We suck at trades

[MizzouHawkGal]

He's worth it.

Lockette was the only must stop guy on K-State's team and nobody could.
You may say WTF now but when you see him play you will feel differently.

He's Percy fast without the baggage and actually can run routes.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

That's why we post on forums and Schneider is the GM.

That's not a valid answer.

Matt Millen was a GM for a number of years.

While the Hawks have had some success with trades (clemons, lynch) the majority have been losers, including the worst move in Seahawks history and one of the worst in NFL history: the Harvin trade. We gave up more and paid more and got less in return than pretty much any trade ever. Harvin literally made MILLIONS with an S at the end PER GAME. He made more in 1 game than most of our players make in a season, and he was garbage on the field.

Fans have every reason to wonder why we lose trades more often than other teams. Hell, Schneider got that ball rolling all the way back with Whitehurst. It has been a recurring theme.

It is a testament to far a team can go with a truly elite defense and an efficient QB and tough bruising RB, that we can lose trades badly, draft poorly in the 1st, overpay FAs (both our own and from other teams) and still remain under the cap and THE BEST team in the NFL.

Yes we know you have an axe to grind with Percy among other things it seems. It's old and in the past. Move on already.

 

[Rob12]

That's why we post on forums and Schneider is the GM.

????

You don't have to be an NFL GM to understand draft pick position value. I would be curious to see what the chart says for what we traded away for the 1 pick.

According to the trade value chart we got a good deal by not having to give up a 7th rd pick too

We got
69= 245

Gave up
95=120
112=70
167=24.6
181=19
Total 233.6

There you go, seabowl.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

I think the OP can probably agree now that it was just a knee-jerk reaction to say what was said in this thread title. I posted shortly after that it "seemed" like a lot was given up (happy to get the return specialist), but wanted to look ahead to the picks remaining and wanted to move on to that discussion.

Once I looked at the Draft Trade Chart and realized the Hawks moved up 26 spots... it all made sense. 245/233 Having those 11 picks made it all possible. That's a fair trade even though you have less picks. But, don't lose sight of what was accomplished. Look what they got: THE best return man in the draft. KR/PR game was fixed in one very shrewd move.

 

[Rob12]

I think the OP can probably agree now that it was just a knee-jerk reaction to say what was said in this thread title. I posted shortly after that it "seemed" like a lot was given up (happy to get the return specialist), but wanted to look ahead to the picks remaining and wanted to move on to that discussion.

Once I looked at the Draft Trade Chart and realized the Hawks moved up 26 spots... it all made sense. 245/233 Having those 11 picks made it all possible. That's a fair trade even though you have less picks. But, don't lose sight of what was accomplished. Look what they got: THE best return man in the draft. KR/PR game was fixed in one very shrewd move.

Exactly. 26 spots is a lot - it's almost an entire round.

 

[Willyeye]

I think the should have picked Lockett with 63 and Clark probably would have been available at our 3rd round pick. They could have thrown one of those picks at La'el Collins! The Saints 4th rounder alone could have moved us up 10-12 spots in the second round. We could have gone up for DGB in the second and picked up Montgomery as a KR a lot later. I guess we are going to go after Chris Myers or Justin Blaylock after the draft.

Lockett is a great route runner and has some really deceptive moves. We already have Matthews and Graham...there was no guarantee that if we took DGB, that he would have moved above Graham or Matthews (probably the most underrated receiver on the team last year by far) in the pecking order. I think that overall, Lockett will end up being a more successful WR than DGB...and getting the #1 KR/PR in college is icing on the cake!!!

 

[justafan]

There are different ways to look at the value chart.Its not the Bible.Even if it was, people can think for themselves and disagree with it or discuss it.Some posters ridicule people who want to discuss or disagree with the FO moves.
Some drafts the trade would have been a steal for us others it may have cost us more than we think.
I look at the trade and some of the players that we could have ended up with and the point chart holds little value in my opinion.
I think the draft fell in a way few people predicted,more than most years.I know a lot of players i liked went before most of us thought they would.
The 3rd 4th and 5th round picks were more valuable this year than in other years IMO.If the front office is as good in the later rounds as people believe, and they have had great success I think they could have added more talent keeping the picks.

 

[Seanhawk]

There are different ways to look at the value chart.Its not the Bible.Even if it was, people can think for themselves and disagree with it or discuss it.Some posters ridicule people who want to discuss or disagree with the FO moves.
Some drafts the trade would have been a steal for us others it may have cost us more than we think.
I look at the trade and some of the players that we could have ended up with and the point chart holds little value in my opinion.
I think the draft fell in a way few people predicted,more than most years.I know a lot of players i liked went before most of us thought they would.
The 3rd 4th and 5th round picks were more valuable this year than in other years IMO.If the front office is as good in the later rounds as people believe, and they have had great success I think they could have added more talent keeping the picks.

