talent for their second contracts. A reputation that provides a massive advantage against other teams vying for UDFA talent.

In this regard, I think it's easy to make the above assumption that our roster is too hard to break. But the evidence doesn't support that common sense theory. Seattle almost operates perpetually as a team that is rebuilding with every class.

Our roster is kind of a hybrid. We allocate massive contracts to our pro bowl stars. So really, it's kind of like we have two rosters. A roughly 12 man 'gets paid' roster. And then a 40 man roster that pretty much looks like any 5 win team in terms of difficulty to make the team. We churn this roster over hard and fast.

 

[Siouxhawk]

My post wasn't about rookies not sticking on the team; it was about our younger players becoming Pro Bowlers. Two different things. Of course the rookies are making the team, and like I said, they could very well be our next wave of Pro Bowlers.

 

[scutterhawk]

Yeah lets judge before they even get to camp. I mean what team could compete with a majority of late round picks and UDFA players. I am sure this class will wash out and probably never even play a down in a regular season game. Thanks to all your vision I have no need to watch next season.

LOL, it's like, the garden needs a little rain every now and then, but what the hell good comes from a constant downpour?
So much negativity, so much sorrow......But hey, look at the bright side, there's always someone that feels bummed out, be thankful it ain't you.