With the first pick we should pick a (position)

[keasley45]

1-Left Tackle
1a- DT

This thread is worrying to me, philosophically. We're regressing to simply desiring hole-plugs at 9? Drafting for need on a depleted roster?

C'mon. This is the basis for the future here. Mere positional need at this stage simply can't be the primary lens through which we're sorting prospective picks.

Talent. Identity. Future. That needs to be the focus. This team hasn't had a top-10 pick in 12 years. This is where you try to find a cornerstone, or extract enough value from the pick to set up a new foundation. Not a "welllll we don't really need that spot according to -source-."

I'm fine with a non-monstrous trade-down. All about the value. They're absolutely not gonna trade out of blue-chip range, though.

Agree 100%. Just think at this point in the evolution of the this team, our identity needs to NOT be having Lock and our DB's pressured constantly. We have good enough talent at Safety. CB has a ton of potential but is also tenuous, and our LB's are also loaded with potential, but need to stay clean to reach it.

Fortify the lines, let Lock blossom, the running game churn and let our back end just play instinctive ball.

That's what we were when we are at our best. That's the identity I'd personally like to see again.

 

[James in PA]

The meltdowns are already gearing up to be fairly promising in nature.

Damn straight because I can definitely see this front office trading down into the 20's and taking some linebacker none of us ever heard of, whom Kiper and others had projected as a 2nd rounder.

 

[Chawker]

This type of draft philosophy can be used to unstand a teams needs, but you have to unstand that player has individual physical as well mental abilitys. Drafting by position might only get you the fifth best player on the board.

My advise to the Seahawks is to trade back and take Devonte Wyatt because of his versatility both the run and pass game. Both in the 4-3 and 3-4.

Not only that, but he'll be the badest dog in the fight.

 

[olyfan63]

I think the Seahawks will be looking for a near-term Franchise-Foundation talent at #9, and if not available, trade down for more picks.
The type of talent and positions I see the Hawks going after at #9, in rough order of likelihood:
* Edge rusher
* O-Line, say if there's a Hutch that falls to them; a Walter Jones won't be falling to #9
* DB, especially a promising corner
* DT, though they usually prefer a rotation of run-stuffers, 2nd round or lower, but if the next Aaron Donald is there at #9...

I do NOT see them taking until Day 2 or later:
* RB, recall we took Jordyn Brooks when Jonathan Taylor was still on the board. Mistake? Probably.
* LB (unless there is a Cornelius Bennett or LT or Luke Kuechly that falls to #9)
* WR (unless there is a Jamarr Chase that falls to them)
* C
* O-Line developmental prospects
* QB, developmental prospect (Only QB at 9 might be Malik Willis)

I do NOT see them taking until Day 3 or later:
* TE

I don't really keep track of current top draft picks rumors to know who does and doesn't fit the Hawks definition of Franchise Foundation.

I didn't plan it this way, but the Franchise Foundation position list tracks with Pete's priorities of how he prefers to structure a team for success, Elite D + strong running game + deep threat passing game.

So, to summarize the criteria for Hawks staying at #9 and picking:
* Franchise Foundation type of player
* D players that move the needle towards an elite defense
* O players that would contribute mightily to a smashmouth run game
* NFL-ready and significant contributions expected in rookie season
* Same formula of preferring captains and leaders on their HS and College teams

Can anyone think of a few players that fit the above criteria the Hawks might target?

 

[chris98251]

You can target a position and get in trouble, we have a lot of holes, letting the draft come to us has been successful when that approach has happened. Springs and Jones, Hutch and Alexander are two situations where things came to us. Forcing things usually means you have to give up something of value, we don't want to give up any value in a REBUILD no matter what Pete doesn't want to call it.

 

[Seattle Person]

#1 Choice: Edge player! Give me Jermaine Johnson.

#2 Choice: One of the top CBs. Sauce is great but Stingley offers you top production with elite athleticism. Gardner has leadership qualities. Stingley has more tools to work with.

#3 Choice: Devonte Wyatt. Dline has a lot of bodies already but getting a rare athlete like this at DT would be great.

#4 Choice: OT. Penning but I don't love him here. I don't think Cross has major upside.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Holy carp.

I agree with Maelstrom and Keasely.

It was bound to happen.

Plugging holes makes no sense. We aren't going anywhere.

The goal should be to find the guy that will be a top 10 talent in the NFL or the difference-maker for us for years to come. Not the guy that helps us win next season. But the guy that becomes a key part of the franchise like Wagner was.

I don't care what position he plays. It shouldn't matter. What should matter is the impact he can have later and potential he has now. He might even be a guy in a position we don't really need help, nobody should care.

This needs to be about the next 3-5 years, not next year.

 

[seabowl]

Reminds me of 1990 draft for Hawks when they took Kennedy, Wooden and Blackmon to put a dominating D on the field. Outside of a top LT, I would love for them to get a huge DT like Davis the guy from Georgia. Maybe trade back a few for value but he could be transformational type of player that makes the whole D better.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Damn straight because I can definitely see this front office trading down into the 20's and taking some linebacker none of us ever heard of, whom Kiper and others had projected as a 2nd rounder.

Why does Kiper's opinion matter?

 

[Maelstrom787]

Holy carp.

I agree with Maelstrom and Keasely.

It was bound to happen.

Plugging holes makes no sense. We aren't going anywhere.

The goal should be to find the guy that will be a top 10 talent in the NFL or the difference-maker for us for years to come. Not the guy that helps us win next season. But the guy that becomes a key part of the franchise like Wagner was.

I don't care what position he plays. It shouldn't matter. What should matter is the impact he can have later and potential he has now. He might even be a guy in a position we don't really need help, nobody should care.

This needs to be about the next 3-5 years, not next year.

There are points where our pretty polar-opposite views intersect. This is one of them. It's time to think ahead. If we're looking to fix the 2021 team rather than improve the 2023 team here, then we're ensuring steady mediocrity.

 

[Chawker]

I believe that drafting a DE is a smart move, but selecting the rigth one, needs clarification. We aren't trying to replace Taylor, rather we are trying to replace Green. Which means a DE with some size to him, someone who can play in a 3-4 alinement, able to kick into tackle in a 4-3 alinement, giving support in both run and pass in both alinements.

 

[nanomoz]

Dead-eyeing a position is exactly how I hope they don't approach this draft. This team has precious few difference makers.

 

[rjdriver]

I would rather they trade down and take players commensurate with where they should be taken than pick someone with #9 that could have easily been picked at #28 ot later. Plus, when we take someone we all have to google at #9, I won't be pumped to read all the "A friend of a cousins friend said the Eagles were about to pick him next, so we had to if that's who we wanted".

Reach and scheme in the later rounds all you want, but treat that top 10 pick like it was meant to be treated...with a blue chipper who can tilt the field.

 

[xray]

Any lineman , either side of the trench .

 

[AgentDib]

Damn straight because I can definitely see this front office trading down into the 20's and taking some linebacker none of us ever heard of, whom Kiper and others had projected as a 2nd rounder.

Pete really likes the idea of highly recruited guys and so I'd bet given the opportunity they take a guy like Thibodeaux, Johnson or Davis.

That being said, I'd rather they trade down (including into the 20s) as the players in that range still have a ton of upside. One possibility would be if GB really liked Garrett Wilson and felt that they needed to get Rodgers a receiver. GB's #22 and #28 for our #9 and #109 would fit the draft value of what both the Hawks and GB have moved for in the past.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

LT first, unless the beast from Oregon is still on the board. Can't pass up a pass rusher like that.

 

[Lagartixa]

Damn straight because I can definitely see this front office trading down into the 20's and taking some linebacker none of us ever heard of, whom Kiper and others had projected as a 2nd rounder.

It doesn't bother me that Schneider and Carroll appear to use different measures of draft value from other teams, and it really doesn't bother me at all that they draft players different from the ones Kiper and his ilk like.

Why does Kiper's opinion matter?

Yeah! Kiper gave the Seahawks' 2012 draft a grade of "C," and we now know it contained a first-ballot HoFer (Bobby), the greatest QB in Seahawks history, and 35 total seasons (and counting - Wilson is almost certain to add another this season plus a few more in upcoming seasons, and I think there's a good chance Bobby will add more too) in which a player was the primary starter for his team at his position.

 

[Frozenropers1]

I think the Hawks go with Best Player at position of need. LT, NT (vitally important in a 3-4 defense), CB, OLB QB (assuming they rate one of the QB’s this high).

In thinking of franchise talent NT’s think, Vince Wilfork, Haloti Ngata types.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

A top 10 pick should be best player available at a position of need.

So good news, we have a top 10 pick. Bad news we have MANY positions of need.

What do I want to see? I want to see a the #9 used for an impact position of tackle, edge rusher or CB.

IMO those are our three most glaring positions of need right now.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Yeah I’m in the group that they either take an Edge, OT, or CB especially if 2 QBs by chance make it into the top 10 via Det , Car, or Atlanta. Seahawks will likely be insured a great player at #9 that they probably be hard to pass up.

If nobody is taking QBs, and your top group is gone, I would like them to trade down into the mid-teens for instance Chargers and Eagles would make sense if they want to grab Jordan Davis. Ask for a 2nd rounder and a 2023 3rd round pick, then use that pick to spin more picks in the 3rd and 4th rounds and/or more future picks.

Then at 16 or 17 you probably could still grab a quality OT, Edge, or DLine if they don’t feel the need to trade down another time.

But this is on the premise that the Seahawks don’t care about getting a QB this draft and that having 6 picks in the top 96 in 2023 can get them in a good position to start conversations if they don’t land a top 5 draft selection.

This is what makes this draft so exciting, Seahawks can go in a number of different ways and still get players that can contribute to the bottom line.