Hawkfan77":4u4uflio said:
I think Winston is going #1 overall though, no way he drops anywhere close to 20, IMO.
Just remember, every year there are a few players who 'no way drops out X', and do. Figure probably as many as 10 of these players on this mock aren't even in round 1.
It happens all the time. And Winston is precisely the kind of mercurial talent to drop. Opinions on him are going to vary widely and teams with selections in the top10 are going to have to think long and hard if the risk is worth it even if their opinions on him are high.
As for the pick. I like Devin Smith, although not in the first. Which would mean likely not getting him at all.
Short version:
I see DL and OL as being more urgent areas of talent infusion than WR. Based on recent failures to get cheap depth/development and the current/looming cap cost for those two units. Both OL and DL eat up a huge part of our cap. To get healthy with the cap we need to pare some of the cost there. The only exception being a big WR, since we don't have that at all really on the roster.
Long version:
I just don't see the value in spending a third straight first pick on essentially the same kind of player (5'11" to 6'1" wideout). Harvin to Richardson to Smith is ridiculous spend of draft stock. Particularly for a role that is ancillary to our identity. Rob is on record for denouncing the commitment of high draft capital on linemen when we had already done so in 2011. I would say that doing so on what is in essence the exact same kind of receiver would be an identical situation. But worse.
Smith could well be the BPA at that position, but Seattle has a very dubious record for going for those kinds of guys. Does Smith provide anything unique to us? I don't see that. And Seattle hasn't shown much of a willingness to keep addressing the same liabilities in successive years outside of Richardson last year. We know that Seattle has long sought a big wideout target for this offense and hasn't pulled the trigger for reasons that are a bit elusive.
I'd expect Seattle to still be in the market for hedging on Richardson. But I'd expect us to do that in the same manner we've done that in previous drafts for all other positions. Through drafting a day 3 development prospect. It's an early pre combine mock so obviously things will change a lot on this board. Some will drop while others in the 2nd/3rd round range will rise. I would expect no less than 5 of the players in the 11 through 25 range on this mock to be available for us at 31.
Unless Smith just kills it in the interview room, I would have a hard time seeing us go all in for a third straight year on a wide receiver who would be graded against Jermaine Kearse. And honestly, if we resign Kearse this year as we did Baldwin last year -- I'd think we'll settle on the WRs we have on the roster unless a big wide out presents itself.
Assuming they do go offense for a 3rd straight year, I'd have to think that OL would feature prominently in that equation. Particularly with how the medium term outlook on the left side is presenting itself. Do we really think Seattle is settled on Britt at RT? Realistically speaking, the need at LT/LG and RT should be pretty significant. Will Seattle want to commit the cap money required to keep Okung after 2015? Will we be satisfied paying RT money for Carpenter who has had kind of a career year? Has Britt developed to a point where we aren't willing to hedge his position? Seattle has really kind of crapped out on our OL development in the last two drafts (Britt, Garrett Scott, Garry Gilliam, Ryan Seymour, Jared Smith, Michael Bowie). So we don't have much in the way of prospects in our pipeline ready to elevate.
Seattle is really in a position where they need some better talent who doesn't need a couple years to get with the program. Due mainly to the lack of success with our development guys in 2013/2014. Depth has taken a hit and now some of our kind of average guys are getting to their second contracts. If it somehow feels like Seattle won't spend draft capital on the OL because they did so heavily in 2011, then that same logic should apply even more to small WRs for this team.
Early prediction:
Honestly, if a bigger WR like Coates does what is expected at the combine and does well in the interview room -- I'd expect him to grade higher than Smith on our board. Remember, Pete mentioned specifically that he didn't see a big WR with speed in last years' draft and that's why they passed on bigger prospects like Matthews, Adams and Robinson. Seattle sounded like they are still looking at that option.
Seattle has been notorious for taking consensus 2nd round talent with the first pick. Going back all the way to 2011. Every year they've done so. Even Harvin could be included in that, since I think it's pretty clear that Seattle was the only team willing to trade a first round pick for him. So ultimately I consider his value to be a 2nd round pick. We simply overspent for him. I think it's probably worth observing this trend. So I'm kind of looking at unique high ceiling talent in the 40-55 range as our likely first round target.
I'm also not going to discount DGB at this pick either. Obviously if he does well in the face to face interviews, he should go higher. He'll be a high risk pick in that case. Seattle has proven that they are not risk averse. Bruce Irvin is proof of that. It'll be a question of athletic potential versus character risk. Seattle is a maverick organization. They don't abide by our outside estimation of risk. And I can't help but feel like they'd use a draft day drop for a player of DGB's potential to fuel his competitive fire as we've done with so many of our selections.
In addition, I have to wonder if Seattle maybe feels like they got it wrong in 2014. Because a lot of those bigger WRs we passed on have turned out to be almost exactly what we were looking for. Obviously we'd never see/hear about that on the outside. So that's merely pure speculation. But the reality is, those big athletic receivers have turned into good pros. Certainly better than what Pete alluded to when he explained why we didn't pull the trigger on any of them after the draft concluded.
I'd surmise that we either take a guy seemingly way too early (to use the criticism of the pick to keep them motivated), or to pick a talented guy much later than they felt they deserved to go (and use that snub to keep them motivated). Smith just feels like he'd be the same guy we have, picked right about where he should go. Those two traits haven't been the hallmark of Seattle picks.
I would also think a prospect like Jake Fisher would also be a good consideration. He looks very much like a much more talented clone of Justin Britt. Temperament is similar. Measurables should be more suitable for LT possibilities. A prospect who has played LT and should be considered a real development option to replace Okung if it's needed in 2016. Guy who fits the mid/late 2nd round 'reach' that Seattle seems to gravitate to.
