A good read, good information and reasonable ranking. Looks like they do their own research instead of practicing regurgitation.

http://www.athlonsports.com/nfl/nfl-draft-rankings-2013-wide-receivers

Its no secret, but here is my list (I hope we get one of these guys in round 2):

1. Austin
2. Hopkins
3. Swope
4. Patton
5. Allen

My two round list in order . . .

Patterson
Hunter
Allen
Hopkins
Rogers
Woods
Swope
Bailey
Austin

Am i the only person who believes that Patterson is overated.. the tape i have watched makes me like tavon austin more and more, he's way more explosive, i'd say better hands, more nfl ready and also predicted to go a little later.

Domseahawks wrote:Am i the only person who believes that Patterson is overated.. the tape i have watched makes me like tavon austin more and more, he's way more explosive, i'd say better hands, more nfl ready and also predicted to go a little later.

I don't know that I'd say "way more explosive" Patterson is pretty darn shifty for a guy his size. There's a reason they played him out of the backfield.

No question Patterson is raw, but he's got all the tools to be an All-pro . . . Size, speed, moves, developing skills.

Patterson reminds me a bit of Koren Robinson but with better hands .. . And say what you will about Robinson's head, his skills were off the charts.

I think there are 15 - 20 WR's that have the potential to make an immediate impact (depending on what team they are drafted by, etc.) Question is, who is going to prove to be those most productive players for their teams? At this point, I think the following 4 have the best chance of being those guys. (So, not saying that guys like Patterson, Allen, Hopkins, etc. are not potentially elite... just that I think the following are the safest picks to be major contributors.) All the early round WR "busts" over the years make me look at each year's WR crop in a different way. I'm just more looking for those who show elite skills that seem least likely to end up being a flop or riddled by injuries and therefore of no help no matter how talented they are.

1. Tavon Austin
2. Robert Woods
T3. Ryan Swope
T3. Markus Wheaton

Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

I meant to add that I could see Conner Vernon end up being a sneaky great draft pick. A player that might not be listed in anyone's "Top 5", but might be in the rear view mirror after next season. Seems like a QB's best friend on the field sort of player and could be a reception machine - a move the chains WR.

McGruff wrote:

Domseahawks wrote:Am i the only person who believes that Patterson is overated.. the tape i have watched makes me like tavon austin more and more, he's way more explosive, i'd say better hands, more nfl ready and also predicted to go a little later.

I don't know that I'd say "way more explosive" Patterson is pretty darn shifty for a guy his size. There's a reason they played him out of the backfield.

No question Patterson is raw, but he's got all the tools to be an All-pro . . . Size, speed, moves, developing skills.

Patterson reminds me a bit of Koren Robinson but with better hands .. . And say what you will about Robinson's head, his skills were off the charts.

Also, Austin comes from a traditional spread with a ton of screens, bubbles nd flares designed to get him in space. Those lays tend to fare far less well in the NFL.

Patterson ran the whole NFL route tree and is far better pulling in contested throws. He just projects as a better NFL prospect IMO.

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

I don't mean "safe" as in mediocre. I mean "safe" in terms of elite guys that are least likely to end up "busts" like Charles Rogers, etc.
Wow... you jumped in to comment aggressively without even asking for clarification. I think all 4 that I listed will be electric. Tavon Austin a cut above the rest.

I know what safe picks are . . . Tim Ruskell took and Superbowl team and made it into a cellar swelled on the back of safe picks.

With the possible exception of Woods, The guys you listed are all career #3 receivers at best. Even Woods strikes me as a really good complimentary piece. None of those guys has the upside of Patterson, Hunter, Rogers or even Hopkins and Allen. Sure, they are less likely to flame out, and that makes them safe. But low risk picks are often low reward also.

TeamoftheCentury wrote:

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

I don't mean "safe" as in mediocre. I mean "safe" in terms of elite guys that are least likely to end up "busts" like Charles Rogers, etc.
Wow... you jumped in to comment aggressively without even asking for clarification. I think all 4 that I listed will be electric. Tavon Austin a cut above the rest.

