Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

We have the 3rd highest average draft position o-line

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Average draft position maybe, but where those picks are really matters.

    For example, take the Cowboys starting line last weekend:

    Smith - 9th overall
    Martin - 16th overall
    Frederick - 31st overall
    Green - 91st overall
    Collins - Undrafted (255 in your methodology)

    That Collins draft position completely throws the average out (in particular as he's in essence a 1st/2nd round guy who fell due to non-football concerns)

    In effect, a team could have 4 players picked 1st overall, one guy undrafted and still have an average of 51.8 - which would be a lower average draft position than the Redskins, who have 2 first round picks and three 3rd round picks.

    I'd be interested to see the results using the draft capital chart everybody throws around. I'd suspect we'd still feature more highly than we should, given we have Joeckel, but we sank no draft capital to acquire him at all.

    Effectively our entire O-line group has cost us a 1st, 2 2nds, a 3rd, a 4th and a 5th round pick (Tobin trade). I'm sure we'll be hard pressed to find another team with that kind of draft capital spent
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3236
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • If Fant hadn't gotten hurt that number would have been 96, putting us at 13th in the league. And the fact that Joeckel brings the average down significantly makes this an exercise in futility in my opinion. Just sayin.
    Image

    "There is no delay of game. We did not let the team know we were scratching our balls"
    User avatar
    IBleedBlueAndGreen
    * NET Injury Guru *
     
    Posts: 2025
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:56 am
    Location: Poulsbo, WA


  • Alexander wrote:It might make sense to use a draft value chart (like the Jimmy Johnson chart or an updated version of it) to convert picks into draft value, then calculate the average draft value on the line, then convert that back into a corresponding pick.


    I agree. I might get to it eventually, but despite what HawkGA thinks, I actually don't have much time for this due to having a family, a job, and doing two college classes. What I've already done took less than an hour.

    themunn wrote:Smith - 9th overall
    Martin - 16th overall
    Frederick - 31st overall
    Green - 91st overall
    Collins - Undrafted (255 in your methodology)

    That Collins draft position completely throws the average out (in particular as he's in essence a 1st/2nd round guy who fell due to non-football concerns)


    I actually wish Collins had been drafted in the 1st, because then the Cowboys wouldn't have gotten him. But calling him a first round pick raises the Cowboys rankings, solidifies the argument that draft position is usually indicative of overall ability, and that higher average draft position should result in better success.

    IBleedBlueAndGreen wrote:If Fant hadn't gotten hurt that number would have been 96, putting us at 13th in the league. And the fact that Joeckel brings the average down significantly makes this an exercise in futility in my opinion. Just sayin.


    Yes, but on the offensive line, 3rd round picks are generally drafted to be average starters. Odhiambo wasn't starting until Fant's injury because he wasn't good enough.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1377
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


  • This is all crap. We don't have a good line because we have no continuity and experience. We don't have continuity and experience because by the time the linemen finally get decent, they become FA's. And then they get offered sky high salaries that our FO doesn't want to match. I get where that comes from because why pay 10 million a year for an average lineman when you can get an elite athlete at another position for the same cost.

    Well right now, I'd take a few less elite athletes to have a more experienced functional line. In fact, everyone but Wilson and Thomas are expendable in my books.
    Mad Dog
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 74
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 7:12 am


  • Erebus wrote:
    themunn wrote:Smith - 9th overall
    Martin - 16th overall
    Frederick - 31st overall
    Green - 91st overall
    Collins - Undrafted (255 in your methodology)

    That Collins draft position completely throws the average out (in particular as he's in essence a 1st/2nd round guy who fell due to non-football concerns)


    I actually wish Collins had been drafted in the 1st, because then the Cowboys wouldn't have gotten him. But calling him a first round pick raises the Cowboys rankings, solidifies the argument that draft position is usually indicative of overall ability, and that higher average draft position should result in better success.


    Any reason to ignore the rest of my post? i.e that a line with the 1st overall pick and an undrafted player would give you an average draft position of 128 for those two players - the exact same as drafting two players at the bottom of the 4th round, but which would you expect to yield better results? The former, of course, because a team can cycle through a range of Patrick Lewises, Lemuel Jeanpierres, Alvin Baileys, Garry Gilliams, George Fants and Jordan Roos' until someone hits and sticks, and it's not considered a waste of capital.

    You draft 2 mid round players then you've got a toss up between the decent to possibly good in time Mark Glowinski/Rees Odhiambo and the bad (John Moffit).

    But if you want a Walter Jones type, or even a Russell Okung, then you need to be drafting in the top 10 or fluke a lucky pick.

    If anything, the fact we have successfully managed to draft a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round pick and get them playing is a testament to drafting ability. Of our draft picks in the top 4 rounds since 2010, only Poole has been an outright failure (cut/injured/failed physicals everywhere he's gone). Moffitt didn't pan out well either - although he was only found surplus to requirements after we drafted Sweezy. The failure of late third/4th round picks.

    Okung and Carpenter are still playing elsewhere - incidentally, Okung is now the highest paid tackle in the league.

    Okung and Sweezy's leaving helped net us two third round compensatory picks which we turned into Nazair Jones (already looking a terrific investment) and Amara Darboh.

    How many other teams are drafting O-line that well without picking in the top 20?
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3236
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • Hugh Millen is talking about this on 950. He said using the draft value formula, since 2010 we have put more draft value to our Oline than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE NFL. :pukeface:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2189
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:Hugh Millen is talking about this on 950. He said using the draft value formula, since 2010 we have put more draft value to our Oline than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE NFL. :pukeface:


    Yep, not only have we used the most draft picks on OL - 16 picks - but using the Jimmy Johnson draft scale or some other scale he mentioned, the value of those picks is either #1 or top 5. And the reason why they never pay any of them is because none of them ever plays well enough to warrant a second contract. Which was proven when John re-signed Britt, Cable's accidental monkey bashing on keyboard typing Shakespeare success story.

    So the resources excuse is defunct. The last remaining Cable fig leaf is the canard about the poor OL prospects coming out of college. This fig leaf which is blown away by the fact that every NFL franchise operates under the same circumstances and yet Cable's OL is the one grading out as worst in the NFL and that can't draft and develop the talent to replenish itself.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7753
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Hugh Millen is talking about this on 950. He said using the draft value formula, since 2010 we have put more draft value to our Oline than ANY OTHER TEAM IN THE NFL. :pukeface:


    Yep, not only have we used the most draft picks on OL - 16 picks - but using the Jimmy Johnson draft scale or some other scale he mentioned, the value of those picks is either #1 or top 5. And the reason why they never pay any of them is because none of them ever plays well enough to warrant a second contract. Which was proven when John re-signed Britt, Cable's accidental monkey bashing on keyboard typing Shakespeare success story.

    So the resources excuse is defunct. The last remaining Cable fig leaf is the canard about the poor OL prospects coming out of college. This fig leaf which is blown away by the fact that every NFL franchise operates under the same circumstances and yet Cable's OL is the one grading out as worst in the NFL and that can't draft and develop the talent to replenish itself.


    To clarify. Yes that is what I'm saying. Using that formula...we are #1 in actual draft value being used....not just top 5.

    Agree with the rest of your post as well.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2189
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:To clarify. Yes that is what I'm saying. Using that formula...we are #1 in actual draft value being used....not just top 5.

    Agree with the rest of your post as well.


    I am somewhat surprised by that, but given we sunk heavy draft capital into Okung and Carpenter who are no longer with the team (and being paid far more than we can afford), I'm not taken aback.

    Thing is, if we had kept all of our O-line draft picks we'd probably be playing with a line of Okung-Carpenter-Britt-Sweezy-Ifedi, and IMO you'd be hard pressed not to call that one of the better lines in the league.

    Thing is, looking at current contracts, we'd be paying $13.25m APY for Okung, $4.75m for Carpenter, $9m for Britt $5.5m for Sweezy and $2m for Ifedi - $34.5m in total.

    And that would give us the 2nd most expensive starting line in the league (instead of cheapest). How would you plan to find the extra $20m cap dollars to pay for it?

    The thing is, aside from Britt, none of those guys is an All-Pro, and yeah, we've been slacking at drafting them on the O-line. However, PC/JS strategy has been to pay the guys who are genuinely elite at their position. If we found a Joe Thomas or Tyron Smith we'd find the room to pay them somehow, but an Okung, who's played just one 16 game season in his career (the one he DIDN'T play with us...), no way are we paying that kind of money for him.

    The fact is that there's little value at the O-line position, to get league average guys you have to pay above their value, would you rather pay £13m a year on Okung or Sheldon Richardson? Easy choice right?
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3236
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • themunn wrote:
    Seymour wrote:To clarify. Yes that is what I'm saying. Using that formula...we are #1 in actual draft value being used....not just top 5.

