Seahawks Ranked Last in Top Under 25 Talent

TheRealDTM · Jul 23, 2014

ESPN INSIDER":3m6hkdfv said:
32. Seattle Seahawks
Attention, Seattle fans. Your team just won the Super Bowl. You're favored to repeat this year because your core players are in that 25-26 age range and hitting their primes. That includes Russell Wilson, Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas, Kam Chancellor, Russell Okung, Bruce Irvin, Percy Harvin and Doug Baldwin.

So don't complain about ranking last here when your roster is filled with so much talent. The best of the youth is 24-year-old linebacker Bobby Wagner. Michael Bowie has the right tackle job for now, but second-round rookie Justin Britt will challenge him. Otherwise, the Seahawks are rolling with slightly older guys in their prime or veteran players.

Jermaine Kearse made some big plays last season, and he'll be joined in this underrated receiving corps by rookie Paul Richardson. Marshawn Lynch is still running strong, but Robert Turbin and Christine Michael are waiting for their opportunity. Jeremy Lane will step up as the third cornerback, if only to stop Sherman from complaining about the Seahawks ranking 32nd here.

Source: http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/ ... -25-talent

Scottemojo · Jul 23, 2014

I just can't believe you pay for that shit.

EastCoastHawksFan · Jul 23, 2014

he makes sense. Our entire team is 25 and that's awesome.

amill87 · Jul 23, 2014

I dont even care that we are ranked last because I don't understand the point behind those rankings? Is it saying every team in the NFL is better positioned to be better in the future?

The Niners are ranked 14th but they are older than the Seahawks. Im just confused

EastCoastHawksFan · Jul 23, 2014

Scottemojo":lzktovoq said:
I just can't believe you pay for that shit.

its 2.50 a month , comes with a magazine. Not a bad deal.

Timmahawk · Jul 23, 2014

It completely makes sense that we would be low here. We've had no 1st round picks the last two years and a bunch of our picks last year are unknowns that redshirted.

BlueTalon · Jul 23, 2014

Timmahawk":2dbsceg0 said:
It completely makes sense that we would be low here. We've had no 1st round picks the last two years and a bunch of our picks last year are unknowns that redshirted.

That's kinda been the case ever since Pete and John took over. The problem is nobody knows how to assess our younger players until after our players have kicked their teeth in.

rideaducati · Jul 23, 2014

I bet they finish first in top under 26 talent.

rideaducati · Jul 23, 2014

I bet they finish first in top under 26 talent.

kearly · Jul 23, 2014

Man, the other 31 teams must be super awesome.

The opinion in that ranking smells like a troll. If you are going to put a team like Seattle 32nd, you need to have at least a few caveats in there (redshirt system, etc) to lend credibility.

Can't really wrap my mind around the 49ers being 14th. They redshirt players even more than Seattle has, and their last 3 drafts have been mostly bad. If you are going to give the 49ers credit for unproven talents, why not do the same for the NFL's very best talent developing team?

Too bad it's an insider article. I bet the comments are entertaining.

Sports Hernia · Jul 23, 2014

BlueTalon":pacyzo0j said:
Timmahawk":pacyzo0j said:

It completely makes sense that we would be low here. We've had no 1st round picks the last two years and a bunch of our picks last year are unknowns that redshirted.

Click to expand...

That's kinda been the case ever since Pete and John took over. The problem is nobody knows how to assess our younger players until after our players have kicked their teeth in.

LOL, truth, ask Denver......

PlinytheCenter · Jul 23, 2014

EastCoastHawksFan":4y0nnlv7 said:
Scottemojo":4y0nnlv7 said:

I just can't believe you pay for that shit.

Click to expand...

its 2.50 a month , comes with a magazine. Not a bad deal.

Why yes, yes it is. Ridiculous.

brendonkuhn · Jul 23, 2014

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to get mad at these rankings. We have almost zero impact players under 25. These rankings are for players under 25. It's not at all a slight to the team, and the writer didn't trash the team. It's just the redshirt/unproven concept paired with lack of high draft picks that are known.

chris98251 · Jul 23, 2014

How many under 25 players would they have ranked 3 years ago, Thomas and Okung, nobody else. Let them bask in their continued Seahawks bashing, it will make the bulletin board and be displayed by our vets to our new recruits.

Meeker · Jul 23, 2014

I don't really care about these rankings, but it is funny that they moved the cutoff age from years prior where it was 25 or under, not under 25. By removing another year to prove themselves, all this did was make the list largely based on potential, and thus promotes the team with the most high end draft picks over the last 2 drafts. The only player proven to be upper tier on the #1 Rams is Robert Quinn...

No surprise the Hawks are near the bottom with no top draft picks the last two years and none of them expected to be major contributors next season.

LickMyNuts · Jul 24, 2014

I wonder who has the most talented team under 23? Now that would be a great article. Stupid ESPN.

Cartire · Jul 24, 2014

kearly":128t8dpq said:
Man, the other 31 teams must be super awesome.

The opinion in that ranking smells like a troll. If you are going to put a team like Seattle 32nd, you need to have at least a few caveats in there (redshirt system, etc) to lend credibility.

Can't really wrap my mind around the 49ers being 14th. They redshirt players even more than Seattle has, and their last 3 drafts have been mostly bad. If you are going to give the 49ers credit for unproven talents, why not do the same for the NFL's very best talent developing team?

Too bad it's an insider article. I bet the comments are entertaining.

Its a bunch of hawk fans upset with the ranking and everyone else bashing them. Your typical ESPN comments section. No difference.

It is pretty obvious they changed the parameters from last years list JUST so they could justify putting us at 32 and watching the fireworks happen. Last years list was 25 and under. Now its purely under 25.

Hawks46 · Jul 24, 2014

BlueTalon":goemgurt said:
Timmahawk":goemgurt said:

It completely makes sense that we would be low here. We've had no 1st round picks the last two years and a bunch of our picks last year are unknowns that redshirted.

Click to expand...

That's kinda been the case ever since Pete and John took over. The problem is nobody knows how to assess our younger players until after our players have kicked their teeth in.

Agreed. We got young at first, then we found great talent and stuck with it. I see 2 reasons why we would be last in this category, and both are great for us:

1. the FO has done a great job at locking up ALL of our younger talent to long term contracts. We'll have control of our great talent for longer than most teams do, so we're forced into using newer draft picks in less positions.

2. We have such a talented team that draft picks have a hard time sticking or getting playing time. We could be right in the middle of the league in terms of our younger talent, but not know it because they are unable to prove anything.

BlueTalon · Jul 24, 2014

Meeker":3t7rm8se said:
I don't really care about these rankings, but it is funny that they moved the cutoff age from years prior where it was 25 or under, not under 25. By removing another year to prove themselves, all this did was make the list largely based on potential, and thus promotes the team with the most high end draft picks over the last 2 drafts. The only player proven to be upper tier on the #1 Rams is Robert Quinn...

Good points!

No surprise the Hawks are near the bottom with no top draft picks the last two years and none of them expected to be major contributors next season.

Expected by whom? And why does ESPN choose to listen to them rather than the people who expect something different? I fully expect to have at least six players from our last two drafts be major contributors this year. But did anyone from ESPN call me for my opinion? Noooooooo...

Sgt. Largent · Jul 24, 2014

amill87":3k1rn8i0 said:
I dont even care that we are ranked last because I don't understand the point behind those rankings? Is it saying every team in the NFL is better positioned to be better in the future?

What I take away from the list, and the writers comments is we have so much depth that most of our players that'd fall under the "under 25 talent" can't get on the field. Which means they aren't playing enough to help move us up this guy's list like other teams that are forced to play their young guys.

It's hard to rank players that don't play, and that's what we have.

Seahawks Ranked Last in Top Under 25 Talent

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads