Seahawks mock (rounds 1-3) & a full first round projection

theENGLISHseahawk · Dec 29, 2015

Seahawks go: WR-LB-T-RB

LINK: http://seahawksdraftblog.com/updated-mo ... december-2

Would project DT in rounds 4-5 and CB 5-6 (that's what they always seem to do).

JSeahawks · Dec 29, 2015

Will fuller would be a nice pick up, he's a big play waiting to happen. He could always change his mind but he's on record saying he'll return to Notre dame next year.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on- ... ior-season

I like Perkins a lot as well. I don't know if her ever be the top dog but he'd be a real nice compliment to Rawls and/or lynch.

McGruff · Dec 29, 2015

Like what I've seen of Fuller, although I'd like to see more variety in his routes. That not his fault, but I didn't see much over the middle.

Perkins reminds me of Melvin Gordon. Shifty and decisive and can break tackles and gain tough yards just becuase he runs at a very high velocity.

massari · Dec 30, 2015

I just want them to take the BPA from the OL/DL/CB/OLB positions. Load up on those guys.

getnasty · Jan 2, 2016

Fuller looked good yesterday, I'd rather go CB with our first pick but Fuller would be exciting for sure.

Largent80 · Jan 2, 2016

I would be giddy with Perkins. Saw him play a lot the last couple of years.

kearly · Jan 4, 2016

I like Fuller. His skillset is like a more gifted version of Jermaine Kearse. Six feet tall, uses routes to get open, high points the ball perfectly, and is very easy to trust on the deep ball.

That said, I'm still a big believer Richardson fitting Seattle's new offense like a glove, and if he can stay healthy it would give Seattle a very good WR trio. During Wilson's recent hot streak, he's spread the ball less than before and almost all of his yardage and TDs have gone to his top 3 WRs, with the #4 and #5 WRs getting almost nothing.

Even if Kearse doesn't come back, the WR group could be pretty crowded next year. I like Fuller a lot but it would be a luxury pick, IMO.

I haven't researched this draft at all but my top two areas of need for Seattle right now are CB and pass rusher. It's very hard to find a good pass rusher in the late 1st though, so Seattle should probably try to address pass rush in trade or FA.

Attyla the Hawk · Jan 5, 2016

kearly":14hvsm2b said:
I haven't researched this draft at all but my top two areas of need for Seattle right now are CB and pass rusher. It's very hard to find a good pass rusher in the late 1st though, so Seattle should probably try to address pass rush in trade or FA.

Seems this class is very similar CB wise to last year's class. A lot of CBs with good size/length sprinkled throughout the draft. Fairly deep in the 50-150 overall range. Few headliners for R1 that should be good approximations of last year's R1 class which was quite good.

This DL class is short on top 15 overall talent. I don't see a day one Sheldon Richardson in the bunch. The top half of R1 seems kind of magoo really. But as far as DTs goes it really strikes me as a similar 25-125 overall group to 2013's class. Lots of guys that show flashes of quality but have some nagging concerns. That 2013 class had Sylvester Williams/Kawaan Short/Bennie Logan/Jordan Hill and Brandon Williams emerge as quality starters or significant role players. I'd expect a good half dozen decent starters to come out of this class in the range above.

I think this group is particularly strong in the 25-75 range. Should have a lot of promising players come out in this range. Seems like the group is athletic and stout. Like about 6 to 7 guys that look and play similar to Sharrif Floyd. Figure about half of those will turn out. There are a few that look of similar quality to Malcom Brown out of Texas last year. Good late first round guys.

This is a class that should have more than one 3rd round Mebane caliber steal in it. The depth at LB/OT/DB and DT is going to mean a lot of good quality gets pushed and a lot of starters should emerge from the end of day 2.

massari · Jan 6, 2016

Wonder if you've changed your mind picking a RB early now that Michael looks to be a good backup option to Rawls.

theENGLISHseahawk · Jan 6, 2016

massari":1awjtrfk said:
Wonder if you've changed your mind picking a RB early now that Michael looks to be a good backup option to Rawls.

No. I would still want to draft another one.

Attyla the Hawk · Jan 6, 2016

Good draft to get one in R3.

Won't know until UFA period ends. He could go. Also, no telling where Fred Jackson fits next year. He's defying his age that's for sure.

If it's me, I'm still expecting a RB on day 2. If this season has taught us anything, is we can't have enough good backs.

massari · Jan 6, 2016

theENGLISHseahawk":2u3mf3lm said:
massari":2u3mf3lm said:

Wonder if you've changed your mind picking a RB early now that Michael looks to be a good backup option to Rawls.

Click to expand...

No. I would still want to draft another one.

But so early? Wouldn't it just be better to draft one late or sign a UDFA/FA/practice squad guy and wait for that loaded 2017 RB class if they still need one?

I'd be fine with Rawls, Michael and signing Fred Jackson, Jacquizz Rodgers, Knowshon Moreno or whoever else is available to a cheap contract as a 3rd down guy.

titan3131 · Jan 6, 2016

Kenneth Dixon in the 3rd will be uncle fred replacement. This Rb runs wr routes better then most recievers. He is the # 1 player I am excited about currently.

jkitsune · Jan 6, 2016

titan3131":3rd246ct said:
Kenneth Dixon in the 3rd will be uncle fred replacement. This Rb runs wr routes better then most recievers. He is the # 1 player I am excited about currently.

Fred Jackson has not played that significant a role in our offense. He's been a good pickup, for sure, but I don't know that Fred's departure is something I'd sweat replacing as early as the 3rd round.

Other than the obvious needs at OL and DB, I imagine they'll be looking at DL in preparation for the day we lose either Avril or Bennett.

Overseasfan · Jan 7, 2016

Once the post-season is over I'll dive deeper into the draft. All I know is that I would spend the first round pick on an OT, DT or OLB. OLB almost becomes a must if we lose Irvin. OT is an overall good choice but a huge priority if we lose Okung. DT would be the position I'd pick if both Okung and Irvin stay. Will also depend a bit on the talent available.

I simply don't think a first round CB or WR is worth it. We have Shead and Lane who can both do a solid job at RCB, don't forget we also have Tye Smith waiting in the wings. WR is already loaded now with Baldwin, Lockett, Kearse and Richardson.

McGruff · Jan 7, 2016

Weak side OLBS are pretty easy to find in the middle rounds. Unless there is an athletic freak like Irvin or Shazier I font see a reason to spend an early pick on one.

Attyla the Hawk · Jan 7, 2016

What's interesting this year, is that as we've been discussing this year one common theme has really emerged. That there isn't really one major need that we can really identify going into the offseason.

We're really not in the urgent market for explosive receiving weapons. Nor are we burdened with who will succeed Lynch if and when he retires. Our OL has been developing to a point where we are collectively comfortable with it's current pace and track.

That doesn't mean we won't address any one of those. We could even early. I think however that any theory on which way we'll go will definitely be tempered.

It seems like this draft will be different than the last several drafts. And this looks pretty manifest in the variety of opinions both here locally and on the outside. Seattle has any number of options they can pursue. All options appear soft this year which is quite different from the last 5 drafts:

2011: OL
2012: Pass rush
2013: Explosive receiver
2014: Explosive receiver
2015: Explosive receiver

In this regard, I think it's unlikely that we go explosive receiver yet again. Going Harvin/Richardson/Lockett/Graham in back to back to back drafts really makes me think Fuller is not in the cards. The fact that this offense is exploding without largely any of those investments may temper that even further. We should expect Richardson back next year. Graham possibly too, although with his injury the rehab is really tough. He could be a PUP candidate.

I really do think we're going defense. We've only addressed defense one time in the top two rounds in the last three drafts. And that pick (Clark) looks like it was a real success. Getting the scoring title for a 4th straight year is something else. But this defense had to come on strong to achieve that. And the failings of the defense earlier in the year not holding leads consistently in tight games can't be lost on PCJS. If half of those leads are held, we're a #2 seed.