    Agree with the rest of your post as well.


    I am somewhat surprised by that, but given we sunk heavy draft capital into Okung and Carpenter who are no longer with the team (and being paid far more than we can afford), I'm not taken aback.

    Thing is, if we had kept all of our O-line draft picks we'd probably be playing with a line of Okung-Carpenter-Britt-Sweezy-Ifedi, and IMO you'd be hard pressed not to call that one of the better lines in the league.

    Thing is, looking at current contracts, we'd be paying $13.25m APY for Okung, $4.75m for Carpenter, $9m for Britt $5.5m for Sweezy and $2m for Ifedi - $34.5m in total.

    And that would give us the 2nd most expensive starting line in the league (instead of cheapest). How would you plan to find the extra $20m cap dollars to pay for it?


    The thing is, aside from Britt, none of those guys is an All-Pro, and yeah, we've been slacking at drafting them on the O-line. However, PC/JS strategy has been to pay the guys who are genuinely elite at their position. If we found a Joe Thomas or Tyron Smith we'd find the room to pay them somehow, but an Okung, who's played just one 16 game season in his career (the one he DIDN'T play with us...), no way are we paying that kind of money for him.

    The fact is that there's little value at the O-line position, to get league average guys you have to pay above their value, would you rather pay £13m a year on Okung or Sheldon Richardson? Easy choice right?


    We didn't need to keep them all. 2-3 would likely do. Why pay Joeckel $8M when we could have had Carp $4.7 for the same job?? He would not get put on his butt with a bull rush either. Teams know this now, and it will be a long season for him (and us...yeah) IMO.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2189
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • themunn wrote:
    Seymour wrote:To clarify. Yes that is what I'm saying. Using that formula...we are #1 in actual draft value being used....not just top 5.

    Agree with the rest of your post as well.


    I am somewhat surprised by that, but given we sunk heavy draft capital into Okung and Carpenter who are no longer with the team (and being paid far more than we can afford), I'm not taken aback.

    Thing is, if we had kept all of our O-line draft picks we'd probably be playing with a line of Okung-Carpenter-Britt-Sweezy-Ifedi, and IMO you'd be hard pressed not to call that one of the better lines in the league.

    Thing is, looking at current contracts, we'd be paying $13.25m APY for Okung, $4.75m for Carpenter, $9m for Britt $5.5m for Sweezy and $2m for Ifedi - $34.5m in total.

    And that would give us the 2nd most expensive starting line in the league (instead of cheapest). How would you plan to find the extra $20m cap dollars to pay for it?

    The thing is, aside from Britt, none of those guys is an All-Pro, and yeah, we've been slacking at drafting them on the O-line. However, PC/JS strategy has been to pay the guys who are genuinely elite at their position. If we found a Joe Thomas or Tyron Smith we'd find the room to pay them somehow, but an Okung, who's played just one 16 game season in his career (the one he DIDN'T play with us...), no way are we paying that kind of money for him.

    The fact is that there's little value at the O-line position, to get league average guys you have to pay above their value, would you rather pay £13m a year on Okung or Sheldon Richardson? Easy choice right?


    Agreed. We cannot pay at all OL positions, and certainly cannot overpay for mediocre GUARDS. IMO the positions we must pay are C and at the tackles - if we ever find something at tackle - since the tackle position is where we have shown the most ineptitude at finding answers.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7753
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • Fire Cabevel?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    User avatar
    NOLAHawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 166
    Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:55 pm


  • Seymour wrote:We didn't need to keep them all. 2 would likely do. Why pay Joeckel $8M when we could have had Carp $4.7 for the same job?? He would not get put on his butt with a bull rush either. Teams know this now, and it will be a long season for him (and us...yeah) IMO.


    I'm willing to give Joeckel the benefit of more than 1 game before I disregard him. He's a guy coming off a knee surgery and playing his first meaningful game in a year - having played just 3 games in the 20 months prior.

    In any case he was brought in to bring experience to the line - with the expectation that George Fant would be starting next to him, we couldn't go with another young line like last year (given JS already admitted we went "too young" last year). And now instead of playing alongside Fant he's got Odhiambo who has played even LESS NFL football than Fant.

