Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Proof we drafted for need not BPA

Discuss your thoughts about anything College Football or NFL draft. Recruiting, Projections, and Mock drafts, Etc. LANGUAGE: PG-13
Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Thu Apr 30, 2020 8:27 pm
  • A quote from John Schneider shows they were going LB in the first no matter what.

    “It was a decision of if one of those linebackers is still there, we’re not going to back out and with Jordyn, everybody had so much conviction,”


    https://sports.mynorthwest.com/840113/s ... ng-brooks/
    Wenhawk
    .NET Owner
     
    Posts: 4837
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:38 am
    Location: Renton, WA


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 5:50 am
  • I don’t believe that is comment on need. Rather, I believe he felt that the board would fall in a way that they would have a chance to get their BPA.

    In the same interview, JS talked about taking Taylor there, which in my mind, would’ve been the need pick.
    Yxes1122
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 308
    Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:49 pm


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 7:04 am
  • Now that we have heard about the surgery on KJ Wright, I'd say the motivation was shifted a bit toward the "need" side, though that doesn't mean Brooks wasn't the BPA.
    sutz
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 19461
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 8:43 am
  • I was thinking the exact opposite.

    Heading into the draft, the 4 most secure/bloated position groups on the team were:

    LB
    OL
    TE
    RB

    We added one of all four with our first 6 picks. The other two being DE which was imminent need.

    Actually, I rather like the shift in draft strategy. LB wasn't imminent need. But it was a 24 month need. Brooks should get playing time and perhaps significantly so. Seattle doesn't have to shed LB cap space and playing Brooks can easily extend the shelf life of Wright/Wagner another year if Seattle opts to carry the same 2019 starting rotation.

    Lewis has already rolled the OL over. But that aside, he was one of two OL players I felt were surely going to get their name called.

    Parkinson is a prospect that I didn't give credit for due to a particularly damning 2019 season. He was definitely on the radar after 2018. But I didn't really dig into the TE class much given that it was a loaded group and we'd just added Olsen to the mix. After taking him, I had to kind of reset and dig into 2018 notes. At the top of his section was *** Elite NFL quality hands and catching ability ***

    DeeJay Dallas, I'm paritcularly excited for. He's going to get playing time. I predict significantly more than Travis Homer.

    It feels like we really did end up taking guys that otherwise shouldn't have 'graded against the team' as well as others should have at other positions. In particular, not sure how Amadi didn't get a decent hedge draft selection at slot corner. Unless Seattle is looking to play Dunbar and Flowers in nickel packages. I really felt like Amik Robertson would have been a Carroll type pick for a nickel corner. Small, quick and extremely physical.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2450
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:38 pm


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 8:52 am
  • Wenhawk wrote:A quote from John Schneider shows they were going LB in the first no matter what.

    “It was a decision of if one of those linebackers is still there, we’re not going to back out and with Jordyn, everybody had so much conviction,”


    https://sports.mynorthwest.com/840113/s ... ng-brooks/

    I don't know how we get to "no matter what" from "if one of those linebackers is still there".

    Listening to the full interview and putting it together with other things we've heard, I would say they rated the top three inside linebackers ahead of the edge guys available in that area of the draft.

    This is not proof we drafted for need not BPA.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 246
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 8:45 am
    Location: Corvallis


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 9:15 am
  • My take on John's comments were that there were three very strong LB'ers (Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jordyn Brooks) and that he and the scouts thought so highly of them that if any of those three were there, they would pick them.

    Frankly, from what I've seen, I don't think that was a bad call. All three of those guys look legit.

    His subsequent comment about Taylor, that's a head scratcher. Not sure what they see in Taylor, frankly. But that's neither here nor there. If I saw a draft class stocked with superior talent at any given position, i would be inclined to take someone at that position regardless of need (i.e. BPA).
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1432
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 11:24 am
  • xgeoff wrote:My take on John's comments were that there were three very strong LB'ers (Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jordyn Brooks) and that he and the scouts thought so highly of them that if any of those three were there, they would pick them.

    Frankly, from what I've seen, I don't think that was a bad call. All three of those guys look legit.

    His subsequent comment about Taylor, that's a head scratcher. Not sure what they see in Taylor, frankly. But that's neither here nor there.
    If I saw a draft class stocked with superior talent at any given position, i would be inclined to take someone at that position regardless of need (i.e. BPA).


    Can you explain this? I think they got an absolute steal with Darrell Taylor.
    ivotuk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 20104
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 2:31 pm
  • Sun Tzu wrote:
    Wenhawk wrote:A quote from John Schneider shows they were going LB in the first no matter what.

    “It was a decision of if one of those linebackers is still there, we’re not going to back out and with Jordyn, everybody had so much conviction,”


    https://sports.mynorthwest.com/840113/s ... ng-brooks/

    I don't know how we get to "no matter what" from "if one of those linebackers is still there".

    Listening to the full interview and putting it together with other things we've heard, I would say they rated the top three inside linebackers ahead of the edge guys available in that area of the draft.

    This is not proof we drafted for need not BPA.



    Here how I interpret this

    Me: Hey John what if CeeDee Lamb, Austin Jackson, or Jalen Reagor were available

    JS: If one of those linebackers is still there we're not going to back out


    I doubt their BPA board had three LB's all back to back to back in ranking ahead of all other players in this draft.

    He is basically admitting that LB was #1 priority and if any of those 3 are still there "no matter what other players are on the board" they are taking a LB.

    Drafted for need, LB was a bigger need than anyone expected.
    Wenhawk
    .NET Owner
     
    Posts: 4837
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:38 am
    Location: Renton, WA


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 2:54 pm
  • Is it possible to draft BPA in an area of need at the same time?
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2366
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:25 am


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 3:54 pm
  • @16:23 Carroll basically says they picked the BPA and weren't drafting for needs.

    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1559
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:58 am


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 8:11 pm
  • Wenhawk wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    Wenhawk wrote:A quote from John Schneider shows they were going LB in the first no matter what.

    “It was a decision of if one of those linebackers is still there, we’re not going to back out and with Jordyn, everybody had so much conviction,”


    https://sports.mynorthwest.com/840113/s ... ng-brooks/

    I don't know how we get to "no matter what" from "if one of those linebackers is still there".

    Listening to the full interview and putting it together with other things we've heard, I would say they rated the top three inside linebackers ahead of the edge guys available in that area of the draft.

    This is not proof we drafted for need not BPA.



    Here how I interpret this

    Me: Hey John what if CeeDee Lamb, Austin Jackson, or Jalen Reagor were available

    JS: If one of those linebackers is still there we're not going to back out


    I doubt their BPA board had three LB's all back to back to back in ranking ahead of all other players in this draft.

    He is basically admitting that LB was #1 priority and if any of those 3 are still there "no matter what other players are on the board" they are taking a LB.

    Drafted for need, LB was a bigger need than anyone expected.


    Well you have to use common sense also, you can only have so many guys on the field at once, if Burrows, Tagovailoa, and Herbert happened to be there would you expect them to draft them also?
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 31563
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Fri May 01, 2020 8:29 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:
    xgeoff wrote:My take on John's comments were that there were three very strong LB'ers (Kenneth Murray, Patrick Queen, Jordyn Brooks) and that he and the scouts thought so highly of them that if any of those three were there, they would pick them.

    Frankly, from what I've seen, I don't think that was a bad call. All three of those guys look legit.

    His subsequent comment about Taylor, that's a head scratcher. Not sure what they see in Taylor, frankly. But that's neither here nor there.
    If I saw a draft class stocked with superior talent at any given position, i would be inclined to take someone at that position regardless of need (i.e. BPA).


    Can you explain this? I think they got an absolute steal with Darrell Taylor.


    Sure. His game tape is unimpressive. I just didn't see much there from what I watched.

    Now, that being the case, I am not saying this guy doesn't turn into a stud. Cause I'm not an NFL GM / Scout. But look at the guy's tape from the Georgia game last year. Completely unimpressive. His College career production. Not that special.

    That's my take on the guy. However, I am interested in your take as well. What do you see that is special in this guy? Why do you think he's a steal?
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1432
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:45 pm


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Sun May 03, 2020 11:38 am
  • NOTE: This post has been deleted 5/22/20, this comes after an unprovoked attack on me by acer1240. I will never post here again. This site has officially gone to hell & I'll never return.
    Last edited by CamanoIslandJQ on Fri May 22, 2020 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1531
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Mon May 04, 2020 7:26 pm
  • "DeeJay Dallas, I'm paritcularly excited for. He's going to get playing time. I predict significantly more than Travis Homer. "

    Homer will be starting if neither Carson or Penny make it. People significantly discount what he did in very limited amounts of carries last year.

    I'm not sure why everyone is questioning are draft as if we could have done better. We got players we needed at positions of need.

