Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Why didn't we draft Patrick Queen instead of Jordyn Brooks?

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • Linebacker Queen is undoubtedly going to the pro bowl and just continues to highlight Seattle's inability to properly draft in the first round. He was selected by Baltimore at 28 right after us.

    You can counter this argument if you'd like, I'm just annoyed considering it now seems like LB will need improving sooner than later and we skipped on a guy that was already proven great in the dominant SEC.

    Discuss.
    NFSeahawks628
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4658
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 1:33 pm
    Location: Born: Tacoma, WA Current Location: Myrtle Beach Hawk, Go Gators!


  • Hindsight is always 20/20. Brooks still might turn out to be something yet...
    TypeSly
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 160
    Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:54 pm


  • Queen just isn't big enough, 229lbs, to play LBer in the Seahawks' 4-3; or at least in anything but a similar role to that of Malcolm Smith. I don't know how much he'd see the field here right now anyway.

    Brooks is bigger, has longer arms and fits the template to be a MLB in the future. Think long-term, not short-term.
    KinesProf
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 186
    Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:05 am


  • KinesProf wrote:Queen just isn't big enough, 229lbs, to play LBer in the Seahawks' 4-3; or at least in anything but a similar role to that of Malcolm Smith. I don't know how much he'd see the field here right now anyway.

    Brooks is bigger, has longer arms and fits the template to be a MLB in the future. Think long-term, not short-term.


    Well said. That pretty much sums it up.

    Queen fits a different type of D. He may end up being very good, but so may Brooks. Let's wait until each has a year or two under their belts and then judge.
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2504
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 9:25 am


  • Yup, Seattle likes big ass linebackers.
    hawks85
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 598
    Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:55 pm
    Location: Seattle, Washington


  • There was a thread started on this topic the other day.
    Maybe it has the answer you're looking for.

    viewtopic.php?f=2&t=167520
    Hockey Guy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 442
    Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am


  • NFSeahawks628 wrote:Linebacker Queen is undoubtedly going to the pro bowl and just continues to highlight Seattle's inability to properly draft in the first round. He was selected by Baltimore at 28 right after us.

    You can counter this argument if you'd like, I'm just annoyed considering it now seems like LB will need improving sooner than later and we skipped on a guy that was already proven great in the dominant SEC.

    Discuss.


    Queen has had a few splash plays, but a lot of inconsistency in-between. He's graded fairly horribly so far via PFF, who actually loved him in college. Yes, it's subjective grading, but I'm just saying - kind of reminds me of Malcolm Smith. Yeah, he was the Super Bowl MVP on the stat sheet... but was he really the most valuable player that day? No.

    I think it's unreasonable to think Queen would be starting in Seattle right now, and it's unreasonable to think 5 games into the season that Brooks is not good because he didn't immediately seize a starting position on the depth chart. Queen is undersized, nowhere near the same player in run support, nowhere near as solid of a tackler, and is currently playing in an entirely different scheme than Seattle runs. I just really don't get how, after 5 games, you can use this weak comparison to make a strong statement about how this highlights any sort of inability to draft solid players.

    Giving it time would be wise, especially seeing as Brooks fits the archetype of a Mike-of-the-future. Can't believe we're still making definitive statements based on the first 5 games of guys rookie seasons.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3516
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    NFSeahawks628 wrote:Linebacker Queen is undoubtedly going to the pro bowl and just continues to highlight Seattle's inability to properly draft in the first round. He was selected by Baltimore at 28 right after us.

    You can counter this argument if you'd like, I'm just annoyed considering it now seems like LB will need improving sooner than later and we skipped on a guy that was already proven great in the dominant SEC.

    Discuss.


    Queen has had a few splash plays, but a lot of inconsistency in-between. He's graded fairly horribly so far via PFF, who actually loved him in college. Yes, it's subjective grading, but I'm just saying - kind of reminds me of Malcolm Smith. Yeah, he was the Super Bowl MVP on the stat sheet... but was he really the most valuable player that day? No.

    I think it's unreasonable to think Queen would be starting in Seattle right now, and it's unreasonable to think 5 games into the season that Brooks is not good because he didn't immediately seize a starting position on the depth chart. Queen is undersized, nowhere near the same player in run support, nowhere near as solid of a tackler, and is currently playing in an entirely different scheme than Seattle runs. I just really don't get how, after 5 games, you can use this weak comparison to make a strong statement about how this highlights any sort of inability to draft solid players.

    Giving it time would be wise, especially seeing as Brooks fits the archetype of a Mike-of-the-future. Can't believe we're still making definitive statements based on the first 5 games of guys rookie seasons.


    But, but........it's the Seahawks.NET way to make total knee-jerk reactions based on nothing.
    Hockey Guy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 442
    Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am


  • “ I just really don't get how, after 5 games, you can use this weak comparison to make a strong statement about how this highlights any sort of inability to draft solid players.”

    LOL this is funny. We have 5 drafts worth of evidence. This is just, so far, the most recent. How about Penny over Chubb? McDowell over anyone. Collier over basically any one of the 50 picks after him ( I’m sure there’s an exception but not looking) of the False Start drive killer Ifedi no longer on the team.

    The one they got right? The one most agreed At the time should have been drafted HIGHER, how weird because we always go with people that should have been picked lower by every draft expert and home draft doctor.

    Pete would rather pick a 3rd rounder in the first rounder and get praised if it pans out than pick a first round talent in the first round that performs to expectations. When is the last time we picked a player that should have gone higher according to the draftniks?
    JayhawkMike
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 432
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:06 pm


  • Good thing we used our two firsts for Adams this year so we don’t have to keep having this 1st round pick failure discussion. My guess is KJ retires after this season and we’ll get to actually see Brooks more often. Hasn’t he played out of position virtually all year as a pass rusher since ours is so abysmal?
    FloridaSeahawk18
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:41 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:“ I just really don't get how, after 5 games, you can use this weak comparison to make a strong statement about how this highlights any sort of inability to draft solid players.”

    LOL this is funny. We have 5 drafts worth of evidence. This is just, so far, the most recent. How about Penny over Chubb? McDowell over anyone. Collier over basically any one of the 50 picks after him ( I’m sure there’s an exception but not looking) of the False Start drive killer Ifedi no longer on the team.

    The one they got right? The one most agreed At the time should have been drafted HIGHER, how weird because we always go with people that should have been picked lower by every draft expert and home draft doctor.

    Pete would rather pick a 3rd rounder in the first rounder and get praised if it pans out than pick a first round talent in the first round that performs to expectations. When is the last time we picked a player that should have gone higher according to the draftniks?


    Lots to unpack here.

    Let's start with the fact that you have literally no clue whether or not a player is a reach or not. You just don't. If you're using media big boards to form your opinion on the actual value of a draft prospect, that's nonsensical.

    Using a 5 game sample size of flukey statistics to compare players that basically play different positions due to how different their skillsets are and how different the schemes they play in are is foolhardy. It's a simple observation that isn't sufficient to make any such statements about it being indicative of an overall inability to draft talent.

    You can pound your lil narrative all you want. Doesn't mean it holds any validity. You know what IS valid? The fact that the 2019 draft has 7 out of 10 players contributing on the roster right now.



    EDIT: You know what? I'll go ahead and address your specific points about players.

    Nick Chubb was a significant medical risk, as he blew out his knee in college. He did it again this season.

    McDowell scrambled his brains in an off-field accident. He was actually a consensus first-round talent, by the way, so you should've loved the pick, hmm?

    Collier is playing his first healthy action and doing decently well. Guess you were pissed he made the game-winning tackle against New England, pity.

    Ifedi improved over his time here and is now playing well for Chicago. Our whole offensive line is actually playing well right now, including 2020 rookie Damien Lewis, who is currently one of the best run blockers in the NFL.

    Amazing that even with the benefit of hindsight, you can't effectively or coherently make your point about the lack of proficient drafting.
    Last edited by Maelstrom787 on Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3516
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • JayhawkMike wrote:When is the last time we picked a player that should have gone higher according to the draftniks?


    Why in gods name would you care about picking a player later than where the draftniks said they should go?

    You don't get extra points for it. There's literally no reason to care about that. At all. Even a little bit.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3516
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:When is the last time we picked a player that should have gone higher according to the draftniks?


    Why in gods name would you care about picking a player later than where the draftniks said they should go?

    You don't get extra points for it. There's literally no reason to care about that. At all. Even a little bit.


    I know he'll say he was talking strictly about 1st round picks but I'm pretty sure some guy named DK something or other was touted as a 1st round talent that we got at the end of the 2nd so that should count.
    Hockey Guy
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 442
    Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:03 am


  • Geez Clowney was a huge bust then, he was hurt out of the gate for the Texans, Thurmond Thomas also was a huge bust since he was hurt before he took a snap for the Bills.


    Brooks was just fitting in nicely when he got hurt, I want to see how this thread ages in another 10 weeks.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 33234
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.



  • I believe JS views only a handful of players as sure 1st round worthy, after that list, it's a crap shoot. If that is the case, his narrative has been to trade down for more picks (since, the rest are gambles anyway). If he can't find a trading partner, he looks for potential and that potential can be a certain skill set, from a smaller college or possibly a player that's injured and has fallen down the draft order.What ever the case, if the player doesn't meet JS's criteria, then will ultimately pass on him. Queen obviously didn't meet the criteria JS was looking for and hence, Brooks was taken. That Queen is having a great rookie year is well good for him. Sh*t happens and we have Brooks, and I also read that Brooks was the Ravens first choice but only took Queen since some other team took brooks.
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2868
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:52 pm




It is currently Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:18 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online