Yet the OP did have a knee jerk reaction proclaiming that we suck at trades then saying later that he would like to see how it falls on the chart. Someone then provided the values from the chart showing that we didn't get hosed. A perfect example of posting before having any knowledge on the subject whatsoever.

 

[TeamoftheCentury]

There are different ways to look at the value chart.Its not the Bible.Even if it was, people can think for themselves and disagree with it or discuss it.Some posters ridicule people who want to discuss or disagree with the FO moves.
Some drafts the trade would have been a steal for us others it may have cost us more than we think.
I look at the trade and some of the players that we could have ended up with and the point chart holds little value in my opinion.
I think the draft fell in a way few people predicted,more than most years.I know a lot of players i liked went before most of us thought they would.
The 3rd 4th and 5th round picks were more valuable this year than in other years IMO.If the front office is as good in the later rounds as people believe, and they have had great success I think they could have added more talent keeping the picks.

Well, my mention of the chart wasn't intended as ridicule. I don't really see ridicule in this thread. ??? We should be careful to not choose to read into it that way. If any of us are going to dish it out (disagree with JS/PC), then they have to take it as well (when we point to rationale like the value chart and other reasoned arguments for approving of moves like this.) unno: Goes both ways, doesn't it? You're writing as if to say, let us disapprove... but, don't reason with us when we do. Sort of a double standard there. I mean this in the kindest way possible. I'm not trying to embarrass you for your comments. Just trying to get you to see that there's room for all that's been discussed.

Having said that, I can agree with some of your thoughts here to a certain degree. The value chart is merely a tool - true enough. It's meant to to be some baseline for negotiations among the real GM's. They use it/ refer to it. But, it comes down to supply and demand. So, teams can demand what they want, but they may not get it and vice versa. There's also the relationships GM's want to establish and build. They build reputation among their peers, so good idea to not blow that for times when you'll need to call upon them.

Yeah, in our armchair GM minds, we get attached to certain players or wonder why they could have passed on certain players. I can relate to you there. But, get any number of us together - just like the group of scouts, coaches, etc. have who are putting their collective heads together - and we're all going to have different opinions on our favorite players. There's a process, there's final decision makers, all that. So, while it's fun to play armchair GM this time of year, that's all we are... which gives us the right to squawk That's part of the fun of it, IMO. But, there's also reality and reason.

Curious and genuinely interested to hear, who were the players you felt the Hawks missed on by trading those picks? Keep in mind, too, that just because those players were selected by other teams doesn't mean they would have been the Hawks choices there. You should jot down those players you coveted and see how they pan out elsewhere (and vs. the Hawks draft choices and their contributions to the game.) You never know, those prospects you would have rather had could end up available again at some point.

I was surprised that Terry Poole was taken so high (just like I was when Britt was selected higher than projected last year.) But, listening to Cable's interview, you realize the staff lock on to particular players for what they want to do. So, there's talent they may simply pass on because they don't see chemistry.

 

[justafan]

Your response to the Op was respectfull and correct.I cant disagree with anything you posted.
The FO had trading up as a gameplan from the start of the second round if you believe the reports.
It all has an effect throughout the draft.It culminated with us taking Clark.If they would have taken Lockett in the second whether its mathematically correct value wise I would have agreed with that choice because he will be a good player IMO.
One of JS and Petes talent is finding the talent in the lower rounds not mine.More picks are more chances because you will always have more misses than hits at lower picks no matter who you are.
While i wouldnt have made the trade or the Clark pick,I am happy with us getting Lockett

 

[kearly]

Darryl Tapp for Chris Clemons and a 4th rounder
Josh Wilson for Richard Sherman
Rob Sims for Kam Chancellor
Deion Branch for KJ Wright
A 4th and 5th round pick for Marshawn Lynch
A 5th for Leon Washington

The Harvin trade was a gamble that backfired. The Pryor trade was a 7th round flier that didn't pan out. CBJ was a dumb move, but it was really more of a complicated RFA signing that a real trade. Lendale White didn't work out, but Seattle got him basically for free.

Too early to tell with Graham and Lockett. I did think the value Seattle got for Graham was outstanding. And the Lockett pick was a totally fair price by the trade chart. None of the 2nd tier WRs lasted to #95, and Seattle moved up to get the best one, who also doubles as the best kick returner in the draft.

Quite honestly I was not expecting Lockett to reach #63, to get him at #69 was a coup. This was a very weak draft relative to others so it was good timing to give up bulk picks in the later rounds. Seattle only has so much room for projects. 8 picks was enough. Of course, Seattle has killed it drafting in a weak draft before (2011), but still, it seemed like a good spot to spend picks as mobility capital.