Further... I would disagree with your statement overall. You're just playing with words with your statement in an attempt to sound profound while in reality your statement is simplistically cliche. How many teams that blew it reaching for players wish they could go back and take "safer bet" players who have years in the NFL of making contributions to a "team" and adding to overall chemistry to put a team in a better position to win. Last time I checked... unless a team wins the Super Bowl, couldn't it be argued that all the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" teams be called "average"? My viewpoint on players isn't to merely draft guys that are going to help the team finish a respectable 2nd or on the cusp 3rd in the division. That's why I am one of the strongest advocates of taking the electric Tavon Austin. That would be a "championship" move in my humble opinion. That sort of move could be a difference maker in the division and get the WAY ABOVE AVERAGE Seahawks into a position of hosting playoff games. There you go, pal.

McGruff wrote:I know what safe picks are . . . Tim Ruskell took and Superbowl team and made it into a cellar swelled on the back of safe picks.

With the possible exception of Woods, The guys you listed are all career #3 receivers at best. Even Woods strikes me as a really good complimentary piece. None of those guys has the upside of Patterson, Hunter, Rogers or even Hopkins and Allen. Sure, they are less likely to flame out, and that makes them safe. But low risk picks are often low reward also.

Incorrect.

TeamoftheCentury wrote:

McGruff wrote:I know what safe picks are . . . Tim Ruskell took and Superbowl team and made it into a cellar swelled on the back of safe picks.

With the possible exception of Woods, The guys you listed are all career #3 receivers at best. Even Woods strikes me as a really good complimentary piece. None of those guys has the upside of Patterson, Hunter, Rogers or even Hopkins and Allen. Sure, they are less likely to flame out, and that makes them safe. But low risk picks are often low reward also.

Incorrect.

Impossible to prove or disprove incorrectness until after the fact. But thank you for your one words rebuttal.

If the players you listed were truly "low risk-high reward" they would be considered top 10 picks. They aren't. Why? Because they don't project as high quality NFL players. They either lack considerable upside (Wheaten, Swopes, Woods) or proven measurables (Austin) to warrant high selections.

McGruff wrote:

TeamoftheCentury wrote:

McGruff wrote:I know what safe picks are . . . Tim Ruskell took and Superbowl team and made it into a cellar swelled on the back of safe picks.

With the possible exception of Woods, The guys you listed are all career #3 receivers at best. Even Woods strikes me as a really good complimentary piece. None of those guys has the upside of Patterson, Hunter, Rogers or even Hopkins and Allen. Sure, they are less likely to flame out, and that makes them safe. But low risk picks are often low reward also.

Incorrect.

Impossible to prove or disprove incorrectness until after the fact. But thank you for your one words rebuttal.


If the players you listed were truly "low risk-high reward" they would be considered top 10 picks. They aren't. Why? Because they don't project as high quality NFL players. They either lack considerable upside (Wheaten, Swopes, Woods) or proven measurables (Austin) to warrant high selections.

Well, where to start. Now you are starting to come across as belligerent. So, is nothing I say going to defuse you? You're in competitive listening/reading mode? You're starting to inject drama into this and I don't come in here to get into it with Seahawks fans. I already get enough of that listening to haughty NYG, Pitt, SF, GBay, etc fans where I live. Rarely do I have the pleasure of conversing about the Seahawks with other Seahawks fans. That is why I'm in here. The one word rebuttal was meant to not get into it any further with you. But, you are are coming across as incessant (but, I could be wrong about you. Just chill out, man. It's only a forum and discussion. Why not focus on getting clarification for the intent of one's post rather than looking for a fight?) I've followed the NFL for nearly 40 years and been glued to the draft for almost that long (probably like several others on this board.) In terms of your latest accusation (about my OPINION that isn't any less valid as others)... I didn't list the 4 as "high draft choices". Go back and verify. I was merely adding my 2 cents to the conversation (and even went as far as to add the disclaimer that I certainly understand there are the guys everyone is talking about) and bringing a perspective of - regardless of round - the players I think (and it's really just anybody's guess, man)... are going to produce.

I stand by my words. I'm a little disappointed in your attack mode. How about a just moving on? You've voiced your disagreement with my post to the "nTH" degree. We are in disagreement. Agree to disagree, I guess.

