PCJS doesn't like the bottom rounds of the draft?

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/4/19/153 ... ce=twitter

I like the idea of picking in the front of the draft and signing udfa's to fill out the rest.

Am I missing something?

The article you linked seems to suggest that they Do like the bottom rounds of the draft:

Seattle’s visits seem to suggest they like guys for the end of rounds six and seven, plus undrafted free agency.

Click to expand...

It seems that they don't really care for the middle of the draft (rounds 4-5).

"He strongly hints--well, not even hints, he just says it--that he's not a fan of the players who will probably go on day three."

Notice the question mark at the end of the thread title? I was asking the question. I personally consider rounds four and five to be part of the bottom rounds, at least five anyway. I happened to direct my question towards what he said, not who they have brought in. I posed the question based off of the quote I quoted above. But hey, I appreciate your passive aggressive approach to it though.

Schneider seems to be suggesting a talent drop-off starting in the 4th round. Perhaps there is not a huge difference in their mind between the 100th-or-so best player and the 200th-or-so best player.

This is similar to how they described the 2015 draft, which is one reason they were so aggressive in moving up in the 3rd round that year.

Thank you for starting the topic, Jimjones. Interesting stuff. I don't think DJrmb was being critical; he just brings up a good point from the quotes that they may not see a lot of value in the mid-rounds.

I like the clarity of the following quote from that radio interview .......

“Last year I just felt like it was thick all the way through and we wanted to pick players all the way through,” Schneider continued. “This year seems like there’s some gaps in there – which for us not having a fourth or fifth may work out in our favor.”

Click to expand...

The Seahawks carried 15 rookies into their 2016 season opener. That larger than typical number underlined how much John and Pete liked the 2016 draft class. Given the self evaluation that they tried to get too young too fast and John's perception of holes in this year's draft, it seems likely that fewer rookies out of this class will make it to the 2017 opener. The number of rookies they carry into the 2017 season opener could very well drop into single digits.

...... seven selections in this year’s draft, including their compensatory picks: first round (26th), second round (58), third (90), third (102), third (106), sixth (210), and seventh (226).

Click to expand...

Maybe it's because we don't have picks in the 4th and 5th round? :179419:

ivotuk":2ngjlouy said:

Maybe it's because we don't have picks in the 4th and 5th round? :179419:

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was going to mention, this may be partly looking at the glass half full . . . or sour grapes, depending on your perspective.

It sure is nice to have five picks in the first three rounds. Kudos to the front office on holding onto high picks and their overall sound management of compensatories.

Wasn't trying to be critical or passive aggressive at all. Was just trying to clarify what you were wanting to discuss.

I agree with some of the others that this could just be because we don't have picks in the middle rounds. It could also be posturing if they are trying to trade down into those rounds... We will see come draft day. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to have a 2 round gap where they don't have any picks or if they will actually try to get picks in there somehow.

DJrmb":hwhuiy9o said:

Wasn't trying to be critical or passive aggressive at all. Was just trying to clarify what you were wanting to discuss.

I agree with some of the others that this could just be because we don't have picks in the middle rounds. It could also be posturing if they are trying to trade down into those rounds... We will see come draft day. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to have a 2 round gap where they don't have any picks or if they will actually try to get picks in there somehow.

Click to expand...

Key word being "Posturing".....I don't have a doubt that he would like to have an extra pick or two, for the players that slip by rounds 1 thru 3, as there is always guys that will have a chips on their shoulders, feeling like their talents have been overlooked....Guys that will likely be hell-bent on proving their worth.

Jimjones0384":871xrgnw said:

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/4/19/15352262/john-schneider-seahawks-day-3-2017-nfl-draft-targets-hints-rumors?utm_campaign=fieldgulls&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

I like the idea of picking in the front of the draft and signing udfa's to fill out the rest.

Click to expand...

Then we wouldn't have many of the great players on this team.

IMO it's what separates the great teams from the average teams...........the ability to mine talent from the later rounds. Also why we've slipped in the past couple of years since the SB's, John and Pete have struggled to find the new Kams, Dougs and Shermans to take the place of departed players.

The fact that they decided to sign 2 players who were top 5 picks in 2013 and if they can salvage there careers it will be like having 2 first round picks. Jefferson will be like a fifth rounder.

DJrmb":3lgo3kye said:

Wasn't trying to be critical or passive aggressive at all. Was just trying to clarify what you were wanting to discuss.

I agree with some of the others that this could just be because we don't have picks in the middle rounds. It could also be posturing if they are trying to trade down into those rounds... We will see come draft day. It will be interesting to see if they are willing to have a 2 round gap where they don't have any picks or if they will actually try to get picks in there somehow.

Click to expand...

Frankly, it would surprise me if they didn't try to trade away one or two of the thirds we have for picks in 4 and 5. IIRC, we have fewer picks on hand than we normally select. P&J have done reasonably well with late picks, but I think the rest of the league is catching on and the kind of players that used to slip past 3 don't do so as often, especially big corners. It's a copycat league.

A few experts including Schneider have said there is a huge drop off this year after the top of the 4th. I don't care if the team picks up a 4th or 5th. They can likely find a couple players in UDFA that have as good a chance of making the team as anyone they would select in those middle rounds.

It seems to be fire and chip on the shoulder that has caused our third-day picks to outshine their peers. Kam, Sherm, Doug, Rawls...all out with something to prove. Effort can go a long way.

Take that out, and I'm not sure they have any better luck on Day 3 than any other team.

MontanaHawk05":1iu0btkg said:

It seems to be fire and chip on the shoulder that has caused our third-day picks to outshine their peers. Kam, Sherm, Doug, Rawls...all out with something to prove. Effort can go a long way.

Take that out, and I'm not sure they have any better luck on Day 3 than any other team.

Click to expand...

If you recall, ADB and Rawls are both UDFAs. I believe just over half of our 53 last year were UDFAs at one point or another. They're heavily scouting UDFAs, we've had lots of private workouts or private meetings with guys who have a 7th/priority UDFA grade.

I think JS just isn't that worried about 120-200, personally, but we'll all know soon.

I think we may have an abnormal draft year, because of that gap, I think they may be more interested if a few more serious players than trying to get a bunch of guys to see what sticks.

This year the Hawks have five picks in the three rounds on days 1 and 2, and two picks in four rounds on day 3.

So last year when the Hawks had a ton of day 3 picks JS thought that day 3 was where the talent was, and this year when the Hawks have a ton of day 1/2 picks but not many day 3 picks JS thinks all the talent is in day 1/2.

It COULD be true, but it also sounds a little convenient.

Three options:

(1) This is actually true, and just by chance over the last two years the Hawks have happened to have a lot of picks where the talent is and not a lot of picks where the talent isn't (by their non-motivated and impartial evaluations).

(2) This is just typical GM fan-speak, and not really something to listen to.

(3) JS has used motivated reasoning to convince himself this actually is true.

For Hawks fans, #1 is good, #2 is meaningless, and #3 is a problem.

Unfortunately there's not really any way to know, or to ever find out.


EDIT: And an explanation of why #3 would be a problem -- let's say you like Germaine Ifedi, and you think you'll have a shot of taking Ifedi when your pick comes up. That leads to a slight cognitive bias in which you then might like Ifedi more on your draft board BECAUSE he might be available to you.

That's a big problem, as you're now letting your evaluations of players be positively and negatively influenced by if you think they'll be available to you or not, whereas it should be the reverse (e.g. you rank players independently of what picks you have, and then take guys or move for guys based on perceived value from that objective ranking).

Just to reiterate though, I'm absolutely NOT saying that #3 is what's going on. #1 is entirely possible too, and #2 is what I'd probably put my money on.

I don't believe I am writing this, but me thinks that we will not trade down at all this year. IF it does happen I think it'll be ONE of our third round picks for two 4th rounders. As bad as our o-line was last year and as deep as this draft is in defense and running backs I expect our FO to load up on defensive players. There just isn't a lot of o-line talent in this draft at all. With our first pick we will go for either a DB or offensive lineman, after that it'll be pretty much up in the air.

nrayorr":2p1tuurg said:

I don't believe I am writing this, but me thinks that we will not trade down at all this year. IF it does happen I think it'll be ONE of our third round picks for two 4th rounders. As bad as our o-line was last year and as deep as this draft is in defense and running backs I expect our FO to load up on defensive players. There just isn't a lot of o-line talent in this draft at all. With our first pick we will go for either a DB or offensive lineman, after that it'll be pretty much up in the air.

Click to expand...

Have we had a draft where we didn't trade down?

John loves to have as many picks as possible, because he knows that means flexibility to move back up to get our guys.......like he's done with so many of our good players, traded picks to move up in the middle rounds to get them.

Popeyejones":12y6ql44 said:

This year the Hawks have five picks in the three rounds on days 1 and 2, and two picks in four rounds on day 3.

So last year when the Hawks had a ton of day 3 picks JS thought that day 3 was where the talent was, and this year when the Hawks have a ton of day 1/2 picks but not many day 3 picks JS thinks all the talent is in day 1/2.

It COULD be true, but it also sounds a little convenient.

Three options:

(1) This is actually true, and just by chance over the last two years the Hawks have happened to have a lot of picks where the talent is and not a lot of picks where the talent isn't (by their non-motivated and impartial evaluations).

(2) This is just typical GM fan-speak, and not really something to listen to.

(3) JS has used motivated reasoning to convince himself this actually is true.

For Hawks fans, #1 is good, #2 is meaningless, and #3 is a problem.

Unfortunately there's not really any way to know, or to ever find out.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's more likely #1. These annual declarations of the draft have been commonplace for Seattle, and for Pete and John both in particular.

Whether it's the post season presser, where Pete outlines where the team needs to improve. Or with John's intentionally vague broad stroke outlines of the upcoming draft class. They've been pretty consistent with how they've forecast the draft. Where the mystery has been, generally has resided on WHO they target.

And they've also acted relative to that forecast in general. Even when they end up taking a guy out of stated sequence so to speak because a talent fell that they didn't expect. In those cases, you will often times either see some movement or some 'return to course' in later picks.

We do know, that Seattle does regard the next years' class to a limited degree when looking at the current class. It's not a firm evaluation. Lots of players don't develop as expected in the upcoming year. And many underclassmen rise and muddy the waters too.

Schneider hasn't to this point intentionally misled the fan base on how he's regarded each class. He does play things relatively close to the vest -- but in this respect he's been extremely reliable in outlining how he thinks the class as a whole shakes out.

Also, I think it's a mistake to think he doesn't like the R4-R7 range. I would instead consider the probability that he doesn't see the R4-R7 group to be significantly different from the R8 group. John and Pete really value that part of the draft. I take it to mean that there is a drop off in talent in the range. But not a desert of talent overall. And I think that speculation is based on the really large number of typical R7-R8 visits and workouts that Seattle has committed with their official visits. It's not dominated with a lot of R2-R3 candidates. In fact they are generally absent save for some really off the wall candidates. Seattle seems still as interested as ever with the R8 group.