    If come the Giants game the line and Joeckel still look completely lost, I'll reconsider, but for now I'm putting a bit of faith in that this will be a much better line than the last few years.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3236
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • Seymour wrote:We didn't need to keep them all. 2-3 would likely do. Why pay Joeckel $8M when we could have had Carp $4.7 for the same job?? He would not get put on his butt with a bull rush either. Teams know this now, and it will be a long season for him (and us...yeah) IMO.


    To me this is a case of a chain-reaction of failures. Carpenter didn't develop into a guard worth a second contract so we didn't pay him, but the failure at all the other positions on the OL was so bad that they reverse course and pay an inferior player twice as much as they'd have paid Carp.

    It's so demoralizing that whatever they do with this unit seems to be the wrong thing. Thank God they signed Britt.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7753
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


  • hawk45 wrote:
    Seymour wrote:We didn't need to keep them all. 2-3 would likely do. Why pay Joeckel $8M when we could have had Carp $4.7 for the same job?? He would not get put on his butt with a bull rush either. Teams know this now, and it will be a long season for him (and us...yeah) IMO.


    To me this is a case of a chain-reaction of failures. Carpenter didn't develop into a guard worth a second contract so we didn't pay him, but the failure at all the other positions on the OL was so bad that they reverse course and pay an inferior player twice as much as they'd have paid Carp.

    It's so demoralizing that whatever they do with this unit seems to be the wrong thing. Thank God they signed Britt.


    Yes, Britt is one less opportunity to get even worse. I agree what you said about keeping tackles and them being hard to replace. But week 1 both Holmgren and PFF said our guards and LT were the sore spots. So we very well be in deeper than we thought if Joeckel doesn't pan out. $8M for a questionable guard coming off double surgery is not exactly saving money.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2189
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Your data isn't valid. You said it yourself, Joeckel is skewing the data and not a seahawks draft pick.

    Folks, it's not a one game season. Have some faith. It's time to man up or log off.
    Tinymac2
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 122
    Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:18 am


  • themunn wrote:
    Erebus wrote:
    themunn wrote:Smith - 9th overall
    Martin - 16th overall
    Frederick - 31st overall
    Green - 91st overall
    Collins - Undrafted (255 in your methodology)

    That Collins draft position completely throws the average out (in particular as he's in essence a 1st/2nd round guy who fell due to non-football concerns)


    I actually wish Collins had been drafted in the 1st, because then the Cowboys wouldn't have gotten him. But calling him a first round pick raises the Cowboys rankings, solidifies the argument that draft position is usually indicative of overall ability, and that higher average draft position should result in better success.


    Any reason to ignore the rest of my post? i.e that a line with the 1st overall pick and an undrafted player would give you an average draft position of 128 for those two players - the exact same as drafting two players at the bottom of the 4th round, but which would you expect to yield better results? The former, of course, because a team can cycle through a range of Patrick Lewises, Lemuel Jeanpierres, Alvin Baileys, Garry Gilliams, George Fants and Jordan Roos' until someone hits and sticks, and it's not considered a waste of capital.


    Just because I didn't quote your whole post doesn't mean I ignored it. The rest of your post was about basing this off draft capital, a concept to which I already addressed in my post, but quoted Alexander because he brought up the idea first.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1377
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


  • Tinymac2 wrote:Your data isn't valid. You said it yourself, Joeckel is skewing the data and not a seahawks draft pick.

    Folks, it's not a one game season. Have some faith. It's time to man up or log off.


    It's valid data because it's factual. It may be flawed but it's 100% valid. However, the amount of cap space we invested in him is probably similar to the draft capital of a #2 overall pick.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1377
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


  • Time to change the strategy i guess.
    Attachments
    IMG_3731.JPG
    IMG_3731.JPG (143.21 KiB) Viewed 44 times
    Optimus25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1223
    Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 7:16 pm


  • Other teams aren't stupid enough to attempt to develop 4 and 5 starting OL all at the same time. Our QB and running backs take a beating while these guys develop and even if they do develop they aren't re- signed and the hole process begins again.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3589
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • Optimus25 wrote:Time to change the strategy i guess.

    Pete still doesn't see a problem so he isn't going to change.
    User avatar
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3589
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:50 am


  • brimsalabim wrote:Other teams aren't stupid enough to attempt to develop 4 and 5 starting OL all at the same time. Our QB and running backs take a beating while these guys develop and even if they do develop they aren't re- signed and the hole process begins again.


    That's what it really boils down to.

    Things like having a basketball player as a left tackle might be a good plan when you already have some other positions solidified.
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 813
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:40 am


Previous


It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:07 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online