A lesson the 2012 QB draft class should have taught us

Heading into the 2012 draft, Seahawk fans were obsessed with quarterbacks. Luck and RG3 led the discussions, but after it was obvious they we're going in the top-5, those who didn't see Flynn as the long-term QB quickly turned to the other quarterbacks to make a case for them.

We had an idea of the prototype QB we wanted the Seahawks to draft. Most of us wanted the upside and physically gifted. Perhaps two of the other most talked about QB were Ryan Tannehill and Brock Osweiler.

Personally, I was a big Tannehill fan. He had his flaws as you would expect from a guy only starting a year and a half at Texas A&M. He made poor decisions and took to many chances. IMO, the tools was there, though. At 6'4, 225 pounds, the upside was there. All he needed was experience..or so I thought. After two years at Miami with a .500 or lower winning percentage, I'm wondering if he'll will ever max out his potential to justify the #8 overall pick in draft.

Brock Osweiler had his fans as well. I was not one of them, but I could understand people's arguments to drafting him. At 6'7" he had the height, a strong arm, and could run as well as most guy 6'2". Despite poor technique and a lack of consistency, the idea was that good coaching could fix these flaws. The Bronco's must have agreed as he was drafted in the 2nd round over Russell Wilson, yet after a number of poor pre-season games performances, Bronco fans have to wonder if Osweiler is another player where the reality never meets the fantasy.

Wilson, on the other hand, was everything you look for in a QB when you watched him play. He ran a NFL offense at NC State and set records at Wisconsin. He could make every throw required of him and lead his team in the biggest of games. Yet despite Wilson showing the country week after week these attributes, his short stature had everyone, even hawk fans, pointing to the lack of one specific physical tool that would limit his chances of succeeding in the NFL (except of course Kearly and a few others).

Now we had into the 2014 draft where, again, our focus will be on the "upside" and "potential to be elite". And why shouldn't it be? We all want to have that freak athlete who can dominate and grow into their ability. But at what cost?

Let's continue debating and searching for that player who has all the potential in the world, but lets not do it at the expense of downplaying greatness in front of us because they don't fit the prototype. If there's a lesson we should have learned with the 2012 QB class, it's that greatness will overcome despite limitations.

I couldn't agree more. Also, lets not get caught up in what we think we "need" by over drafting a player, when we can get the same production in the later rounds. If a defensive player happens to be the top rated player on our board, take him. Passing up talent to fill perceived needs is detrimental.

I think QB is one of the few positions in football where intangibles should be considered when evaluating a prospect. I think the lessons of Russell Wilson won't be as easily applied to positions like OL or DL.

One thing I have learned is to trust our FO when they draft a guy who seems mediocre on tape. As we've seen with guys like Doug Baldwin and Richard Sherman, sometimes an intense burning outlook can propel a player to NFL stardom. We don't get to interview these players, they do. So we really have little idea which prospects are the dirtbag types.

Jim Mora was the dumbest coach I have ever seen in my years of Seahawk fandom. But it's kind of amazing to me how many of his cliches were right on the money. It just took a better coach to prove those cliches true.

PS: Regarding Osweiler and Tannehill I shared the exact same sentiments as Recon. Osweiler clearly needed another year, and when he left early it was a signal to me that he didn't have confidence in himself that he could work himself into 1st round pick consideration. He has some talent, but his "meh" attitude and demeanor reminds me a lot of Matt Leinart after going to the NFL. I think Tannehill would be a damn good game manager. Put him in SF and he's a star.

I think the intangibles that Wilson has has been applied to every position on the team, intelligence, drive, willing to be the best, always wanting to improve, accepting that showing up isn't the end it's just the beginning. Why we see so many of our late round guys succeed. We couple that with a certain physical or multiple physical attributes targetted for a position. Most of it is speed and size or both.

Many of our players were not the teams stand outs where they played, Pete sees that they may not have been used in a situation that utilized their strengths and took them because he see's where they fit in our scheme.

Meh. I think the situation drafted into has as much or more to do with success than the individual players listed. Miami was crap before they drafted T, so it isn't suprising he is having trouble winning...for the same reasons Manning lost SB48.

I still go the example that fits best, IMHO, and that's ( ukeface: ) Rothlisberger in Pittsburgh. Like Roth, Russ was drafted by a team that was pretty much complete, except for that top notch QB that he is. I suspect that Wilson's records would not be there if Miami or any other team had drafted him.

I think the real lesson teams should take is that you have to have something before you can make something by drafting that "franchise" QB.

kearly":2wvlfscy said:

I think QB is one of the few positions in football where intangibles should be considered when evaluating a prospect. I think the lessons of Russell Wilson won't be as easily applied to positions like OL or DL.

One thing I have learned is to trust our FO when they draft a guy who seems mediocre on tape. As we've seen with guys like Doug Baldwin and Richard Sherman, sometimes an intense burning outlook can propel a player to NFL stardom. We don't get to interview these players, they do. So we really have little idea which prospects are the dirtbag types.

Click to expand...

Good point on other positions being a bit harder to spot those intangibles the team looks for. I struggle evaluating offensive linemen, for example, but I still notice when a player like Max Unger is fighting tacklers off Marshawn Lynch till the whistle's blown when he could have instead chosen to save the wear and tear on his body. It's that special quality I think shows itself on tape that makes Unger an all-pro. It's just up to the scout in all of us to measure how important that is to the players overall game.

I also fully agree on the us arm chair scouts completely missing out on a huge part of the process, such as interviews. There's probably been a few players drooped down the board because of a lack of a dirtbag attitude, despite what they showed on tape.

sutz":oi81mx0f said:

Meh. I think the situation drafted into has as much or more to do with success than the individual players listed. Miami was crap before they drafted T, so it isn't suprising he is having trouble winning...for the same reasons Manning lost SB48.

I still go the example that fits best, IMHO, and that's ( ukeface: ) Rothlisberger in Pittsburgh. Like Roth, Russ was drafted by a team that was pretty much complete, except for that top notch QB that he is. I suspect that Wilson's records would not be there if Miami or any other team had drafted him.

I think the real lesson teams should take is that you have to have something before you can make something by drafting that "franchise" QB.

Click to expand...

I think Wilson would have succeeded no matter where he went as long as the coach and GM was willing to adapt the offense around him. If they stuck him into a drop back, pocket-passing offense he'd struggle for awhile, I think.

The fact Wilson did so well here (even with injuries to Oline and receiver) speaks to how well the Seahawks can gameplay around a players greatness to help reduce their weaknesses. I think that applies to other positions as well.

MLB is another position where intangibles are important, as evidenced by Lofa and a number of players, including Wagner, whose intelligence and leadership are as important as their measurable a.

godawg":cnctyif5 said:

MLB is another position where intangibles are important, as evidenced by Lofa and a number of players, including Wagner, whose intelligence and leadership are as important as their measurable a.

Click to expand...

Seattle has a pretty standard formula for what they want in LBs. Although they do stray from it from time to time.

I do think that for the LB prospects, the combine/pro day numbers are crucial. Guys like Chris Borland probably don't make the cut even though he has excellent diagnosing skills and is probably second to Kuechly in recent years in his ability to just slither through the wash of bodies at the LOS.

I would say that intangibles at the LB position for us has been virtually a non factor. Given the players we've selected (and not selected).

kearly":2r0bh70k said:

I think QB is one of the few positions in football where intangibles should be considered when evaluating a prospect. I think the lessons of Russell Wilson won't be as easily applied to positions like OL or DL.

Click to expand...

I agree.

This is why Johnny Manziel should go #1 if Houston isn't stupid. I hope Jacksonville can get their hands on him. I'm rooting for Seahawks East to win the AFCS next year.