Fair enough. I apologize for going on the attack. As a Seahawk fan I feel very passionate and loathe what Ruskell did to the team by taking the safe route and filling the team with small, slow "instinctual" "lunch pail" players who didn't have the necessary raw skills to keep up physically with the rest of the league. So whenever I see people advocating for "safe" picks I get a little antsy. It has nothing to do with you and even the players advocated . . . Just wounded, I guess

McGruff wrote:Fair enough. I apologize for going on the attack. As a Seahawk fan I feel very passionate and loathe what Ruskell did to the team by taking the safe route and filling the team with small, slow "instinctual" "lunch pail" players who didn't have the necessary raw skills to keep up physically with the rest of the league. So whenever I see people advocating for "safe" picks I get a little antsy. It has nothing to do with you and even the players advocated . . . Just wounded, I guess

Me, too. My apologies as well. I read back and I was being a bit too defensive. I'm in complete agreement about not wanting average players. I chose a poor word ("safe") that hit a nerve. I like that you're very logical and words mean something to you. I'm as much of a stickler about that as I can be (and makes me unpopular at times. I'm a precision guy.) Quite frankly, I'm in "fed up and P.O.ed with a major chip on my shoulder" mode about the Seahawks getting over the hump and TAKING not just one... but, several championships. The guy is in place at QB to get that done. Go Hawks!

Ruskell's "Safe, Lowest Floor approach" Top 5
1.Allen
2.Hopkins
3.Woods
4.Swope
5.Bailey

Scheider's "risky, Highest Ceiling approach" Top 5
1. Patterson
2. Allen
3. Hunter
4. Austin
5. Rogers

My top 5
1. Allen
2. Patterson
3. Hunter
4. Hopkins
5. Swope

Interesting lists, wen . . . Allen appearing on both is particularly insightful . . . He is likely the one can't miss prospect at the position as far as combining low risk with high reward. I don't think his upside is as geat as the three Tennessee guys, but its pretty good.

Woods is the wild card for me. Smaller than I'd like, but people forget how electric he was prior to the injury.

so, like all of our "opinions", those first 2 lists are your opinion, correct? (not from an official statement?), of what those guys would do? (based on what?) Sorry, I fail to see why that is insightful unless we're in the same room with those execs listing specific players. But, I'll bite. Enlighten me. I'm open to trying to understand the line of thinking there. At this point, I only see it as equal subjectivity not insightfulness.

TeamoftheCentury wrote:so, like all of our "opinions", those first 2 lists are your opinion, correct? (not from an official statement?), of what those guys would do? (based on what?) Sorry, I fail to see why that is insightful unless we're in the same room with those execs listing specific players. But, I'll bite. Enlighten me. I'm open to trying to understand the line of thinking there. At this point, I only see it as equal subjectivity not insightfulness.

All is opinion at this point. That's what we're here for, at least in part, is to debate and discuss our opinions on players.

When's list point out the difference between drafting for floor versus drafting for ceiling. The first list are guys that are probably going to be no worse than solid #3 receivers. Guys that will have 5-7 year careers in the NFL. But they are probably no better than number 2's at their top end. sure there will be exceptions. Reggie Wayne was an exception. But there is little question as to what they will give you . . . Solid, above average play as complimentary players

the second list is guys that have bonafied all star potential . . . But also could bust out for various reasons. Patterson is raw . . . Will he develop? Hunter has a recent injury . . . Well he be the guy he was before the injury? Rogers is a head case . . . Can he mature? Austin is a midget . . . Can his other skills mitigate his lack of size? Legitimate questions that cause players to fall and fail . . . But if the answers are yes to the questions asked, the sky is the limit.

McGruff wrote:

TeamoftheCentury wrote:so, like all of our "opinions", those first 2 lists are your opinion, correct? (not from an official statement?), of what those guys would do? (based on what?) Sorry, I fail to see why that is insightful unless we're in the same room with those execs listing specific players. But, I'll bite. Enlighten me. I'm open to trying to understand the line of thinking there. At this point, I only see it as equal subjectivity not insightfulness.

All is opinion at this point. That's what we're here for, at least in part, is to debate and discuss our opinions on players.

When's list point out the difference between drafting for floor versus drafting for ceiling. The first list are guys that are probably going to be no worse than solid #3 receivers. Guys that will have 5-7 year careers in the NFL. But they are probably no better than number 2's at their top end. sure there will be exceptions. Reggie Wayne was an exception. But there is little question as to what they will give you . . . Solid, above average play as complimentary players

the second list is guys that have bonafied all star potential . . . But also could bust out for various reasons. Patterson is raw . . . Will he develop? Hunter has a recent injury . . . Well he be the guy he was before the injury? Rogers is a head case . . . Can he mature? Austin is a midget . . . Can his other skills mitigate his lack of size? Legitimate questions that cause players to fall and fail . . . But if the answers are yes to the questions asked, the sky is the limit.