But that's a soft opinion. I think there are a lot of strong cases to be made for any outcome. I just think that the SB49 failure to hold a 10 point lead, and the rash of 80 yard drives allowed to lose leads this year is going to weigh on us. Seattle feasted on bad teams down the stretch (as all good teams do at some point). So I expect that the opinion that the defense is fine is probably rampant. I am of the opinion that Seattle wants a defense that holds even good offenses to below 20 points. We didn't do that this year very often.

titan3131 · Jan 7, 2016

the class is deep with dt and I think we might pick one high for the right guy. Specifically a run stopper with good pass rush.

Then I believe a kam replacement is a huge need. Jaryon kearse is my ss I'm targeting.

And then Kenneth dixon.

Hawks46 · Jan 7, 2016

Attyla the Hawk":1uvyqo40 said:
What's interesting this year, is that as we've been discussing this year one common theme has really emerged. That there isn't really one major need that we can really identify going into the offseason.

We're really not in the urgent market for explosive receiving weapons. Nor are we burdened with who will succeed Lynch if and when he retires. Our OL has been developing to a point where we are collectively comfortable with it's current pace and track.

That doesn't mean we won't address any one of those. We could even early. I think however that any theory on which way we'll go will definitely be tempered.

It seems like this draft will be different than the last several drafts. And this looks pretty manifest in the variety of opinions both here locally and on the outside. Seattle has any number of options they can pursue. All options appear soft this year which is quite different from the last 5 drafts:

2011: OL
2012: Pass rush
2013: Explosive receiver
2014: Explosive receiver
2015: Explosive receiver

In this regard, I think it's unlikely that we go explosive receiver yet again. Going Harvin/Richardson/Lockett/Graham in back to back to back drafts really makes me think Fuller is not in the cards. The fact that this offense is exploding without largely any of those investments may temper that even further. We should expect Richardson back next year. Graham possibly too, although with his injury the rehab is really tough. He could be a PUP candidate.

I really do think we're going defense. We've only addressed defense one time in the top two rounds in the last three drafts. And that pick (Clark) looks like it was a real success. Getting the scoring title for a 4th straight year is something else. But this defense had to come on strong to achieve that. And the failings of the defense earlier in the year not holding leads consistently in tight games can't be lost on PCJS. If half of those leads are held, we're a #2 seed.

But that's a soft opinion. I think there are a lot of strong cases to be made for any outcome. I just think that the SB49 failure to hold a 10 point lead, and the rash of 80 yard drives allowed to lose leads this year is going to weigh on us. Seattle feasted on bad teams down the stretch (as all good teams do at some point). So I expect that the opinion that the defense is fine is probably rampant. I am of the opinion that Seattle wants a defense that holds even good offenses to below 20 points. We didn't do that this year very often.

This is a good post. We're looking at BPA for most positions, which is a good place to be.

I would disagree though, about the OL. As it stands, yea we're good and could actually get better with the same group. All it takes is one guy leaving: Okung, which is likely. The most likely scenario would be sliding Gilliam over to LT (I hate Bailey there), probably sliding Britt back to RT, and plugging Glowinski into LG. That's a lot of shifting on the OL, and I'm willing to be that the coaching staff might be loathe to do that 2 years in a row. Now throw in that we could lose Sweezy. We need quality depth here anyways, unless guys like Sokoli and Nowak get better.

The other big issue I see rearing up is CB. We seem to have some good younger players like Smith and Seisay, but we're not sure how much they will progress. I don't know enough about the draft to know if going CB in the late 1st or 2nd would be good value, but I could see it with our squad now. Can Shead progress ? Can Lane play better on the outside, and will he even be back ? If Lane slides out, who's the Nickle ? I'm underwhelmed with Burley, I think his ceiling is more a dime.

theENGLISHseahawk · Jan 8, 2016

They went explosive receiver in 2013 and that guy isn't on the roster any more.

They went explosive receiver in 2014 and that guy has barely played due to two serious injuries.

They went explosive receiver in 2015 and that guy just suffered an extremely serious tendon injury.

What's more, Jermaine Kearse is an upcoming free agent and Doug Baldwin's contract expires in a year. They also cut Chris Matthews and Ricardo Lockette might never play again.

I'd only be willing to not consider WR if the above wasn't true.

Seahawks mock (rounds 1-3) & a full first round projection

Active member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Similar threads