 

[jammerhawk]

Both getting and giving up picks we stink. WTF?

Wow, that's a bit harsh. What is your metric that supports this remark? The only two trades I think that were demonstrably awful for this regime were Harvin & Whitehurst. Harvin was a swing for the fences deal for an uber athlete a player who but for a Seahawks created ankle injury that placed him on IR might have been OPOY. The possibilities of Harvin being special had the FO drooling, too bad the player was such a head case and poisonous to the roster chemistry. The team realized their mistake and although acquiring him likely cost the team Tate thankfully the FO cut and ran from him when his true personality was known to the team. Harvin malingered some with his hip labrum surgery recovery and then played only when Percy wanted to play. He was massively overpaid for his services to the team but still locked down the Super Bowl victory with his 2nd half opening KO return. Even now I'm sure the FO is still smarting over this trade but Percy could have been special for the Seahawks if he wanted to be. He flashed massive ability when Percy wanted but dealing with him and his attitude on team when everyone is supposed to buying in all the time was eventually untenable even with his exceptional talent. To date I really don't know what the FO saw in Whitehorse except for a strong arm. The team overpaid SD for him. That trade to me was a huge mistake and the player was nothing like what they thought he'd be. from 2010 until now I don't think much of an argument can be made that many other trades were really sucky.

I have to admit I was immediately bummed on the trade up for Lockett but only because I'd already got my head around drafting another player and bought into the more players the more chances to get it right thinking professed to by JS. It seems that the team in drafting Lockett has likely resigned itself to not seeing much from Richardson this season and wanted the returning ability of Lockett as the return game last season was very unspecial. I then looked more closely at the trade and realized that JS gave up a bit less than the fair market value of the pick acquired by trading away those 4 picks actually he acquired the value of an early 7th rd pick in the trade if the Jimmy Johnson chart is used. Other charts have the trade a being a bit more even, so on that metric the trade was more or less fair in terms of value. Lockett answers a huge team need for a premier returner, was valued in the draft at approximately where he was drafted, and then mostly only b/c he is only 5'10" and 185 lbs. Of course as most of us have been conditioned to believing the team only needed a big WR and not many of us were likely to be thrilled with yet another small WR. As a WR Lockett is talented and could be a very special, he's fast and quick and can create separation with his speed, his mastery of the whole route tree is solid and he runs well after the catch while having the pure speed to take the top off of an opposing D. Looking harder at the player he was perhaps underrated. The Fo has a plan for this team and see this player as fitting on a good roster and being able to make a difference, time will tell if they were right but the trade yielded a very solid player who will be able to help on several levels if he is close to being as good as he was in college.

I do get your initial frustration as I felt it myself.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

That's why we post on forums and Schneider is the GM.

????

You don't have to be an NFL GM to understand draft pick position value. I would be curious to see what the chart says for what we traded away for the 1 pick.

According to the trade value chart we got a good deal by not having to give up a 7th rd pick too

We got
69= 245

Gave up
95=120
112=70
167=24.6
181=19
Total 233.6

The OP looks extremely foolish, we actually got the better end of the trade

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

 

[chris98251]

True Mizz, but it may take a night at the Holiday Inn Express

 

[two dog]

Both getting and giving up picks we stink. WTF?

Make up your mind dude. Do we suck or do we stink?
Well reasoned argument by the way.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Oh where art thou seabowl

 

[Atradees]

This front office works to leverage risk. High bust potential for all these picks hedged bye the athleticism. One prowlbowler and its a great draft. I will have to wait and see. My fav pick right now is the Guard from Michigan. I liked his tape. Reminded me of Of Watching tape of Dt Hill; he had great technique in hand placement. Look how he has bloomed.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I don't see the trade as bad at all.

Looking at the WRs on the board had we stayed at #95, we had the following three WRs taken in the following 30 picks:

Jamison Crowder
Justin Hardy
Vince Mayle

Lockett is a MUCH more preferable option to those guys.

So let's assume we would have not gone WR, and merely gone with the next need (OL). In the intervening 17 picks 95 or later, here are the guys we missed on:

Darryl Williams
TJ Clemmings
Tre' Jackson

Here are the guys taken between 112 and 130 (the last potential pick we traded up to the pick we retained)

Arie Kouandjio
Jamil Douglas
Andrew Donnal
Jon Feliciano

None of those last 4 OL do I think we would have even considered. So ultimately, we opted for Lockett and Poole, as opposed to Darryl Williams and Jamison Crowder (a similar style player to Lockett).

Ultimately, if I look at the alternatives had we stayed put -- I think we absolutely made the correct move in moving up. Charts be damned -- when you look at the actual players that would have been the alternatives, you get the sense of what was really surrendered.