Gotcha. Thanks for humoring me and taking the time to explain. While I can appreciate the perspective, I still gotta say though that, like how various teams have players listed differently on their boards... so do we here. I might agree with some of the perceived draft value of certain WR's... which is why I think you can grab what I think will end up being a better talent passing on some of the hyped guys and going with those who have a "solid" (not safe) track record of production. As the draft unfolds, where teams value players + whether they want to risk a player being there next round or pick... that all comes into play. I'll say this, though. Whomever the Seahawks end up drafting... I'm going to try to see what JS/PC see in those players and get behind them. Seems like all this talk up front, while fun and helps pass the time waiting for the draft, never comes to fruition. The Seahawks draft will probably end up looking like nothing any of us expect. Just for example: 1) Larry Warford, 2) Kyle Long 3) Travis Kelce, 4) Devonte Holloman, 5) DJ Swearinger, 6) Kwame Geathers 7) Aaron Hester - and just rattled that off the top of my head. We all could list 100's of ways this draft may fall and STILL be surprised on draft day.
It always gets my attention when players are talked about as "football players", not merely athletes, etc. Those are the guys I hope for.
Glad I've got a couple of boys playing in a Spring Youth Tackle football league. I need something more concrete to pass the time. All this subjectivity gets us nowhere. Still, I am daily sucked in to see what opinions are out there. I just can't get enough Hawks and even speculation can satisfy to some degree.

Mcgruff that is exatly what I was going for. Ruskell drafted guys liek Kelly Jennings, Josh Wilson, Lawerence Jackson and Deon Butler, both we NFL caliber players but they lacked physically in at least one area that would never allow them to become super stars.

Guys like Randy Moss, Warren Sapp, Dez Bryant, and Jenorius Jenkins were all guys who had the god given talents to be amazing but were a risk that they would be head cases and fail like players like Charles Rodgers, Mike Williams, or Titus Young. Funny how they were all from Detroit too.

The whole risk reward plays into effect. JS & PC have not really taken any big risks, they have been much better at loading up on low risk high reward players. They want the star attributes but want to be able to cut them loose if it doesn't work out. I think they would have to have some confidence in a guy like Hunter or Rogers that their were going to stay healthy or not be a head case to take a gamble with an early pick, but I don't see them sacrificing top tier physical attributes to get a guy who will at best be eqaul to Golden Tate. I have to think that tate's slow development will keep them away from another undersized type WR. It doesn't take many intangebiles or work ethic for a 6'4 WR who has a 39inch vertical to out jump a 5'11 DB in the endzone for a TD, at a minimun a guy liek Hunter can make a redzone impact similar to Shaun Hill did for the Jets. His ceiling might be a Demarius Thomas if he can stay healthy and put in the work.

It would be interesting to start some fun little exercise among us here on .net to list something like 20 players we think the Seahawks might draft and see who comes up with the most selected from our individual "boards". 20-25 players at ANY position with no round designation. I could see something like that being fun on the level of FFB, to a lesser degree. We speculate on players. Why not give it a go and see who among us comes out on top. We could have some draft genius title to be given as a reward for the winner. (This could obviously backfire. I would say that one must be a professing Seahawks fan to participate. No visiting Niner fans, etc.)

TeamoftheCentury wrote:It would be interesting to start some fun little exercise among us here on .net to list something like 20 players we think the Seahawks might draft and see who comes up with the most selected from our individual "boards". 20-25 players at ANY position with no round designation. I could see something like that being fun on the level of FFB, to a lesser degree. We speculate on players. Why not give it a go and see who among us comes out on top. We could have some draft genius title to be given as a reward for the winner. (This could obviously backfire. I would say that one must be a professing Seahawks fan to participate. No visiting Niner fans, etc.)

Last year before the draft we did something similar.

every did a complete 1st round mock. It you got the player to the right team you got 1 point if you got the player to the exact # selected at it was antoher point. Then we got to have 10 players we though the seahawks would pick in any round and we'd get 1 point for each we got right. I remember most people having Bruce Irvin on their's but I think they though he would be a 2nd or 3rd round pick.

I hope we do that again if nobody else bring it up the week before the draft I will.

That's interesting. Who "won" last year? How did you (WenHawk) and McGruff fair in all that?
Projecting the 1st round mock doesn't appeal to me as much as perhaps the focus on the Seahawks. I don't really care about other teams other than it's interesting to see how the draft unfolds.

I've been gone from .net for 4-5 years. Used to be active and write articles when they were with scout/yahoo.

I remember you Mcgruff from years ago we were both avid draft nicks back then, but there is a new level of guys now I feel quite useless. I think I got 9 points total, the winner might have had 11 or 12. Once trades start happening things get crazy.

I think I had Turbin and Irvin as being hawks. If i remember right I had seattle taking Fletcher Cox at #12 which I was very very adamit about our interior pressure last year. He went at #12 but to the team we trade out of #12 with.

All the talk now this close to the draft could be smoke-screens. Patterson, Allen dropping, etc. But, if you believe some of what is being said... sounds like it could be Austin, Hopkins, Woods, Hunter drafted in the first round.

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

I think we need both kinds of picks. Nobody can have a team of all super stars. You need a bunch of those blue collar lunch pail kind of guys to fill out the roster and play important roles during the season.

We already have some "super stars" or stars in the making on the team. Much of this year's draft class will have to work hard just to make the team.

As far as the three lists, I think you over emphasized Schneider's picking of "high risk" players. In fact, I don't think he's taken very many risks at all, except when you listen to the critics who try to say he reached for someone. Generally, his picks have been players that fit our scheme, have had college success, and have great work ethics and competitive spirits. That, to me, is the definition of "safe" picks. Saying they're safe doesn't mean they lack talent or fire.

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

Wasn't that the team motto of the 2000s Oakland Raiders?

Obviously that's a hyperbole, just as your statement was an oversimplification. There's nothing wrong with drafting guys who are seen as low-risk; and before 1000 posters trip over themselves to say "Aaron Curry! Aaron Curry!", low-risk doesn't mean no-risk. You'll always have the occasional Robert Gallery or RaShaun Woods who look bust-proof and then bomb anyway. The problem comes when a GM drafts only those types, and doesn't have the balls to take the occasional risk. That's where Tim Ruskell's myopia really hurt this franchise.

I remember a QB draft controversy in 1998 between the safe Peyton Manning and the perceived high-risk, high-ceiling Ryan Leaf. That safe pick was the catalyst for a very special team. The next year, the Bengals set their franchise back by using the #3 pick on Akili Smith, which was one of the least safe picks in recent memory. There are plenty of examples the other way as well: Randy Moss and Jason Pierre-Paul were high-risk picks who panned out big. There are too many variables to put out a blanket statement like "safe picks make average teams".

Is it just me or does that list kind of read like it was written four months ago?

There is extremely little separation between the WRs this year. So making a top list is pretty tough. I'll take a stab at it, anyway:

1. Ryan Swope - I think people overlook Swope's sneaky good physical talent because he's such a "gamer". Usually if a guy is as big a "try-hard" as Swope, he's not that good.

2. DeAndre Hopkins - Another guy that's just so well rounded and so good at everything that it's easy to take him for granted.

3. Tavon Austin - I was disappointed the other day when I read Matt Waldman comparing Austin to McCluster. Yeah, if McCluster ran .3 faster and had better moves, sure.

4. Quinton Patton - On tape I'd probably have him in the teens, but my instincts tell me that's a mistake. Like Swope, I think Patton's intangibles will elevate him at the next level.

5(tie). Robert Woods - Woods, Bailey, and Bobby Engram: they are all the same player. Woods is a catch magnet with under-rated physical ability.

5(tie). Stedman Bailey - Extremely similar to Robert Woods.

7. Markus Wheaton - I think Wheaton's tape is solid but not amazing. That said, I can't help but think that Wheaton is destined to be a quality #2 starter for years to come.

8. Keenan Allen - Very similar to Golden Tate and I think he'll have a similar career.

9. Cordarelle Patterson - He's a very unique player, and has by far the biggest risk factor. If he fell to #56, would Seattle take him? They might.

10. Marquess Wilson - I think Wilson is a lot more like Mike Wallace than Markus Wheaton is. Wheaton is a well rounded receiver who's pretty good on deep routes. Wilson and Wallace are average receivers that are amazing on deep routes.

11. Da'Rick Rogers - I'd probably have Rogers in the top five if he didn't give me Titus Young vibes.

12. Cobi Hamilton - I know there are some holes in Hamilton's game, but he is an excellent YAC receiver in a big body with good speed. Good production, too.

13. Justin Hunter - If he could stay healthy, which I don't think he would, he could be a #1 WR.

14. Marcus Davis - Similar to Hamilton, there are holes in his game, but he's impressive specimen with college production.

15. Mark Harrison - Talented WR that was overshadowed by one of the very best WRs in college football last season.

Rat wrote:

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

Wasn't that the team motto of the 2000s Oakland Raiders?

Obviously that's a hyperbole, just as your statement was an oversimplification...

A couple of draft terms I dislike: "safe pick" and "BPA".

I don't like the term "safe pick" because even weathermen with all their readings and expertise and scientific ability still get weather reports wrong all the time, and talent evaluation is even worse since it's more of a "feel" than a science. I think it's fair to say certain players are riskier than others and vice versa, but the term "safe" is absolutist which is why I don't like it.

And BPA I don't like because it pretends that every team is drafting off the same big board, probably one penned by Mel Kiper jr. Almost every pick in the draft is a "BPA" pick in the eyes of the person who made it, so it's a silly term, IMO. I also dislike it because it assumes that you should overlook roster needs and simply draft the best player. If Matt Barkley reached the 56th pick and was clearly the best player available, would it make much sense to draft him as a BPA pick? Of course not. Team need means more opporunity for the players drafted and is a magnifying factor for each player drafted. As good as Barkley is, he'd have very little value to Seattle as a backup QB and trading him for a profit wouldn't be easy. If the biggest upgrade to the roster was the 10th player on the board, then he's the best pick.

My post yesterday was simply to point out how interesting it has become with where WR's are being mocked. As I clarified over a month ago, it depends on what one means by "safe pick". (I didn't use that term yesterday because I learned over a month ago that it hits a nerve there. I think I'm fine to grant that it perhaps has a more common meaning so I will try to remember to avoid using that term again at .net.) In anycase, I still think Tavon Austin will be the first WR selected and could even see Philly taking him #4 overall (as now being rumored.) I'm all for being a riverboat gambler if it looks worth the risk. I could see Chip Kelly being very interested to have the services of Tavon Austin as he embarks on his NFL head coaching career.

Kearly, is that list you came up with a list of the order you believe they will be drafted? Or, is it your pecking order of talent available at the position?

For me:
#1 DaRick Rodgers
#2 Mark Harrison (even though he flings poo)
#3 Quinton Patton
#4 Justin Hunter
#5 Chris Harper

When I think "BPA" it always includes a strong "how does he fit the team?" qualifier.

Top 5 in General for me (i.e. I doubt we have the chance to select 4 of these guys at 56):
1 - Tavon Austin - (Percy Harvin lite for me)
2 - DeAndre Hopkins - (He looks like Roddy White 2.0)
3 - Cordarelle Patterson - (Very raw talent but possibly the most athletic WR in this draft, I think the Koren comparison is pretty accurate)
4 - Keenan Allen - (Anquan Boldin 2.0 to me.. don't think he's anything similar to Tate though, sorry Kearly)
5 - Ryan Swope - (Wes Welker 2.0 to me, as lazy a comparison as that one feels)

Other guys I like
Justin Hunter, Robert Woods, Da'Rick Rogers, Quinton Patton

All in all.. very strong WR class this year.

McGruff wrote:Screw safe picks. Safe picks make average teams.

Agreed. Curry was considered a safe pick.

Tavon Austin is the prize. Sounds like teams are trying to trade up to get him. I do wonder if Buffalo and NYJ are just trying to stir up trades by declaring their interest in him. Nevertheless, Austin is coveted and will be the 1st WR taken in the 2013 draft.

T-Sizzle wrote:For me:
#1 DaRick Rodgers
#2 Mark Harrison (even though he flings poo)
#3 Quinton Patton
#4 Justin Hunter
#5 Chris Harper

I called it.

First one on this train. Welcome aboard others.

T-Sizzle wrote:

T-Sizzle wrote:For me:
#1 DaRick Rodgers
#2 Mark Harrison (even though he flings poo)
#3 Quinton Patton
#4 Justin Hunter
#5 Chris Harper

I called it.

First one on this train. Welcome aboard others.

These were your TOP 5 overall? Or, just for the Seahawks? When I listed... they were my top overall. I wasn't projecting to the Hawks. That said... I'm cool with Chris Harper. I think his skills will be amplified with the Seahawks.