    Fast LB- play immediately and replace either kj or b wags eventually-> win

    (2) de-play similar style and will play immediately also->win

    G-tough, athletic middleman who played college championship->easy win

    (2) te- with our injury history at position...I think we keep 4 te's. Two athletic jumping targets. One listed as areciever

    Rb- position of need. Has a chance to play immediately. Rb is the least of positions I question them drafting. They've done better with less talent.->win

    Add wr as bonus. Not needed, but let's see what he does first.

    I was surprised no dt taken, but I dont get caught up in well this draftee was still there and all the scouts rated him higher. Drafting is over rated. There is no scale to say any player will be better than another. It's just guessing and comfort with their character.
    jamescasey1124
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 22
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2020 12:36 am


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Mon May 11, 2020 1:35 am
  • Ad Hawk wrote:Is it possible to draft BPA in an area of need at the same time?


    In the first round? Absolutely. You know there are probably a dozen or more guys there that are solid, long-term starters, and usually a pretty good mix across positions. Quarterbacks usually get the nod first because their position is so important to the integrity of the overall team and especially the offense, but to think you'd have a #1 choice at a good half a dozen positions in the first round isn't a stretch of the imagination at all.
    Seahawk Sailor
    * .NET Navy Bad Ass *
     
    Posts: 22920
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:23 am
    Location: California via Negros Occidental, Philippines


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:55 pm
  • The Seahawks have a horizontal Draft board graded against their own roster.

    By default or inadvertently they draft for need.

    Their first selection of the draft normally boils down to thinnest graded position group at biggest position of need.

    They also wasted no time trading up into the 2nd to get a Leo because it was also a thin position group in the draft, and they had to move up and make sure they got their guy, or you end up drafting another LJ Collier. Which of course is an over correction from the previous draft, which a lot of teams and especially the Seahawks do. (Over correct from the previous draft failings.)

    There is a flip side to that coin though. You end up with a lesser talent with the first selection, but a glutton of talent to pick from in rounds 3-5 in particular with a big need out of the way. Because JS has graded the other positions to be deeper and they will have all but guaranteed themselves a chance to acquire some real talents in the middle of the draft.

    My argument has been well if the guy sucks, you didn't fill a need, only exacter-bated it.

    The only way to truly NOT draft for need is to have a vertical board, line them up single file, and just take the best player available. The Seahawks do not operate that way. Ozzie Newsome of the Ravens did, and that's what made him so great in the 1st round. He just waited for the best talent to fall to him in the 1st and picked them.

    I will say though the 1st round selection this year is a high ceiling talent, and I believe was the only 2nd backer off the board. So at least it was better than what it has been in seasons past. I think it also goes back to the over correction from drafting LJ Collier. (That Collier pick was a spectacular fail.)

    JS was asked about why he took Collier with his first pick? And he said "there was quite a drop after him."

    And I was thinking to myself when he said that, that Sweat was probably the cliff, and he was just digging through the carcasses at the bottom of the cliff. But he is the professional, and I am an internet arm chair GM, so he knows better than me. But damn it is amazing how many times the professionals overthink the 1st round.

    Brooks is a nice step in the right direction (Talent). Now the next step is to get a better grasp of positional value.

    QB, OT, DE, CB, 3T, WR. Is what you really should be looking at picking in the 1st. If you draft outside of that framework in the 1st, he better be a star. Earl Thomas at FS being a great example of doing it right. Brooks at least has a real chance to be a star.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2700
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:55 pm
  • I would probably scratch WR from your list of positions worth drafting in the first round, but other than that, largely agree. I also think drafting in the second half of the first round rather than the first half probably changes things up a bit. If there is a truly *special* player at, say, guard or linebacker, then a pick after the 20s is probably okay. But I'm talking Steve Hutchinson potential here, not Chris Spencer.
    HawkGA
    NET Hall Of Famer
     
    Posts: 107408
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:29 pm


Re: Proof we drafted for need not BPA
Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:09 pm
  • HawkGA wrote:I would probably scratch WR from your list of positions worth drafting in the first round, but other than that, largely agree. I also think drafting in the second half of the first round rather than the first half probably changes things up a bit. If there is a truly *special* player at, say, guard or linebacker, then a pick after the 20s is probably okay. But I'm talking Steve Hutchinson potential here, not Chris Spencer.

    And guys like that seldom drop below 15 or so. Drafting between 20-32 is basically a glorified 2d Rd pick most years, with the one benefit is the 5th year option. Many fans don't like to admit that and tend to expect bottom 1st Rd picks to produce like top 10 picks.
    sutz
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 19461
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 1:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA




It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:11 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests