First Rounders on Roster

Grahamhawker · Apr 26, 2016

Forgive me if this has already been a topic. But it seems interesting, and I'd like to see how it compares to the other 31 teams.

How many 1st-round draft-choices are currently on the Hawks' roster?

Easy answer if you think about it.

JSeahawks · Apr 26, 2016

Is earl Thomas the only one?

Grahamhawker · Apr 26, 2016

JSeahawks":18cmda6a said:
Is earl Thomas the only one?

Currently, yes. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Smellyman · Apr 26, 2016

Grahamhawker":3k9rrn5w said:
JSeahawks":3k9rrn5w said:

Is earl Thomas the only one?

Click to expand...

Currently, yes. Hard to believe, isn't it?

wow

bjornanderson21 · Apr 26, 2016

Grahamhawker":2tw9fshn said:
JSeahawks":2tw9fshn said:

Is earl Thomas the only one?

Click to expand...

Currently, yes. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Obviously only a fraction can be 1st rounders, but having just ONE is shockingly low.

It is a reflection of how well they've used mid-late round picks and UDFA, but also how poorly they've used 1st rounders.

sutz · Apr 27, 2016

bjornanderson21":3u556ztw said:
Grahamhawker":3u556ztw said:

JSeahawks":3u556ztw said:

Is earl Thomas the only one?

Click to expand...

Currently, yes. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Obviously only a fraction can be 1st rounders, but having just ONE is shockingly low.

It is a reflection of how well they've used mid-late round picks and UDFA, but also how poorly they've used 1st rounders.

It also might be a reflection of how over-valued first round picks are around the league and among fans. Just saying the words "first round pick" comes with a set of expectations that might be unrealistic in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps the drop off in talent from 1st Rd to 2/3 Rd are not as great as we like to think

kearly · Apr 27, 2016

It's hard for me to bag on Carp when pretty much all the other OL alternatives at that pick ended up being total busts. He was a solid guard when healthy. He'd probably still be here if another team hadn't outbid Seattle for his services.

Jimjones0384 · Apr 27, 2016

I dont think the first round is overvalued as much as it is not a sure thing and under coached. It's hard for me to believe that the Browns keep picking in the top five because they keep drafting duds. Not to say it doesn't happen, but mostly because of bad management and coaching. Teams like seattle andthe patriots and even packers are able to be successful year after year with guys taken low or undrafted because they can coach the abilities of these guys. The guys are picked in the top of the draft because they are the best of the best. But because of the difference between pro and college, these guys still need taught.

jammerhawk · Apr 27, 2016

Does it really matter a bit how many 1st rounders are on the roster? Isn't that descriptor just an outsiders assessment of value not relative to actual team need or real value to the Seahawks?

Many of the team's late round picks and UDFA additions are playing at a very high level are playing at a very high level and would now as far as many of them be considered after the fact to be 1st round valued. The team Pro Bowlers are playing at an elite level and certainly would upon a redraft. There a depth of genuine talent on the roster that is almost completely unrelated to so-called "draft expert" draft ranking assessment of "round value".

The Seahawks are considered one of the deepest teams in the league and also are one of the youngest if not still the youngest team in the league. I don't think this paucity of remaining 1st round picks stat means diddly squat. In fact if anything it just proves how talented at drafting the FO is comparatively. I'd regard it as an absolute confirmation of the excellent job our FO is doing.

Are they perfect? Nope, but this one stat shows how good they are at finding players that fit their scheme.

HawkAroundTheClock · Apr 27, 2016

It is funny to consider how draft placement sticks to these guys for the rest of their careers, even the rest of their lives. There can only be 32 (or 31) in a given year, and being taken depends on many factors the players' can't control like team need, depth at that position, and perceived value. On top of that there's the subjective interpretation of objective measurements, plus the X factor of HYPE. With so many variables and unknowns, it's weird how guys get branded with where they were selected in the draft.

IMO, the current Seahawks have 10 players that wouldn't shock me if I were told they went in the 1st round.

Jville · Apr 27, 2016

I would prefer to see the team unload their 1st round pick again this year. I dislike the whole entitlement burden so many 1st round picks bring into the clubhouse and onto the field.

I much prefer the latter rounds which invite a mind set of something to prove.

BirdsCommaAngry · Apr 27, 2016

jammerhawk":jvfklpe5 said:
Does it really matter a bit how many 1st rounders are on the roster? Isn't that descriptor just an outsiders assessment of value not relative to actual team need or real value to the Seahawks?

Many of the team's late round picks and UDFA additions are playing at a very high level are playing at a very high level and would now as far as many of them be considered after the fact to be 1st round valued. The team Pro Bowlers are playing at an elite level and certainly would upon a redraft. There a depth of genuine talent on the roster that is almost completely unrelated to so-called "draft expert" draft ranking assessment of "round value".

The Seahawks are considered one of the deepest teams in the league and also are one of the youngest if not still the youngest team in the league. I don't think this paucity of remaining 1st round picks stat means diddly squat. In fact if anything it just proves how talented at drafting the FO is comparatively. I'd regard it as an absolute confirmation of the excellent job our FO is doing.

Are they perfect? Nope, but this one stat shows how good they are at finding players that fit their scheme.

I agree. It doesn't matter at all. It seems we, fans in general, get really anchored to the round a player was drafted in and it results in setting expectations that are too high for some players and too low for others. For a truly great GM, the round a player is selected probably doesn't represent much more than how potentially good they think other teams think a player is. Being a first round selection by the Seahawks just means we think the player might be good and there are enough other interested parties that we're going to make that selection sooner.

Smellyman · Apr 27, 2016

BirdsCommaAngry":2qeu6xm8 said:
jammerhawk":2qeu6xm8 said:

Does it really matter a bit how many 1st rounders are on the roster? Isn't that descriptor just an outsiders assessment of value not relative to actual team need or real value to the Seahawks?

Many of the team's late round picks and UDFA additions are playing at a very high level are playing at a very high level and would now as far as many of them be considered after the fact to be 1st round valued. The team Pro Bowlers are playing at an elite level and certainly would upon a redraft. There a depth of genuine talent on the roster that is almost completely unrelated to so-called "draft expert" draft ranking assessment of "round value".

The Seahawks are considered one of the deepest teams in the league and also are one of the youngest if not still the youngest team in the league. I don't think this paucity of remaining 1st round picks stat means diddly squat. In fact if anything it just proves how talented at drafting the FO is comparatively. I'd regard it as an absolute confirmation of the excellent job our FO is doing.

Are they perfect? Nope, but this one stat shows how good they are at finding players that fit their scheme.

Click to expand...

I agree. It doesn't matter at all. It seems we, fans in general, get really anchored to the round a player was drafted in and it results in setting expectations that are too high for some players and too low for others. For a truly great GM, the round a player is selected probably doesn't represent much more than how potentially good they think other teams think a player is. Being a first round selection by the Seahawks just means we think the player might be good and there are enough other interested parties that we're going to make that selection sooner.

Missing the point of the thread. nobody is saying 'it matters'.

It is just interesting. That is all.

WilsonMVP · Apr 27, 2016

Jimjones0384":gpbxyrcl said:
I dont think the first round is overvalued as much as it is not a sure thing and under coached. It's hard for me to believe that the Browns keep picking in the top five because they keep drafting duds. Not to say it doesn't happen, but mostly because of bad management and coaching. Teams like seattle andthe patriots and even packers are able to be successful year after year with guys taken low or undrafted because they can coach the abilities of these guys. The guys are picked in the top of the draft because they are the best of the best. But because of the difference between pro and college, these guys still need taught.

Well that...and the fact that the Browns have...Manziel ?? and Hoyer? and 10+ other qbs over the years and the Pats have had Brady, Packers have had Favre and Rodgers and we have had Hasselbeck and Wilson.

UK_Seahawk · Apr 28, 2016

How many players would be 1st rounders if we were redrafting? That would be an interesting one to ponder.

Seanhawk · Apr 28, 2016

UK_Seahawk":2yigpaqp said:
How many players would be 1st rounders if we were redrafting? That would be an interesting one to ponder.

Off the top of my head, on the head at work:

Russell
Sherm
Bobby
Kam
Tyler
Jon Ryan

RichNhansom · Apr 28, 2016

Seanhawk":1uixjvnr said:
UK_Seahawk":1uixjvnr said:

How many players would be 1st rounders if we were redrafting? That would be an interesting one to ponder.

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, on the head at work:

Russell
Sherm
Bobby
Kam
Tyler
Jon Ryan

Bennett, Avril, Graham, Baldwin and possibly Rawls.

Grahamhawker · Apr 28, 2016

WilsonMVP":29o297o0 said:
Jimjones0384":29o297o0 said:

I dont think the first round is overvalued as much as it is not a sure thing and under coached. It's hard for me to believe that the Browns keep picking in the top five because they keep drafting duds. Not to say it doesn't happen, but mostly because of bad management and coaching. Teams like seattle andthe patriots and even packers are able to be successful year after year with guys taken low or undrafted because they can coach the abilities of these guys. The guys are picked in the top of the draft because they are the best of the best. But because of the difference between pro and college, these guys still need taught.

Click to expand...

Well that...and the fact that the Browns have...Manziel ?? and Hoyer? and 10+ other qbs over the years and the Pats have had Brady, Packers have had Favre and Rodgers and we have had Hasselbeck and Wilson.

Regarding the Browns, when you make the picks they have- that's what you end up with.
Just another reason...

Bigpumpkin · Apr 28, 2016

Jville":19nag6qz said:
I would prefer to see the team unload their 1st round pick again this year. I dislike the whole entitlement burden so many 1st round picks bring into the clubhouse and onto the field.

I much prefer the latter rounds which invite a mind set of something to prove.

I tend to agree with you......and I'd say that there is a 75% chance that they trade picks today.

Cary Kollins · Apr 28, 2016

Jville":3dsyxsjd said:
I would prefer to see the team unload their 1st round pick again this year. I dislike the whole entitlement burden so many 1st round picks bring into the clubhouse and onto the field.

I much prefer the latter rounds which invite a mind set of something to prove.

First round picks are crucial ever since the new CBA because they carry the 5th year option, which is basically a "free" franchise tag.

The importance of that cannot be overstated.

First Rounders on Roster

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Similar threads