Pete Carroll's Draft Logic

It's been said by Pete Carroll he likes players with "unique" backgrounds.

A common denominator in his draft players are he targets players that "overcomes" difficulties.

I believe the reason he does this is he believes players that come from unusual situations that overcome difficulties stand a better chance and isn't a stranger to "compete" in his program--like their "competing" to their journey to the NFL.

That being said, here are some examples:

Bruce Irvin - I think most here know his story prior the NFL.

Paul Richardson - I believe I remember Pete saying he loves how he "overcame" injuries in college. Still injury prone now.

Walter Thurmond - Same as Richardson.

Kam Chancellor - It's been said teams avoided him because he was too much of a "tweener" but Pete being a defensive back specialist, saw what he could be.

Richard Sherman - Pete knew him from recruiting but he also knew has some issues with Harbaugh at Stanford. Pete also recruited Sherm to play corner and thought he was perfect.

Doug Baldwin - Didn't get drafted but Pete knew Baldwin also fueded with Harbaugh at Stanford.

Krystic Sokoli - However, you spell his name. Pete loves how he's limited in his football experience but believes he can be great.

Frank Clark - We all know his story.

So, from now until the draft, if there's a player you like, you better make sure he fits what Pete wants, some kind of "overcoming" a situation in their life. Pete doesn't draft the traditional way most coaches do. So if the player you want doesn't have a background like the names above, chances are, Petey is not interested.

Is it the combine yet?

Pretty sure when the card (1st rd. and maybe others) is turned in and the pick announced, everybody is gonna say "Huh?". True Seahawks style.

Frank Clark and Tyler Lockett - enough said.

Such a vague and subjective crtiteria. First of, almost every college prospect has overcome something to make it to the NFL. Poverty, parenting, addictions, injuries . . . The list goes on and on.

Secondly, it does apply to every big. What did Lockett overcome? The stigma of having priviledged athletic family members who were Rockstar at the University he chose to attend? Just one example.

I'm worn out on the whole unique-gritty-athletic-seahawky thing. How about just some plain ol' good football players? Especially on the OL. What a concept.

crosfam":2wp592fx said:

Pretty sure when the card (1st rd. and maybe others) is turned in and the pick announced, everybody is gonna say "Huh?". True Seahawks style.

Frank Clark and Tyler Lockett - enough said.

Click to expand...

I jumped up and down for Lock he was amazing in college and I still can't believe how far he fell.

crosfam":30sxerbr said:

Pretty sure when the card (1st rd. and maybe others) is turned in and the pick announced, everybody is gonna say "Huh?". True Seahawks style.

Frank Clark and Tyler Lockett - enough said.

Click to expand...

Clark and Lockett were both prospects that scouts liked in the spots they were drafted and were regarded as good talents. Carp Irvin Richardson Michaels were all regarded as a reach in many of the pro draft scouts analysis and they were mostly correct. I'm a believer in leaning more towards consensus picks in round 1 and 2 . 3 through 7 is the time to take chances and go after players you like but have some risk.

There are a whole lot of bullet points that apply:

• General attributes
  
• Testing numbers.
  
  John specified this explicitly on a number of occasions. Relates to value in development.
  
  
• Grades against team, not NFL.
  
  This is generally the biggest contributor to the head scratcher picks.
  
  
• Unique attributes to add to the team.
  
  This aligns with Pete's eye of what you can do, not what you can't.
  
  
• Grit/Toughness.
  
  In particular how mental competitiveness will fit within locker room.
  
  
• Needs.
  
  Every year Pete's end of year presser outlines what is most important. That has been the top acquisition every year.
  
  
• Pockets of talent.
  
  This factors in heavily in our trade back scenarios.
  
  
• Forecast other team's picks.
  
  Seattle is one of the best at this.
  
  
• Physical prototype.
  
  Many positions adhere rigidly to this. RB, LG, RG, DT, LB, Outside CB
  
  
• Close symmetry between what coaches want and seeking those players.
  
  We do a very good job of getting 'our kinds of guys'. Very few instances where we add mismatch players.
  
  
• Quantity
  
  Every year teams get 7 picks in the draft. Seattle wants 9-10 every year. In the early days, this meant trading back a lot. With a mature roster, we rely on Comp picks to add the 3-4 extra picks. This severely limits our UFA options and we restrict our FA additions to street FAs almost exclusively. In particular we aggressively pursue cap casualty cuts in the latter stages of the UFA period.
  
  
• Pursue all avenues of acquisition
  
  This is the biggest deviation between Schneider and his Green Bay heritage. Seattle is far more aggressive and creative in adding new talents outside the draft. Draft is still king. But it's a foundation to a web of complementary ways of improving the roster. Draft strategy gels after the March UFA signing period. Additionally we will trade for depth at the end of TC to fill holes then.

All of these genuinely apply.

Great post.

I would add, and this is purely off subjective observation, that Pete and John are really good at draft projecting 2-3 years ahead. They are able to see where individual draft classes are strong and tend to wait for the strength to come to them.

For example, I suspect they might not take a RB this season, knowing what is coming down the pike next year. Last year they didn't take a DT, knowing that this year is pretty rich at DT.

McGruff":1wdiocvv said:

I would add, and this is purely off subjective observation, that Pete and John are really good at draft projecting 2-3 years ahead. They are able to see where individual draft classes are strong and tend to wait for the strength to come to them.

For example, I suspect they might not take a RB this season, knowing what is coming down the pike next year. Last year they didn't take a DT, knowing that this year is pretty rich at DT.

Click to expand...

Hence the 1 year Tuba signing, and not renewing Mebane early. I really want Tuba back, but with this crop of DTs, they have leverage over Mebane.

Full-Spectrum drafting.

Attylla:

Another factor that is unmentioned ( maybe just not clarified) in your very excellent post is pure athleticism. If it comes down to 2 players with similar draft grades the team will almost always chose the player who is the better athlete or the player who has the highest SPARQ score. I suspect that score is a huge part of the testing numbers/ physical attributes but can be demonstrated as true for last few drafts.

I echo McG's remark that your post was excellent.

bigDhawk":zljgauky said:

I'm worn out on the whole unique-gritty-athletic-seahawky thing. How about just some plain ol' good football players? Especially on the OL. What a concept.

Click to expand...

LOL, Yeah, you do realize that it's been Pete's "Whole Unique-Gritty-Athletic-Seahawky Thing", although worn out, has been amongst the BEST in the NFL?
TWO consecutive NFC Championships + SB visits in a row, with a Lombardi sprinkled in there. :stirthepot:
What a Concept?....Yes Indeed, What a Concept. :mrgreen: