Seahawks Rebuild 101

Yup, that about sums it up.

If Clausen grades out well and the FO believes he can be the QB of the future, you have to take him. (if he's there)

If he doesn't grade out, or he isn't on the board at #6, I'm all for slapping those first two picks up on ebay and seeing what other teams will give us for them. I know how hard it is to move high draft picks for equal value. Should be a good test for our new management.

-=cysco

wr
dt
qb
s
de
I think qb is probably the top need but I am worried about Clausen's personality as the "face of the franchise" even if his physical skills are adequate. If he turns out to be a pumkin head we will be crappy for a long long time.

So every position minus LB.. yeah I agree with that

I'm not buying the Bradford hate at all. I love the kid, the shoulder is somewhat concerning - but it's not like he's fragile - he got an injury then he re injured it.

- people knock the system at OU but bradford took more snaps from under center than he gets credit for.

- great feet, deadly accurate, smart, leader with top intangibles, tall, lightning quick release, makes very good decesions, reads defenses like a computer at the line of scrimmage.

i like a lot about him. his arm strength is merely adequate - but that's ok - hass in his prime only had adequate arm strength while jeff george and jamarcus russell have rockets. he is a little lean but nfl strength guys can take care of that.

love the dude - taking him at 6 if the shoulder checks out.

one thing, who are these stud OTs Gibbs has created out of mid-rund talent? names are escaping me.

I might swap 4 and 5, but I think you are right on Chris.

I also believe that we will have better talent selection to scheme coordination this year than in the past few years.

I really don't think that Ruskell had a clue of this concept. And I don't think that Mora had the necessary experience. Let's talk again in two or three years about this.

Well something good I can say is that I agree chris Seattle does not need and will not take an offensive tackle with either of the first two picks in the 2010 draft, people need to realize this soon.

Also running back is not a need for this team with Justin Forsett being a lot like Reggie Bush was but even better.

This team is finishing out a rebuild and it needs to be on offense. Not defense. Seattle needs a QB at No. 6 overall and Sam Bradford is that QB. He fits Jeremy Bates scheme and is a better quarterback than hasselbeck at this stange. Bradford is the better pocket QB with a lot better accuracy and brains.

The Seahawks need to trade Hasselbeck for either a 2nd or third round pick to gain an extra pick in the middle. Here's how it will go on draft day.

QB
DE
OT
OG/OT
BPA

I think the Rams will take Bradford at #1, so he won't be available. I also think that we will trade down a #1 to pick up two to three more picks and depth. Here's my thoughts about need and completely arbitrary guesses about who will fill that need -

1. DE - Pass rush will help the secondary. Pierre, Dunlap, Morgan, Griffen? Griffen seems fast, Pierre and Dunlap are big.

2. OL - Our line and injuries...couldn't have one without the other over the last couple years. This is a big need, but we will wait and try to get Selvish Capers (6'5" 304, sub 5 40) or Jared Veldheer(6'8" 315, sub 5 40).

3. QB - I know everyone is on the Claussen and Bradford (I personally like Bradford here) train - but let's wait until the combine and see how McCoy, Pike, and LeFevour do. Are they viable #1's. Don't know.

4. RB - Could Reggie Bush be available to Seattle? Probably not. Does Jamal Lewis have anything left in the tank? Questionable. Ben Tate from Auburn (5'11" 214, 4.5 40 time)? Hardesty from Tennessee(6'0" 215, 4.55 40)? My gut says take Ryan Mathews.

5. S - Coleman(6'2" 206, low 4.5 time) or Rolle(6'2" 217, high 4.5 speed) - size and speed.

The closer it gets to the draft the better I like bradford. I disagree with trading hasselbeck but I like getting bradford. That said I agree we need a longterm solution at LT. I think the line is 1 good tackle and some better coaching away from being a pretty good unit. I really like Mike Gibson the big guard from Cal. He is a beast and a real competitor. He has that nastiness that our line needs. I like our running back with the exception of jones. I think Forsett and Rankin complement each other really well. We need a bigger back that can pound the ball through.

Lars-

What are you smoking? First off, trading Hass and throwing a rookie to the wolves is the WORST idea I've ever heard.

Second, Gibbs doesn't call the shots in the war room. He has input but he is just an assistant and really has no pull. For all we know, he could have been screaming for certain OL and went with other choices. And unlike Seattle, he came into pretty good OL's and didn't have to rebuild a beaten up, tattered, injury ridden OL. He just needed to patch his OL. There's a huge difference in that and he could afford to shop for those late 2nd early 3rd round picks.

Forsett even better than Bush? Are you kidding me? Forsett had 2 great games and shows a lot of promise, but he is way too slow and has yet to prove he can be the starter. Not to mention that they are not alike. They are completely different in most ways.

For me, our biggest needs in order are:

1. LT- any tackle won't do. a Trent Williams type of guy would disappoint me. We need a Bulaga, Campbell, Brown, Capers kind of guy. I would rather them draft 2 OT's in this draft than an OG (spare Iupati) as they are much more versitile and can translate to OG.

2. QB- I agree that this is a HUGE need as Hass isn't getting any younger, but is there someone worth taking? I personally am not sold enough on Clausen as a whole, especially with his ego, or on Bradford's shoulder despite what surgeons say. I would have been all over Bradford if he didn't get hurt, but then again so would St. Louis. If the FO likes one of the two then I wouldn't bitch, but maybe a midround pick like LaFavour, Skelton or possibly even Snead is the way to go with this class. I just can't see them passing on a Berry, Haden, McCoy if there if they are not 100% on either Clausen or Bradford. I know I'm not.

3. S- We have aging vets who are losing a step and our most promise in Babs proved he's not a starter. Schneider WILL upgrade here as he likes to get younger, which bodes bad for Grant/Milloy, and it is such a deep class. Could see us waiting with the depth or pulling the trigger on Berry if there at #6.

4. DE- I would put this higher, but we have two young and promising DE's in Tapp and Jackson who are at the end of their "learning curve". I think the staff will give them one last year to develop before making a decision seems how they both showed signs of promise. That coupled with the fact that we are fairly deep, signed Foley and talks of Kerney giving it another go lead me to believe we could go after guys like Hardy or Sapp later on. In my opinion, Morgan is overrated, JPP is intriguing but needs to bulk up to be successful in the NFL, Graham's size is an issue and Dunlap just might be the big bust of the draft.

5. RB- JJ needs to go point and case. I like Forsett, but he will never be a franchise type back. He is too slow even though he does play faster than he times. We need a homerun threat and Forsett is just too small and too slow for anyone to think he can carry the load. He's not Kaufman. Rankin is a promising prospect. He has the size and speed to fit the mold, but has yet to prove himself as well. If we had a good OL I would put RB as #2 or 3, but we do not so it makes it at #5 on my list.

CB is in contention as well as Tru had a down year, Lucas is old, Jennings needs a pink slip and Wilson should really be a nickel back with his size in the NFC WEST. I would be exstatic with Haden if we can't get Berry. I would love to trade out of #6 and land Haden. Make it happen Schneider!!

Do we risk a first round pick on a guy with 2 shoulder injuries, or a guy is reported to be under 6'1"? I don't believe there was a QB in the last decade to win a super bowl that was under 6'1". I can't believe in that shitstorm last year that Teal wasn't given a shot at least late in a game, how about the second half of the Houston game or the home game against the Cards? I would like them to get Pierre Paul at 6 and the best OL at 14 and maybe Ryan Mathews or a safety at 40. The Branch for Adalius Thomas trade scenario sounds too good to be true, and would open up more options with the draft picks, like Dez Bryant or Golden Tate. Come on Mr. Allen, trade in the Octopus (his mega yacht, 9th largest in the world) for Reggie Bush!!!

If Clausen becomes a Bill at 9 we will be talking about it for a long time. He is going to be elite, not like Sanchez but an actual great QB. He has the ability to change a team. I predict that if he goes to either Seattle or Buffalo the team that gets him will get to a superbowl before the other. We can not pass him up at 6th if available

If they really want Branch I'd much rather get a 6th or 7th for him. If Brady bitches enough we might be able to squeeze a 5th, fat chance though.

I don't see Schneider going after Thomas. He's too old and Schneider's teams get younger, not older. Even more than a draft pick I'd like to see a trade worked in with Denver. They could definately use a LB like Thomas. I could see us shipping Branch to NE, Thomas and Burly to Denver and us getting Marshall and his fat contract. Everyone's happy, but a 7th may need to be thrown towards NE to make it work.

After tags are placed Burly will be one of the top UFA prospects that isn't older than father time himself. I would be okay getting rid of both Branch and Burly if Marshall was part of the transaction. Having a true #1, with Housh and Butler working the other positions and maybe adding one of those 5th/6th round tall WR that projects well as a #2 reciever. We would cut some dead weight, get a true #1 WR and get younger. We would really be upgrading our WR core and only spend a later round pick.

The Hawks could use an elephant rush linebacker like Thomas, and could you imagine the variety of blitz packages in combo with Curry? I guess I'm a 3-4 guy at heart. The trade that cts proposed is great, but I think the Pats would require more that a 7th and Branch.

Honestly I don't think we need a RB
Justin Forsett is our guy. I know he lacks the lightning speed that people want, but OL, secondary and possibly QB are more important when we have Forsett on board

I completely agree with every word of this post, but I don't know how WR could possibly have been left off. Housh, Deion, and Deon = LAME, but add a real #1 receiver and slide these guys all down a spot (kick Branch to the curb) and you have some legitamacy.

We have three cornerbacks on the roster (not counting the other riff raff) and the nickle back is Jennings right now. I'd say that at least equals the need at safty where we also have three. Milloy and Lucas are no longer under contract.

I suposse it could be argued that Trufant is the best player of all the defensive backs but Jennings is the worst so I call it even. Come on, Jennings as our nickle again? The hell of it is, depending on who we draft and the poor free agent situation, he could still be the best we can get but I'd be trying undrafted free agents and walk ons just to make sure.

Here's what I believe the top 4 needs are which takes us to the 5th round this year and past where I expect fo find immediate help anyway.

You all know I believe in the left tackle pick as our number one need (only tempered by the need to not pass up a franchise QB if we're in position to take one) and I'm willing to be patient and see how the new regime handles acquiring Walt's replacement. It's going to be painful getting used to life without Walter Jones. That addresses the most needy component of our team IMO, the offensive line.

Secondly, I look at the pass defense. I hate getting teams in 3rd and long and just knowing they're going to be able to throw a pass at least two yards longer than the first down marker at will. Improving the aforementioned defensive backfield with either a CB or Saftey would help the pass defense at the back end.

Finding a pure pass rusher who can be counted on to consistently apply pressure and disrupt the oposing QB's rhythm would complete the front side of the deal and make our pass defense much more solid. I think if you're looking at having 4 draft picks who might help this year, you choose between a defensive back (CB or S) or defensive lineman/pass rusher but you can't afford both.

I think anytime the Seahawks have a shot at a highly rated quarterback they like (like they did Stafford last year), from here on out, unless there's a big red flag, they have to take him and go with it. That would be the top rated priority but not necessarily the highest percentage of chance that it will take place.

Just so you have enough priorities to fill out the four top choices, I'd throw in an offensive playmaker. Choose whoever's the top rated one in the 4th round be it WR or RB.

Run it down like this. Order can change depending on who's available at what pick. For example, if the two QB's are gone and Berry falls, you take you defensive backfiled player there. LT could be anywhere depending on who's still there at what pick.

QB (Bradford or Clausen)
LT (offensive line fix)
DE or CB or S (pass rush fix) - one not all
RB or WR (anemic offense fix) - one not both

That's your first 4 picks without naming names and the guys most likely to help the team next year in patching our greatest needs. Whatever else you can accomplish in free agency and trades or wherever else you can find players (on the streets?), you do it but from here on out, you've got to coach them up.

OL,OL,OL...
DL,DB,DL,DB
QB
SKILL player

We need some skilled big people guys, remember, the wars are won in the trenches.

On an difrent pointe, I luv the speling in hear, speshielle, on defence in stuf. it maks four gud reeding.

I agree with most of what Chris writes but when did Bradford take snaps in a pro-style offense? I don't know of any pro teams with the spread as their base offense.

Here is an interesting take from draftboardinsider. http://tinyurl.com/yc4skg4 Take it for what it's worth:

Quarterbacks - My top 2 in this draft are Jimmy Clausen from Notre Dame and Sam Bradford of Oklahoma. Both are tremendous players and the more I watch of the both of them, the more excited I am to see them in the NFL. In my current Top 100, I have Clausen and Bradford 2 and 5 respectively. By contrast, I had my top two quarterbacks Georgia's Matthew Stafford and USC's Mark Sanchez ranked 17th and 18th. If all 4 were in the same draft, I'd certainly have Clausen and Bradford rated ahead of Stafford and Sanchez, and going further having them both in the 2009 draft would have surely pushed Stafford and Sanchez low into the first round. If you need a quarterback, this draft is much better than last for a first round option.
Advantage: 2010

Hey Draulston, Drew Brees just won a superbowl at 6ft tall. Granted he is a bit of an acception.

Bill - I agree with you 100%. You are talking about considering both need and best-player-available, but recognizing that a potential franchice QB cannot be passed on if available. It is really simple, and in my opinion, correct.

If we have an opportunity for our next QB, who gives a rip if he doesn't play for a year or two? Are we one player away from a championship? I don't think so. Aaron Rogers would not be as good as he is today had he been forced to come in and start immediately. What do we do when Hass is gone? What if he gets hurt? We don't even have quality backups. If Teel becomes a player it will be a nice suprise, but I'm not counting on it happening. If we can, we need a long-term plan for the team's most important position.

Also, just because LT is perhaps our biggest immediate need does not mean we have to use pick #6 if we can get the right guy for our scheme at #14 or at #40. A reach is a reach and picking someone higher than they should be picked will not make them a better player (obviously this applies to QBs too).

Linebacker is the only position where we don't need help. We need upgrades at every other position group. Therefore, Schneider and Carroll must still take a best player available/best value approach in this draft. If the BPA is a DB, DL, OL, WR or RB, they will improve the overall quality of the roster, and that is how good teams are built through the draft.

CTS is right on with the bulk of his thinking. While there are those who think Tony Pike is too skinny I would love to see him as our future QB. He is loaded with potential and has the tools. Iupati is a stud whoever gets him should count their blessings. Odrick and Wang would shore up any defensive line as well. Get rid of JJ, let Forsett have his chance. One more for the wish list a 6'5" WR, young, athletic, with hands, smart enough to run the right routes all of the time. Doesn't do a lot of good to have a throwing team with a good QB without someone who can get open and catch the ball. Look at all of the rookies who started the year as #4,5,6 last year who developed into good WR's. I'd stay away from Reggie Bush, what did he do the majority of the year anyway, until the playoffs started he was ho-hum at best. First you have to get to the playoffs.

But we really need a play-making LT who's a roadgrader with a motor that won't quit.

Who were Gibbs' stud OT's in the past? I think we'd be more likely to take a Tackle with one of the first three picks as opposed to a RB. Just a guess, but I don't believe that in those years in Denver with all of the different backs they were shuffling O Linemen.

Now for top needs...

O Line - We could not run or pass last year. Much of that was probably Knapp but with a coach like Solari on the line we should have been able to do more offensively if we had the talent. Even in the ZBS the LT has to be able to pass protect which normally indicates a high pick.

D Line - I don't know if it is DT or DE that we need to be targeting. We have so many DE's on the roster that should be able to get to the QB but for some reason they could not last year. Hopefully Bradley knows what the real problem is and addresses it. I am leaning toward DT though.

QB - We need a replacement to come in, learn the system for a year and start in 2011. I hate throwing a rookie right out there. Hopefully one year in the system is good enough. I like that Clausen has continually improved each year and he seems to have the skill set. I did see someone comparing his personality to Ryan Leaf's which is scary. Hopefully Bradford's shoulder is good and he falls to us. I do think that we'll end up with one of these guys if they are on the board at 6.

CB/S - This being a deep Safety and Corner class I think we should definitely address the position. I'd prefer to get a Safety and move Babs back to situational S/CB like he always was.

RB - We definitely need some help but I think it can come later. It looks like some quality backs will fall in this draft and Forsett has proven that he deserves at least 10 carries a game. What if he goes down though? Do we want a Reggie Bush type of player shouldering the load? We need a back who can run between the Tackles.

WR - While we do need a solid #1 WR, I don't think it happens this year unless we strike gold on a late rounder. Our other needs are too pressing. As for Branch, no one is going to trade for him at 5 mil a year. The Pats don't need him, he would step into the role that Edelman played very well this year. Branch only has value to a desperate team and I don't think that is the Patriots. Now Tampa & Baltimore are different stories but I still don't think they value him at 5 mil per year.

I just noticed that this almost follows the post to a T. Hopefully my points were a little different.

Who is this QB that's 6'1"? Everything I see has Bradford at 6'4" and Clausen at 6'3". That's not just from team sites but scouting and draft projections. Sorry if I misunderstood you, maybe you are thinking of someone else.

QB is by far the biggest need. That is truely how you kick start a team. Left tackles and edge rushers are second and third in importance for the franchise, but nothing compares to having a true franchise QB. If Clausen and Bradford aren't there at 6 fine, but if they are we HAVE to pull the trigger. These two are far more impressive than recent QBs (Stafford, Sanchez, Ryan, Flacco, Henne) when they declared, but aren't getting the hype they deserve. Bradford is being thrown under the bus due to his shoulder, and Clausen because of his personallity "issues" and the fact that he plays for Notre Dame. Put Clausen on a team with less polorized opinion than the Irish and he'd be the consensus #1 QB.

I say Bradford's shoulder is overrated. Dude got injuried, tried to come back and hurt it again. He could have rolled over and died like Colt McCoy did in the FREAKING CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, but he has way too much heart and passion to pull a Colt McCoy. For that reason alone I'd pass on McCoy, dude threw in the towel at the single most important moment of his life. What a freaking joke...

You can't deny Bradford's or Clausen's work ethic (my #1 factor in QBs), or toughness. Both played with very painful injuries this last season. This is what makes QBs succesful, work ethic and toughness. Both spend hours and hours of their free time studying game tape to continue to improve. This is what seperates the Manning's, Brady's and Brees' from the Russell's and Leaf's.

Oh, BTW trade up into the third and draft Myron Rolle, he is going to be a pro bowler. He'd be a first or second round pick if he didn't take a year off from football to study medicine in England.

Drew Brees was too, in a sense. When he was working out for N.O. and Miami...

With shoulder injuries, I guess it depends?

I read an article at Field Gulls which is where I got my info titled "Jimmy Clausen will not throw at the NFL Combine". "Clausen actually has a real excuse, recovering from surgery to repair turf toe, but a real excuse is not necessary. This should not impact Clausen's stock. His height, might. Someone has to explain this to me: "Clausen's lack of height (word is he'll measure at 6-1 or less)". John Morgan wrote this and is a pretty reliable guy.

Actually I found out that the quote actually came from Chad Reuter at CBS Sports in their draft blog. My bad.

I agree with all of those posts who say that Bradford or Clausen should be taken at number 6. If Caroll and Co. pass up a chance to draft one of the elite quarterback prospects, it won't be very long before we start hearing "bring back Mora."

Picking one of these guys doesn't guarantee that the QB position will be solid for the next decade, but it sure helps the odds.

If they don't pick one at #6 it simply means they didn't think they lived up to the hype. I think the FO knows more than you, me or anyone else on here how valuable they actually are. I personally don't think either are worth a #6 pick; however, if they do pick one of them I wouldn't bitch too much as they know better and we are in need of a QB. I just don't want to reach for one. I really wish Mallet and Locker would have declared this year as it would have made any of the 4 decent to great value at #14.

Here is what I think we need. Mind you some of this is gearing towards some optimism that some of our vets are gong to be back to full form again.

1. OL - If you dont have a good line, you can run, and it is very difficult to complete a pass on your back.

2. Safety - This is been a thorn in our side for several years.

3. DE - I am hoping Kerney is going to be back to 07 form but it would be nice to have a good vet to show him the ropes.

4. QB - Hass is getting up there in age but I am hoping that he has a couple good years in him to start teaching the new up and coming.

5. WR - We need another threat. The WR's as a whole seem to be made of glass. Need to get a home run threat!!!

I think if we have a good line our backs that we have can handle the job until next year. Rankin and J Force I have good speed and could be a good combo package. I guess we will have to wait and see.

If 2010 is an uncapped year:

1. Wouldn't the top 10 draft picks be worth a lot more? I know top 10 picks usually get ungodly ridiculous contracts that mess with a team's salary cap for years. But what if a player's contract was significantly front-loaded to the first (uncapped) year?

So instead of giving a rookie a $20 million signing bonus and another $20 million over 5 years, you give him a very small signing bonus, a huge guaranteed salary for the 2010 season, and smaller, more managable salaries the next 4 years. This would make for a nice cap situation for the next several years.

So three questions: If a team is willing to blow up the cap just for the 2010 season, would this be legal and feasible? Would the possibility of doing this make Top 10 picks worth a lot more in trade terms this year? Would doing this piss off a lot of veterans who would also want a big payoff in 2010 even if it meant redoing contracts that haven't expired yet?

2. Some teams--Dallas and Pittsburgh I believe--have already come out and said they will adhere to a rough estimation of what the 2010 salary cap would be.

But if Paul Allen wants to open up the wallet for 2010 in a big way, why are we so concerned about guys like Julius Jones? Keep him around as Forsett's backup if his ego will allow it. Jones is only making a couple million this year, he would be a pretty good insurance policy if Forsett got hurt and RB wouldn't have to be a priority in this draft. The same with a few other overpriced players we have. Without salary cap worries this year would we really have to get rid of these guys?

Radem

I know there a couple cases this year with veterans like Kerney and Walter Jones where we would have to get rid of them now to save money during the next 1-3 seasons. I just don't think we owe Julius Jones so much it would make a difference.

Radem

The NFL just announced there will be a rookie salary pool for 2010. So much for idea number one :-(

Radem

QB is by far the biggest need. That is truely how you kick start a team

Actually it's the opposite of a kick start since he's going to be sitting on the bench for at least one season. Probably longer. That's why so many people hate the idea. You have a real chance of getting a major impact right away with the high draft pick and instead you get nothing but dreams about the future.

What the hell good will more late round WR's do for us?! With Nate Burelson living on Pluto thinking he deserves a PAY RAISE (How about a pay cut you idiot?!) and opting out of his contract, we are thin at WR.

We have:

1)Housh. A fine WR who is slowing down. Recent comments from Hasselbeck paint Housh as a malcontent prima donna who isnt even working out with Matt in the offseason.

Why not trade him and Branch and whatever else necessary for Brandon Marshall?

2) Nat "Underachiever/King of drops" Burleson. Beleives after all the money he's made he deserves more than 3.5 million a year. Bye Bye Nate--and dont let the door hit your ass on your way out!

3) Deion Branch. A twice-thrashed knee, and he was small to start with. He never developed much of a rapport with Matt, and seems unlikely to be anything other than a backup FL or slot reciever--and isnt Housh our Slot reciever? Also due way too much money, and seems to want out of Seattle.

4) Deion Butler. Promising rookie who lacks size and physicality--but not toughness. Probably due to be switched to slot reciever behind Housh. Not as fast in games as his Ruskell-timed 40 yard dash had us believing. Very raw. Not starter material this year.

5) Ben Obomanu. Drafted for his BLOCKING. Very steady but unimpressive. Not starter material, but knows all WR positions. A stop-gap at best.

6) Mike Hass et al. Unknown. Not likely to win a starter role.

To sum up, we have a starting slot reciever/Flanker (Housh), a young promising WR who has speed but lacks size and will probably backup Housh in the slot (Butler), Obomanu and Hass. Thats it. Nate isnt even under contract, and Branch is most likely gone.

We have no starting SE (Do you really feel comfortable with Butler starting at SE?!) and no real FL for 3 or 4-wide sets (Obo doesnt cut it).

Knowing this, no one else thinks its prudent, even necessary, to draft a WR with size and speed in the first three rounds this year?! Really?!

To me, our WR corps looks worse than our trio of RB;s Forsett, Jones, and Rankin.

To me, we need to draft a WR this year and next in the top 3 rounds, and find a tall slot WR in the lower rounds to develop.

Our needs are:
1. OL
2. OL
3. OL

Every other offensive unit is secondary to the line. We can have 5 stud WRs, 3 stud RBs and an elite QB, but if your O-line can't block, they aren't worth anything! So we need to spend at least one of the two 1st round picks on a lineman, and hopefully draft another one in the 4th or 5th round.

I would love to see schnieder make a trade of deion branch, and maybe a 6th rounder to new england for Logan Mankins, who is a restricted free agent and is due a big raise. if that were to happen, i would be fine with only one lineman being taken in this draft.

Our other needs are:
the secondary, CB and S which ideally we should address by taking either Haden or Berry at #6.

Defensive line. If Gerald McCoy somehow falls to 6, they would be crazy to not take him. we could use more playmakers in our defensive unit, especially on the line

QB. Hass isn't getting any younger

RB. There should be a few good RB prospects available in the 4-5-6 rounds of the draft. The ZBS doesn't require an elite RB to succeed. In fact, the biggest success at RB that Gibbs produced was Terrell Davis, WHO WAS A 6TH ROUND PICK!

the 2011 draft class will be loaded with elite WR prospects, so that is one we can wait until next year to address.

I fully expect our new GM to make some trades to acquire more picks, and i am hopeful that we can possibly move something to get another 1st rounder next year to, where we could maybe get locker and julio jones? its a pipe dream, but a decent one, right?

Nice post... I concur, WR is a bigger need than RB. It would also be reasonable to debate taking a WR with one of the 1st 3 picks, and a QB/Safety w/ the other. We are in dire need of skill position players and need to start stocking them up while the line matures over the next 2-3 seasons.

I too like the idea of OT high, however, it may not be the appropriate value. We've all heard, if you've followed analysis, that the ZBS needs speed and agility over size and strength/power. The profile of top OT's favor the latter. We will need to see this play out, but I wouldn't be the first to repeat the words, ZBS systems can leverage later round talent.

"IF" this is true, the skill speed/hands positions would seem to be better value picks in the higher rounds. Isn't this time of year exciting? All the anticipation for how "the plan" will actually unfold.

The NFL free agency list is out!

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816762ba&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

This class seems very deep in defensive backs, especially the safties. If we don't grab a safety before round 5 I'll be pretty upset. I really like Myron Rolle, dude is big, fast and while he is not a Eric Berry ball hawk, he will be a far better pro than supposed first round pick Taylor Mays.

Personally I would like to wait until next year to grab a RB or WR, although I agree they are both very pressing needs. With the likes of AJ Green, Julio Jones and Mike Floyd at WR and Mark Ingram Jr at RB declaring next years class of skill posistion players is far deeper and more talented.

We realistically can't compete for a ring next year, so we have to get players that will help 1-3 years down the line and not right away. This is why we have to draft Clausen or Bradford if they are at #6. This win now strategy that Ruskell used can't continue into the Carroll era if we hope to actually win a title.

About half the mocks have one of the top two QBs falling to the Hawks. Now I wonder about that; if the Rams take a QB (Bradford or Clausen) then it is less likely one falls to six. Obviously if both the Rams and the Redskins take a QB, there won't be a top talent available at 6. That means drafting one later in the draft, and I am not sure who that would be. But you have to ask yourself, if one of these QBs, if not both of them fall to 6, what does that tell you? It means that two teams in obvious need of a franchise QB passed on them. For some reason. Now, if in the case of the Rams, it's because the new owners are playing it safe (and that doesn't make sense to me - I would think new owners would leap at the possibility of drafting a franchise QB) or in the case of the Redskins, they are committed to Campbell long term (very unlikely) than it means these two teams do not see franchise quality in the top two picks. In other words, if either of them are available at 6, they are not worth taking. And if they are worth taking, they will already be gone. Either way, it doesn't work out for Seattle unless they trade up ahead of Washington.

RB: STBM may be right, in that WR is a greater position of need, but it seems like this draft offers more value at the RB position, at least at the top. Backs like Spiller, Best, McCluster and McKnight all offer speed and receiving skills out of the backfield, in part making up for not having the killer WR. As far as WRs in the draft, I don't see the must-have top notch playmaker on the board. Sure, Dez Bryant would be a nice addition, but I don't see him (or any of the other WRs) as the home-run go-the-distance these RBs offer. I don't see an Andre Johnson in this draft (tall, fast, great hands, etc.) Plus, most of the mocks I have seen have Bryant gone by 14, which means he has to be taken at 6 or traded up for, neither possibility all that appealing.

As far as the pick at 6 goes, barring any trades (up or down) I see it going McCoy/Berry/Haden, in part due to my analysis of the QB situation. I just don't see Seattle taking a QB passed on by the Rams and Redskins.

At 14 I like Spiller (although I think he is gone by now at 14, along with Bryant). If so, it wouldn't bother me if the best available player was Earl Thomas. Talk about a secondary! Hopefully the ideal LT is available at 40 (Brown) but it might be necessary to take the guy at 14 depending on who they target.

Even if they take Spiller at 14 (or don't), there are some intriguing backs that will be available later in the draft that might be considered. If they don't take Spiller at 14, I hope they get one of the speed guys, perhaps at 40. Getting the skilled/fast playmakers seems to me the priority, given the possibility of taking O linemen later.

Hawksince77,

Try telling that to Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Minnesota (twice), Arizona, Washington, Detroit, Kansas City, Houston, Baltimore, and Oakland after they all passed on Aaron Rodgers, who was supposed to be a top 5 pick.

To your point, if Bradford and/or Clausen grade out as franchise QBs based on Seattle's evaulation, and if one of them are available at 6, then they should draft him.

I just doubt it lines up that way. Either these two guys are franchise-quality players and therefore drafted by the Rams and Redskins, or they're not, so they're not.

There are several WR's with excellent size and deccent speed that should be available at the 40th pick. And while I would like to see us get Brown or another LT or a G there, if a good WR is there, I wouldnt complain about that either.

And I would be fine with us getting USC's backup late in the draft, or Blount. I hope Blount falls to us in the fourth--he'd make an excellent foil to Forsett.

Do you see any sleepers at WR? There seem to be a couple of possible RB sleepers - that is, potentially good starting players that will go later in the draft for some reason.

Omar Little I know your a big Taylor Mays hater! So I would gladly allow you to put your money where your mouth is on the Myron Rolle being better than Taylor Mays in the pro's discussion. You name the bet, I'll go as high as you want!

And for every other Taylor Mays hater, I find it funny how all the fans from the Steelers, and Eagles are just praying this guy slips to them. I'm tired of finess players. I want some intimidation on the field. But above all, Taylor Mays would be a much needed leader to our secondary. A leader ups the play of everyone around him. Before commenting on what I just said, you should watch this video in it's entirety. It shows at the end how much Pete Carroll thinks of Taylor Mays!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQVzOSyKHcA

Omar--I love Julio Jones as well, and of course Ingram would be a dream come true. But Ingram could go top-2 next year, and Jones will go top 10-15. Do you think the Hawks will be picking in that range? I think we might have a shot at Jones, but none whatsoever for landing Ingram.

And we need 3 young WR's in the next two years. I would be fine with drafting a WR in the second round this year, and first next. I also would like to see us bring in Sean Morey from Arizona--he's a free agent. I'd rather have him than Nate Burleson or Deion Branch.

Antonio Bryant and Marshall may be available as well, for a huge price.

Anyway, if a RB or WR is there and Coach and company view one of them as BPA, I want them to take them as opposed to waiting a year to take a position in hopes of landing a better prospect--I dont think we have that luxury and its too risky.

But I will say, if Charles Brown or iupati are there at pick 40 I would be happy with them over any of the WR's likely to be there. The only issue for me is if Golden Tate is available. I like him, even if he isnt tall. He's tall enough, and is a guy I think Ruskell would even liked.(Which in this case is a good thing).

I don't hate Taylor Mays - I just think he is over-rated. An amazing athlete with mediocre football skills. There is a reason why he is ranked after Berry and Thomas at the position.

Having said that, if Seattle drafts Berry at 6, bringing in Mays at 14/40 might make for an impressive secondary. I just doubt any team drafts 2 safeties in the first two rounds, ever, but who knows?

I don't see drafting Mays over either Berry or Thomas if they are available, though. But that's just me.

I want west coast guys!

Our best players:

1. Secondary: Marcus Trufant Washington State
2. Linebacker: Lofa Tatupu USC (Curry hasn't proven better yet)
3. D-Line: Brandon Mebane Cal
4. O-Line: Max Unger Oregon
5. RB: Justin Forsett Cal
6. WR: Nate Burleson Nevada, Housh Oregon State

Our best players are from West Coast schools.
I want West coast guys!

Mike Iupati
Taylor Mays
Brian Price
Charles Brown
Legarrette Blount
Stafan Johnson
Donald Butler

Recordblender,

Those traits you described all fit Rolle as well. He is big (215 lbs), and is a natural born leader, that being one of his best qualities. He also has the ability to play football, which is the number 1 thing I look for in a football player. Taylor Mays lacks this very important trait.

STTBM,

I also have sort of a man crush on Golden Tate. He is a very talented player who could still be there at 40, and if we land Clausen it just makes this pick even more appealing. The only reason I'm not really supporting him as a draft pick is our many needs elsewhere.

I'd personally would love to have both! But, if I'm putting my money on one of them it's gonna be Mays. Mays was dedicated to his coach, Rolle was dedicated to schooling. I however, don't think you will see a video with other players on Rolle's team telling people how great of a player he is! That's not to say Rolle is a player. I would love to see a Mays, Rolle backfield. Talk about speed and size! I would also love to see a Charlie Brown Mike Iupati offensive line!

Lets not get ahead of ourselves with Mays. I love the guy too and would be happy with him. He's a prototypical Ronnie Lott kinda SS. He's a thumper who excells in the run D. FS are the ones who need to be the true ball hawks. You can allow for your SS to be less of a ball hawk and with Mays you get the intimidator factor with huge upside as he is maybe the best athlete of the draft and we have Grey as our DB coach who could bring the ball hawk out of him. With Berry, however, he is already that playmaking ball hawk who actually hits about as hard as Mays. He's the whole package.

The more I think about our RB situation the more I tend to agree that it's not AS much of a need. However, Spiller is the only guy that I feel breaks the mold. He's gonna be a star for someone and I'd love it to be Seattle. If he's there at #14 I like him, if not then finding a compliment to Forsett is the way to go. I like Blount, but I think Scott is the BEST compliment bruiser in the draft. He isn't fast... AT ALL, but he is quick and very fast to the hole. He is powerful and hits the hole very hard. He's a great blocker, but isn't going to be much of a threat out of the backfield. He is EXACTLY what I would be looking for in a short yardage/goalline back. Just watch this clip of how fast he gets to the line and how hard he runs. He's a great 5th round prospect to me!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROrIY31e7yE

Don't get me wrong, I like Blount too. I happen to think he is hands down the overall better back over Scott, but if we are looking specifically for a bruising complement to Forsett then I think Scott fits the mold better than Blount. I guess I'd be happy with either.

We've all heard, if you've followed analysis, that the ZBS needs speed and agility over size and strength/power. The profile of top OT's favor the latter.

Both Ruskell and Schneider stated that in a ZBS scheme, the job of the LT doesn't change significantly from more convential blocking schemes. He is still responsible primarily for protecting his QB's blind side and it takes a player big enough and physical enough to take on any defensive lineman coupled with the agility and footspeed to be able to mirror your opponent step for step even though he has the advantage of knowing where he's going. That was Walt's greatest skill in my opinion. He was that textbook mirror player and he was always between his man the QB. Beyond that, run blocking is important and the truly great ones like Jones excel at that too.

For the rest of the offensive line, I agree that we should be giving Gibbs a chance to make good on building a line from what we already have and some middle round picks and/or free agents if that's where the organization wants to look.

The best left tackles are found at the top of the draft. Studies were done last season that support the fact that the odds of finding a good LT are quite a bit better in the first round. Not that great LT's haven't been found elsewhere but if we all agree that LT's a high priority and we really want to nail it the first time with whoever we pick, the odds say we probably won't accomplish that by trying to stumble across a great LT in the later rounds. The odds go down quite a bit starting with the second round actually. The really great ones are usually taken in the first 8 - 10 picks down to the 15th pick if someone slips. Oher being drafted by the Ravens at number 21 last year was an absolute steal.

When you're talking LT, a ZBS LT is the same as any other LT when you understand that the first priority is to pass protect your quarterback. That protection has nothing to do with zone blocking which is run blocking. If you do run a ZBS and are making a choice between two LT's essentially rated the same on your board, ZBS experience and compatability are certainly good tie breakers. You don't pass up an unbeatable LT who only gave up 2 sacks last season but who is an average run blocker for a LT who is a better run blocker but gave up 12 sacks. You're quarterback is too important and run blocking can be coached.

If you want a better than average LT, you need to target one higher in the draft than you do other offensive linemen. I don't expect the Seahawks to take any other offensive lineman in the first three picks other than a LT although I wouldn't mind being surprised. The LT might be any of the 1st 3 picks even #6. If Bradford, Clausen, Suh, McCoy, and Berry were picked ahead of us for example, I don't think Carroll/Gibbs would have any difficulty pulling the trigger on OKung or Campbell at #6 after carefully considering Haden. If one of the QB's is available, I think he's got to go that route and look at who's still there at #14 for LT. If he were to pass up that opportunity to draft a LT, I would start to worry about who might be left for us at #40 and hope we're not already in "stumble over a LT" mode.

I'll go on record right now though and say if the Seahawks don't draft a LT within the first three picks, I'll be surprised. If nothing else, fans of the Seattle Seahawks over the last decade have gotten a first hand education on the worth of a great left tackle. I hope the new regime understands that too because LT is one of three or four positions on a team that can make an impact way out of porportion to the percent of the team he represents (1/11th). QB, LT, DE, DT, and CB are really the elite positions and therefore the most highly paid. Look at this years draft. the top 7 players figured to be taken are 2 QB's, 2 DT's, a LT, a Safety (little unusual), and a CB. Beyond that, there's a couple of DE's and a couple more LT's figured to go next and some skill players will start to get taken. That's the reality of it and once those top rated guys are gone, the odds drop significantly. Now, you've got to get lucky or be very very good at evaluation or just not give a damn about a LT to start with because you think you can win without a good one (please Lord, not that one).

It'll be interesting to see how the Seahawks play this one out and in the process learn something about how they plan to approach building up the team and what they consider important.

I'll go on record right now though and say if the Seahawks don't draft a LT within the first three picks, I'll be surprised

How anyone could have any confidence at all trying to use a high draft pick on a left tackle after what happened last season to the top tackles taken, is just astounding.

Bill T-

THANK YOU!! I didn't do any reasearch on it, but this is whay I've been trying to drive into the head of some of these close minded guys on here who think Gibbs is a miracle worker. There is no way that we won't take a LT in the first 3 picks and in my opinion it will happen with one of our 1st round picks.

I think the FO has their eye on 3 or 4 LT's they think will be elite and will pull the trigger on one at #6 unless Berry/McCoy is there. If they aren't, I think they consider Haden if they can get one of their targeted LT's at #14. I for one like Bulaga, Okung, Campbell, Brown and then Davis in that order.

I would draft a LT in the 1st and then another in the 4th or 5th. If Brown were to drop to #40 I'd be okay taking him there too, but I'd rather have a couple skills players. I just think that there is no way Brown makes it to the 2nd round.

cts,

That's the big worry with me is that no matter how far people think some LT's are going to fall before the draft starts, if some team thinks the player has a good shot at making a decent LT, he'll be gone higher. Once the feeding frenzy starts on LT's they go in a hurry and usually higher than projected. What if we pass on a LT at 6 and 14 thinking Brown will be there. If he's not, all a sudden we're out of the best prospects for LT and into being lucky if we can find someone who pans out anywhere. Locklear at LT again anyone?

I also wouldn't object at all to drafting another OT later in the draft. Locklear and Willis both have injury concerns which may impact their abilit to perform well at RT. It sure wouldn't hurt to have a RT candidate who might be able to become the backup at LT eventually.

If Gibbs is as astute as reported, I'm sure he knows that finding a decent LT is a big crapshoot out of the first round or so. Unless he has a sleeper he believes in somewhere, he has to get one of the top 4 or so LT's if he wants to have good odds that he'll end up with a capable player. The Seahawks need to quell the urge to make a spectatcular pick and get that important piece in place. Same with a quarterback. After choosing your new field general and his bodyguard, we're in position to start building the team around them but it sure doesn't make any sense to me to draft running backs, wide receivers, even defensive guys before you have those two most important players in place. The lack of a quarterback (if Hass got injured again or within a year anyway) and the fact that Walt's gone for sure now meaning we don't have a LT will kill the team's chances forever until you resolve those issues even if you draft the top RB's, WR's, CB,s, Safties, DE's or DT's in the meanwhile.

Johnny B-

How could anyone who claims to be football knowledgable use last year alone to grade 1st round LT's. Oher played well, Smith had a broken foot, Monroe had a bad year and J. Smith was a bust like I said he would be, but lets be honest, St. Louis has a knack for taking talent and turning them into mediocre players. Before last year, there has been a plethora of outstanding OT's coming out of the 1st

I went back to all the drafts since 2000 and, in my opinion, 10 are probowl LT's, 12 are above average LT's and 11 were either busts or I didn't know much about them. And this is considering 3 of the LT's busted last year and all of them with the OT's the previous 2 years before haven't had time to develop to their full potential yet.

If you were to tell me that I have a 66% of getting a quality player at any position in the 1st round and a 33% chance of them becoming a pro bowler I would jump all over it. Those are GREAT odds like Bill T has pointed out. If they DON'T pull the trigger given our LT situation, that is the only thing that is astounding.

Having one fluke LT class in 10 doesn't scare me. Especially seems how it was last year and they haven't properly been given an appropriate amount of time to develop. I think this is overwhelming and should almost be a LOCK that we draft our LT of the future at #6 or #14.

I hear you on that Bill, but you can't just take someone cuz you feel you have to. I don't think that the 5 OT's I mentioned are a reach at #14, but I do have concerns with Bradford and Clausen. You can't just reach at one. Not to mention that we have so many holes that it is easier to go BPA at each of our picks. I think that Berry, McCoy, Haden, Bulaga, Okung or Campbell are all MUCH better value at #6 than Bradford or Clausen.

Let's not forget that we have a QB in Hass that the new FO thinks has a few more good years in him. What we don't have is an adequate LT. Jones is gone and all of the OT's on our roster now have proven that they can't get the job done. If Carroll wants Hass to give us a few more years then we HAVE to protect him. We have to protect our future QB for that matter too, so I think this shows we will, no matter what, target a LT in the 1st.

I'm not saying QB isn't an option, but I think LT is more of a priority as we flat out don't have someone to fill the position. It would be like saying we didn't have Milloy, we only had one 1st round pick and saying that we should pass on Berry because we need a QB of the future.

I wouldn't even call last years class of LTs busts. Its only been one season and its way to early to call Smith, Smith and Monroe busts.

Jason Smith was a guy no one expected to come in and have a walter Jones like impact, he was drafted based on his upside. He was very raw coming out of college (overhyped Selvish Capers) and was not expected nor asked to do much his rookie year. Many feel he will be the best lineman taken in 09 (not me), but eveyone knew it would take 2 or 3 years. He was also injuried for a good part of the season.

Andre Smith was hampered by missing all of the pre season and I think a good part of the regular season. He also broke his foot which further set him back. He will be an all pro if he actually attempts to better himself.

I don't know much about Monroe as a pro or the Jags, but he was the guy I wanted last year, especially due to all the Walter Jones comparisans he recieved. The only reason the Smiths got drafted ahead of him were because Monroe's stellar college career was beset by minor injuries. IMO he will be the best of the 4 taken last year.

While they were disappointing, I don't see any reason why any (except maybe Jason Smith) would bust in the NFL. They are nowhere near Rob Gallery, Mike Williams or Leonard Davis level of bust yet.

That was my point Omar, it's just way too early to tell on those guys. Oher played very well and his athleticism showed how well it translated over to the pros. I wasn't a huge advocator of Oher last year so good call on that one Bill T. But his success despite his lack of intelligence and poor work ethic make the more athletic LT's like Bulaga, Campbell, Brown and even Okung look much more appealing. This is a much deeper class in terms of athleticism and with Gibbs at the helms I could see some great sleepers for our system in Capers, Veldheer, Wang and Fox in the mid rounds. Capers will probably go in the 2nd maybe early 3rd though. I do think that Campbell and Brown have the most upside and under the right coach, such as Gibbs or Solari who are technique tactitians, these raw players could prove to be best in class.

What will shake out in the draft. I'm a fan of "the perfect LT" too, don't get me wrong. I'm just not confident the one we think is perfect is actually perfect for the scheme and they may not even be there when we pick.

Skill positions aren't bad picks either. They usually take a couple years to develope as well. Yes, we all know, the line is priority, you can't win championships w/out a good line etc etc...

That assumes line is your only need and the line is able to be upgraded in a major way through the current draft. If you take a 3 year look at it, you may think you could get by continuing to develope current players and may even have an eye on a UFA.

This team needs too many things for one draft. So, I think you just see what happens on draft day, and be happy with any top tier talent we can grab w/ our 3 very high picks. If the right LT does not fall accordingly, then move on.

Thats why I said its excitnig, the anticipation. We have no idea w/ this regime will do. But I do know, I'm going to remain open minded, not assume there is only one clear choice on where to pick what position and just trust the new FO. I like them a lot already.

...if the Seahawks like a particular LT, he should be the target and the priority. I doubt if that means taking him at 6, but it probably means not taking a chance that he falls to 40 (like Brown, if he's the guy) which means they likely take him at 14.

Do any of us know who is likely to be the number one target? Davis, Okung, Brown, Baluga, Campbell, Williams?

None of these guys stands out for me (I don't know how to value them) but just have the sense from what I have read that this is a good (not great) group of LTs. None of them grade out in the top five, is my understanding.

...and it looks like he likes Brown and Campbell for Gibbs to bring out their potential.

I love the old saying, you win championships in the trenches.

If this were true, we'd have a SB ring. It takes a full team. Skill positions, lines, O, D and special teams.

You can make an average oline look great w/ great skill positions and a great QB. Just like a great line can make everyone look great. It seems to be about balance, scheme and style.

Our weaknesses on our roster are greater than this years draft can solve.

Skill positions are as much of a need as everything else....

...so how about he secondary playmaker at 6 (Berry/Haden), the LT at 14 (Brown/Campbell) and an offensive playmaker at 40 (Blunt/Mathews/Best at RB or the best WR (perhaps Tate, per STTBM) and then a solid sleeper in the 4th (no idea who that might be, but someone interesting will still be available).

in the previous post

Well, I am here to argue, just like everyone else, , but I'm not here to argue that you can't find a good offensive lineman in the first round. I'm here to argue that it's a fallacy to say picking an offensive lineman in the first round is safer than picking any other position.

If you want to give passes to the first three OTs picked last year because it's too soon, then you're going to have to say the same thing about Oher. It's too soon to see if the issues everyone was afraid of with him are going to crop up. The head cases often start out fine. He could flame out big time in the next few years. He could be flaming out as we speak, if you get my drift.

The Seahawks should devote every last drop of their ability to finding great NFL players in the draft at every position. They should take the best ones available when their pick comes up. No matter what position they happen to find great players, it will help the Seahawks, without a doubt. If the Seahawks pass up the next Steve Hutchinson or the next Barry Sanders or the next Kenny Easley it will be a big mistake.

I too would be all over a LT/G pick in the first three picks this year--and despite Gibbs reputation, I am quite sure we need, and will get, a top-flight lineman in this draft.

However, as Gnarly says, it doesnt mean we need, or will, take a LT at 6. In fact, the more I look at the talent, we need to trade down a few spots from 6, and either up a couple or down a few from 14, unless the draft falls wierd. Why? Becuase the talent just doesnt seem to be there at those picks to justify thier huge contracts.

If we could trade down a bit with the first two picks, picking up a low second and/or a third, for example, we could still theoretically nab a top LT, as well as a S/WR/DL. Then we could take a G/RB in the extra picks from the second or third round.

I like Brown and Campbell. As I have said before, I advocate BPA regardless of position. That said, I am not a fan of taking a qb at 6. If Bradford falls to 14 (He wont) then I wouldnt be too pissed. But I dont like the idea of paying so much for a position that shouldnt see the field for 3-4 years.

I feel our two biggest needs are O-line and WR. Free safety too, but that can be fixed in round 2 or 4. Plus, SS is not a need with Jamar Adams, CJ Wallace, and Grant (who is still playing well). DE is a need, but we have invested so much in free agency and the draft its time to coach up what we have and spread the picks to other positions. DT is also a need, but unless we can get McCoy, who else is worth the investment this year?

I would love to see LT/G, WR, and S taken with our first three picks, and more defensive players and O-lineman in the later rounds.

You'd think we could trade Laury, Herring, or Hawthorne for at least a third as well. Hawthorne is worth at least a second rounder, but if no one is willing to pay, Im fine with keeping him. As I have said before, he is three times the athlete Tatupu is--he just needs coaching up. Meanwhile Tatupu will not improve--he has peaked. YOu can only compensate so far for being short, light, and slow.

Hey guys, Ive never heard of the RB Scott. Who did he play for, and what are his measurables?

Personally, I really like Blount and am rooting hard for him to succeed. I would love to see him as a Hawk.

Stafon Johnson too--his recovery from dropping 275 lbs from full extension onto his neck 5 months ago, to benching 225 lbs 23-27 times in a row is nothing short of remarkable, and demonstrates the kind of character and determination even Ruskell would have had to appreciate. The guy only began eating solid food in November! He is utterly determined to be a success in the NFL, and I can't wait to watch him on Sundays, regardless of who he plays for!

I agree completely. The challenge in this year's draft is that there doesn't seem to be a 'must have' LT at the top, yet that is seriously a need for the Seahawks.

In my view, the special players come out something like this:

1) Bradford. The more I hear, the more I think this guy might be special, and worth considering a trade up if that's what it takes to get him. If he is that good, he won't be there at 6. And if he's not that good, we probably don't want him anyway.

2) Eric Berry. Maybe he is there at 6, perhaps not. If so, unless McCoy is there, and barring any trades, he should be the pick.

3) Haden. If Berry is gone at 6, Haden might be the guy as the best corner in the draft.

4) Earl Thomas. In a strong safety class, he might be the pick at 14, if Berry isn't selected at 6. As you can see, I think the talent and value at the top of the draft is in the secondary, and it would a shame if Seattle didn't come away with one of these three players.

5) McCoy and Suh (no real explanation necessary - doubtful if either is available at 6)

6) Dez Bryant. I don't see any combination of events that leads to Seattle picking him.

7) Spiller. Lots of mocks have him available and picked at 14 by Seattle, and that would be fine, but I doubt he lasts until then. If Seattle decides they have to have him, they will probably need to trade back at 6, or outright select him.

Blount. I think this guy will be the beast of the RB class, and if he lasts until the second round, will be considered a steal after the next season. Depending on what Seattle does at 6 and 14, I see him as a real possibility at 40.

9) Best, McNight, Mathews, -- I wouldn't mind seeing any of these guys drafted at 40.

10) I can't figure out the DEs - who might be special, and who Seattle might target, but I am sure there is someone here. Same for DT. After the top two, perhaps Price at 14 if Seattle wants to go that way.

11) LTs. I can't get a firm line on any one of them. If LT is a priority and they don't fill the position from the roster or FA, than maybe they take a guy in the top three - just don't know who it might be.

For those that think taking Iupati is a reach at 14, I would like to remind you to look at the very front of the draft order...do you feel comfortable with Rob Sims guarding against Ndamukong Suh for the next 5-10 year? Somebody's gonna have to!

...I would sleep comfortably the night before a St. Louis game knowing Iupati is in the way of Suh and our quarterback! Just saying...

Recordblender,

Sims is an excellent guard in pass protection, I'd go so far to say one of the best in the league. While Iupati is very mediorce in pass proteciton, this being one of the biggest knocks on him.

I'm not crazy about a guy who played against second tier college competition and still carries the label of being a poor pass protector. He would get destroyed by the likes of Suh.

So yes, I do feel fine having Sims block Suh. Or at least more comfortable than I would Iupati.

Eugene Monroe, Andre Smith, or Jason Smith blocking Suh? Would that make anyone feel comfortable?

Seeing as they are left tackles they should be able to block a DT, even though they would never line up across from one. LTs are the best pass protectors in the NFL if they are expected to block the likes of Jared Allen and Demarcus Ware I'm sure they can handle a DT without too much trouble.

STTBM wrote:

That said, I am not a fan of taking a qb at 6. If Bradford falls to 14 (He wont) then I wouldnt be too pissed. But I dont like the idea of paying so much for a position that shouldnt see the field for 3-4 years.

4 points to ponder.

The problem is that while Matt can still be a viable QB, he's getting old for a football player and he's taken some hits in the last two or three years that have led to some pretty significant injuries. He has slowed down some and isn't the same QB who led out team in the super bowl in 2005. The point? He's just a hit away from being back on the bench again and then where are we at in terms of building our team for the future? Seneca Wallace? Come on. At that point, we need to have a QB of the future on hand to step in and the new age dawns.

Secondly, Hass is under contract for only the 2010 season. Is he going to want to spend his last couple of years babying a QB of the future in Seattle for probably backup quarterback money? If a team who is ready to compete except for a veteran QB offers him a chance to make a couple runs at the title offers him the chance, I doubt there is much chance he'll turn that down to remain in Seattle.

Thirdly, do we really want to spend the next two or three years building a team around Hasselbeck and then just when the team is starting to gel, bring in the new QB and spend another couple of years while he gets his act together. If we're starting right now in building a new team under Pete Carroll, with Hass being in the twilight of his career, it's imperative that we identify who is the heir apparent and make plans to turn over the reins as soon as the new QB is ready.

Lastly, no matter how you slice it, the single most important player on any team is it's starting QB. When you look at the top 5 QB's in the league in any given season, they will most likely be playing for for the top 5 teams in the league or close to it barring other injuries or peculiar circumstances (Manning, Brady, Brees, etc.). There is no greater prize to be had in a draft than a franchise quarterback unless you already have one. This is the second year in well over a decade that the Seahawks have had a top 10 draft choice. I have a feeling with Carroll at the helm, there won't be too many more drafts where we'll be in any position to draft a top QB. We may not be this year. We may all be crying "we could have had him" about Sanchez if he does turn into a great one (I personally don't think he will but who knows). It's this simple. If a quarterback who has a good chance at becoming a true franchise QB (as determined by your best evaluators) becomes available at our pick, you HAVE to take him. Whatever team drafts the next Peyton Manning and pays him a zillion dollars will probably win a super bowl too down the line. Yea, a great QB can do that for you. As far as us draft either Bradford or Clausen goes if they fall to us, it depends on what Carroll and Co. think but if they think either one has a good likelyhood of developing into a franchise QB, there's a good chance they won't be in a position to draft a highly rated QB again. They can't afford to pass up the chance. He won't be warming the bench for the next two or three years either. Next season, Hass will either be signed to be a mentor/backup QB or he'll be gone and the new QB will be playing.

I don't know that anyone of our lineman gets a pass for last year in pass protection. Maybe Unger, just because he was a rookie and rookies make mistakes here and there.

Rob Sims is not the answer at left guard. Everything I've read about Iupati, is yes, he has been somewhat inconsistent in pass protection, but that's because he hasn't had enough experience, and coaching. It's not from lack of talent. He has the talent to become an All-Pro guard. Something Rob Sims will NEVER see in his career.

If it isn't broke don't fix it,

I don't know how anyone could have watched games form last season and not come away being impressed by Rob Sims. He is the answer at LG. Why reach for second round talent at 14 on a guy with so many holes in his game?

Like I said before, Iupati carries many questions and he never even played against elite or even decent collegiate talent. How is he gonna fare against DT and blitzes up the gut when he couldn't even handle mediorce college tatlent. If he is there at 40 it would be tempting but 14 is way to high for ANY guard, and its not like Iupati is anything special.

Johnny B-

Find me another set of players in a certain position that have a 66% success rate and a 33% pro bowl rate and I'll agree with you. Based on the last 10 years, I'm convinced that LT's are the safest most successful picks high. Being that we have NO ONE who is even an average option at LT, unless we address it via FA then we HAVE to take one of the top LT's with pick #6 or #14.

I do agree that you should never reach for a player, but I feel that this is a very good OT class. This class reminds me a lot of the 2008 class. There wasn't a big consensus favorite like Furgeson, Thomas and Brown. Granted they had Jake Long, but there were 7 other OT's that were taken in the 1st round. All of them haven't yet panned out, but all are starters and 2 are probowlers after only 2 seasons.

I feel that Okung, Davis, Campbell, Bulaga, Brown and Williams are all 1st round talents. Based on the trends I pointed out, 4 of them will find success and 2 of those 4 will be eventual probowl talent. With the talent of Gibbs, Carroll, Schneider and all the other football minds we brought in, I fully believe that we can weed out a guy or two (Williams in my opinion) who won't develop and having 2 very high picks should give us the best shot at success.

I do like Campbell and Brown. The reason I said them is because they are athletic freaks who are very raw. That's the kind of guy who could become one of the best if they develop right. Hence my mentioning of Alex Gibbs. However, if you look back at the probowlers developed in the 1st round, Long, Clady, Thomas, Furgeson to name a few, they were all the "NFL ready" "whole package" OT's. So maybe Okung, Bulaga and Davis are the safer picks in this draft. And if I were to throw out the 4th LT that will find success, my guess would be Campbell. Him and Brown are essentially the same player except Campbell is bigger, stronger and maybe a bit more athletic. The only thing Brown has on Campbell is he played in a ZBS, but both translate.

I guess I'm saying, in my amateur opinion, is that I feel based on history and breaking down the players, the 4 OT's most likely for success are Okung, Davis, Bulaga and Campbell with Williams and Brown also being intriguing options. Also, based on this research, I would be willing to bet that Monroe will eventually develop and become a good LT, maybe even a probowl level player.

I think Sims will surprise people. In fact, he is a very good pass protector and it was his run blocking that was suspect coming out of college and caused him to drop to the 4th round. I can't find the article right now but Sims is rated above average as a pass protector. He made good strides in his run blocking the last two seasons under Solari (he was injured in 200.

Great offensive linemen don't just step in and start playing at a pro-bowl level. It takes years to develop sometimes. Tobeck was only that shrewd general of the offensive line for the last 4 or 5 years of his career and he finally made the pro-bowl just before he retired with a career ending injury. Other examples abound.

Sims is big and strong and athletic. He fits the ZBS because of his agility and footwork. As I said, he was a very good pass blocker coming out of college but it's taken him 5 years and a new coach implementing a new system to bring his run blocking up to standards but it would be a big mistake to let Sims get away right now. He's at that point in his career where if he's going to blossom into a top quality guard, he's on the verge and ready. I think a new coach, new system, and fresh start may be just what the doctor ordered. I'd be willing to bet that Gibbs is very happy at what he sees from Sims and will be able to take him to the next level. I'm excited to see how good Sims can actually be because he has all the tools and if you've heard him interviewed he's got a good attitude and a good perspective on where his game is at and what needs to happen for it to improve.

Sims is probably our best offensive lineman right now outside of Unger's potential. It's going to take Unger a couple more years to become the player we all think he's going to be too.

Having said all that about Sims, I would still like to see a top level OG acquired to play on the other side opposite Sims (however Gibbs sorts that out). Outside of the desperate need for a LT, I would also like to see a good RT candidate on the Seahawks roster as I think Locklear and Willis are both injury prone and neither is more than average at RT.

Take our starting offensive line and replace LT, the guard opposite Sims, and RT with young upcoming hotshot talent and in a couple years, we'll have a great line with Gibbs coaching them. Draft the LT this year high and then find you guard and RT in the later rounds this year and next. lupati would be a great addition as the other guard and I'd rather see him picked at 14 than Spiller or a DB or DE but he's not more important than a LT and I've got a feeling that the 14 pick is where we're going to be looking at a LT. If we got OKung or Cambell at number 6, I'd be 100% aboard with choosing lupati with the 14 pick and listening to all the cries that we reached blah, blah, blah. That move would just just cement the offensive line for years to come but can you imagine the howls that will come from the playmaker advocates? heh heh.

I like Iupati as much as the next guy, but if we drafted him over one of the top 6 LT's I would be pissed. We are set at OG. Sims, Spencer and Wrotto are adequate and Willis/Lock could also slide inside as well. What we don't have is a LT to protect anyone and we may as well prepare to draft Locker, Mallett or Ingram next year if we don't draft a LT. How can you expect to win if Hass always has a body in his face or is looking up from his back? This was our problem last year and led to ZERO pass game!! All that did was allow teams to pack the box and take out our run game as well. I can't go through another season of that and without at least an average LT that's what we are in for. Not to mention that we may as well start Seneca if we don't because we will need a QB who can run for his damned life.

I say pick up 2 LT's this draft. It is a deep class with 6 1st round prospects and several midrounders that fit our scheme well in Veldheer, Fox, Wang, Capers, etc. Give me a 1st and 4th or 5th rounder and I'm happy. The only OG I would consider early is Vladimir Ducasse as he played OG in college, but many consider him to be more of an OT. Having a versitlile player like that is valuable. I know Iupati is proclaimed to be a versitile player, but he doesn't project to LT. He isn't good enough in pass pro to be a LT. Ducasse is great in pass pro and some believe he will develop nicely to LT at the next level.

Find me another set of players in a certain position that have a 66% success rate and a 33% pro bowl rate and I'll agree with you

Isn't that pretty close to the rate for all first round draft picks? I know it's pretty close for quarterbacks.

So here's the QB/LT top three picks:

6) Bradford/Clausen
14) Best OT
40) Mathews/Blount (a QB's best friend outside his LT)

Here's the 'can't stop 3rd and long, can't convert 3rd and long' picks:

6) Dez Bryant at WR (STTBM's going to like this)
14) Earl Thomas - S
40) Mathews/Blount - two-down RBs that will minimize the number of 3rd and longs

Here is the top play-maker picks:

6) Berry S (perhaps the best football player in the draft)
14) Spiller - all around super offensive/special teams weapon
40) Golden Tate WR (another nod to STTBM)

Or you go all secondary:

6) Haden - CB
14) Earl Thomas - S

Or all big guys:

6) top LT
14) top DT avail (Price most likely)
40) top DE avail (Everson Griffin?)

Couldn't agree with you more on the LT situation Bill T. I'm not as sold with Iupati at #14 as you are based on other talent there, but okay. I'd love Berry or Haden at #6, but if we could trade back a few and take LT then trade back from #14 as well I'd be okay taking Iupati as we'd have two 2nds and probably a 3rd to trade up/fill holes. I'd be okay with taking Golden Tate or Brandon LaFell in the 2nd if we had another 2nd and a 3rd to fill DE (Sapp, Griffin, Hardy), DT (Odrick, Jones, Atkins), S (Asante, Jones, Allen, Rolle) etc.

If that were the case, I'd love a draft that looked like this the 1st 3 rounds:

Bulaga/Davis/Campbell, Iupati, Chad Jones/Cox, LaFell/Odrick, then BPA in 3rd

Have you even watched Iupati?...not something special. LOL!!! You have got to be kidding me. There is a reason the North's offense kicked the crap out of the South in the Senior Bowl. Iupati was a big part of that. He had a dominating game against so called TOP TIER TALENT once placed in his natural position at LG.

Not including the fact that many of the top anylist have said he is the most talented offensive lineman in the draft! In addition, most anylist have said with proper training, he could play almost every position on the offensive line.

I know we need a LT. However, I really think Charles Brown will be there early second round. I think Green Bay will see Brown as a reach at 23, and until detroit in the second round, none of the teams are looking for left tackle, or if they are they are looking for big bruisers. You move up to 31-33 and grab him.

Take the best LT at 6, Iupati at 14 and Blount at 40 and just run the damn ball.

There's alot of people who are in love with Iupati, I am one of them, but I just don't see us taking him unless we have an abundance of picks from Schneider trading back. At this point, he is a LG and ONLY a LG. When put at RG in the senior bowl he got dominated. That means that he would be starting over Sims and I agree with Bill T about Sims. This guys is big, strong, athletic and a great pass protector. Gibbs must be drooling over him and I don't see them moving him to RG for a rookie.

There are other OG's that I like that are more versitile than Iupati and are better value based on our needs later in the draft like Ducasse and Asamoah. Instead of bulking up our OL and only addressing them in the 1st seems imprudent to me. We have so many needs everywhere that we need to slowly improve everywhere. Give me Berry/Haden/McCoy with #6, LT with #14 then BPA at another need position at #40 if we can trade our top pick away.

LT is a must in the 1st. That pick automatically improves our OL, run game and passing game. It is the single smartest move to making our team better in 3 areas this year. Do that and add 2-3 O or D playmakers high and then fortify the trenches with the rest of the pick. If you do that and give our new FO a year to see 1st hand where our team is personnel wise, I feel we could turn this team around after 2 seasons and 3 drafts. Maybe even sooner, but I feel we will have a true competative team in 2012.

So the common wisdom is that Seattle's O-line sucked in 2009, but aside from LT, who else performed below par? I know Spensor was injured, and Unger a rookie, and didn't Loclear get hurt as well? What about Willis and Sims? Or was the general failure due primarily to injury and lack of depth?

In other words, who would start today? From left to right: new LT, Sims, Spensor, Willis, Locklear? Is that a competent lineup?

Or does Unger play right guard? Or center?

The point of my question is to better understand what needs to be done in FA and the draf to fix this horrible line. Will one top LT do it (at least for a starting lineup)? Or are there other starting players we would like to see replaced?

Yeah, No it's not!

First of all. No one is talking about Locklear at LT. Why make all kinds of excuses for last year's bust looking LT draft picks, and Locklear is supposed to immediately play well despite the new offense, his injuries, and being at RT all preseason. Even with all that he settled down late in the season and played pretty well. I could see him doing well there, at least long enough do prevent the Seahawks for reaching in desperation for an LT in the first round if the right guy isn't there!

People keep saying there are three or four LTs who are worth first round picks. Well, with scouting you find out things and so lets say it gets cut down to two by the scouting department, one of whom is not good enough to be worth the #6 pick, and that guy is gone by the time #6 rolls around, and the other is gone by #14. Then what?

Well, if "LT is a must in the 1st" you overreach big time and get one of the shakier LT prospects. If you are calm and patient and have good backup plans, you pick the BPA at that pick and you end up with a better team in the long run.

If I understand, you see Locklear at LT and Willis at RT, is that right? Along with Spensor, Sims and Unger, does that make for an NFL competent O-line?

The reason I am asking about the O-line is that we see a lot of general postings about the importance of the O-line, how terrible Seattle's is, and the need to use high draft picks to fix it. I am interested in some analysis that indicates where the weakness is, and what might be done to fix it.

trade back a couple of spots for our #14 pick and grab a third, then pick haden at 6, take best LT with #16-20 from our #14 pick, take best WR at 40 (tate?) in the third take Rolle, i dont care if its a reach he will be a future pro bowler, in the fourth take a d-lineman in the fith take ben tate (RB) in the sixth take a gaurd and in the seventh take a DT..

Johnny B-

The consensus is that there are SIX 1st round OT's in this draft. I happen to disagree with Williams being a fit for Seattle so that leaves 5. Bulaga, Campbell, Okung, Davis and Brown. Only Brown do I think is a reach at #14, but luckily we have Carroll who knows about him more than anyone. That leaves 5, more than valid, options at #14 and 2, maybe 3, options at #6 if the FO likes them enough. In no way do I see that as reaching.

From what Bill T and I have shown in our research, the odds drop off significatly after the 1st round prospects. So YES!! in my opinion, taking a LT in the 1st is a must. I agree that you should NEVER reach, but I don't think we would be in a position to have to reach at #14 or #6 for that matter. I honestly don't think you've done much research on any of these guys Johnny. We're looking at an OT class almost as good as the 2008 class in my opinion. Who are the ONLY 4 you think deserve a 1st round pick?

Locklear SUCKED at LT last year. He wasn't even average and I would give him a pink slip before I'd give him the starting LT position. He's inadequate even for a rebuilding period at LT. He and Willis are both RT players. Unger will play C. I see our OL looking like:

Rookie LT, Sims, Unger, Spencer, Lock/Willis

Realistically, I could see whomever doesn't win the starting RT spot challenging Spencer for the RG position. However I do believe Spencer will be the starter.

Hawksince77-

I don't see us having no talent on our OL. I don't think we have a great OL, but I think our injuries the last 2 years are a big factor in the downfall of that squad. Adding a franchise LT with a couple projects later in the draft is a good start at rebuilding our OL. With the addition of Gibbs and our S&C staff, hopefully our OL can become healthier.

Thats a damn good idea Best Alive. Just the thought of Haden and Rolle has me drooling here. A true shutdown corner with a guy who can actually play safety... Rolle will be better than Mays by far, and we can probably grab him in the mid rounds.

No way we put Locklear at LT, he is just not the same player he was in 04-07. He never was LT material anyway, he is a guy without a true place on the line. Not good enough to play LT, not strong enough to be a true RT. Maybe he can play RG for us, IDK. That right tackle spot needs to be fixed soon anyway. Both Lock and Willis are getting older and injury prone. I'm all for drafting 2-3 tackles in this draft with the hope the extra one or two can play G or RT.

I'm hoping for Bruce Campbell at 6 because I feel he has the most potential and will be the best of this class in a year or two, he also seems taylor made for the ZBS. Bulaga, I would be fine with but I don't think he has the upside that Brown or Campbell has. He is the best day 1 starter but I think both Brown and Campbell will be better in the long run.

Charles Brown will not fall to round 2, so we are going to have to get our LT at either 6 or 14. Jordan Gross got drafted in the top 10 at under 300 lbs, and he was not the athlete or technician that Brown is. Gross also turned out to be a pretty good LT, just saying. I don't see Houston or especially Green Bay passing on Brown if he is still there when they draft. Both are ZBS teams that have no future at LT (GB) or a shaky option (Houston)

That leaves 5, more than valid, options at #14 and 2, maybe 3, options at #6

By your outside, amateur, superficial estimation. No offense. My estimation is even less. But the Seahawks will put *literally* dozens of hours into scouting *each* of these prospects (some much more), with each of those hours crammed with high quality, edited coach's tape. Something none of us have. It will include interviews, referrals and cautions from previous coaches and teammates. Again something none of us have. They will also do this with numerous lower round OL prospects.

This will almost surely leave *them* with less then five realistic possibilities in the first round, as I said. The rest of their scouting will also leave them a good crop of players worthy of a first round pick at other positions. Some of whom will surely fall to them at 6 and 14. And some OL steals in lower rounds. So as I said, they could easily be left with no offensive lineman available worth the 6 or the 14, compared to players at other positions, and considering a gem they can get instead in a lower round.

If I understand, you see Locklear at LT and Willis at RT, is that right? Along with Spensor, Sims and Unger, does that make for an NFL competent O-line?

Possibly, in the short term, with better coaching, better schemes, some time playing together, and better skill players, they could reach the equivalent of, say, the Steelers Oline.

And if you consider that I am only talking short term, where the Seahawks should coach up some good prospects in free agency or in this draft, possibly in lower rounds.

And if you consider that I am saying, yes, take a Olineman even with the #6 pick if a guy scouts out to be worth it.

And if you consider that I am only saying the current Oline is good enough for now to only prevent the team from reaching for a guy who isn't all that great...

Then yeah, the current Seahawks line is competent enough to prevent a drafting mistake made in desperation.

Wow the Steelers Oline. Ben Roethlisberger can't even survive with that horrible unit, how do you think 34 year old Matt Hasselbeck or our new inexprerienced QB will fare getting hit on every play?

There is no such thing as a reach on a LT, if he is being projected as a first rounder by nearly every source. LTs are the second most posistion on the team and I'd rather have an above average LT than a pro bowl safety or WR.

We HAVE to get an LT, we all agree that our line has to be fixed outside of Unger and Sims. So we have to draft the most essential posistion on either line to move foward. To expect us to get a pro bowl level LT outside of the first round is wishful thinking at best.

Even for pro bowl LTs drafted after the first round there is a huge dropoff from the top 10 guys. Look at guys like Jason Peters, Flozell Adams and Marcus McNeil, all above average, but not great. Then look at guys like Walt Jones, Joe Thomas, Ryan Clady, or Jake Long. I really wouldn't be surprised if Thomas and Clady someday make the HOF based on their career so far. You just don't get the same level of player, even if they are still pro bowlers.

for the detailed response. I don't get to see many of the Seahawk games as I live in the east, and usually follow on-line and listen to the radio broadcast, and that makes it difficult to assess something like the O-line.

JonnyB,

I understand your point, and agree that regardless, the Seahawks shouldn't devalue a pick by reaching. The team needs all the value/talent it can muster and has none to waste. Each pick has to be made the most of.

Omar,

In addition to the O-line, the inability to defend the pass is a major weakness, and getting a top safety/corner (Berry/Haden) at 6, and then someone like Rolle or perhaps Chanceller later (a thumper in the secondary) could make all the difference. Follow that up with an upgrade/complement in the running game (Spiller/Best/Mathews/Blount) will greatly enhance the quality of the team.

The major thing I can't see how to fit is an upgrade at WR. Dez Bryant would be awesome, but at what cost? Do you take him at 6, and give up on Berry/Haden? Taking the LT at 14 is fine, given that I think a good RB will be there at 40, but doing so takes you out of the Earl Thomas range, and I really think the Seahawks need one of Berry/Haden/Thomas, and that means using picks 6 or 14 to get them.

Wow the Steelers Oline.

Good enough for 2 Superbowl wins since 05.

There is no such thing as a reach on a LT, if he is being projected as a first rounder by nearly every source

After the last draft the Rams, the Bengals, and the Jaguars disagree with you.

Even for pro bowl LTs drafted after the first round...

For good reason, Seahawk fans can't fathom life without a Pro Bowl left tackle. But the fact is plenty of recent teams have won the Super Bowl without a Pro Bowl left tackle. The Steelers being a prime example. We have the coach who makes mediocre lineman good enough to win Super Bowls. If the team believes that there is no such thing as a bust LT, we are probably doomed.

Billt-

I agree, Matt is nearly done as a seahawk, but I am still hopeful he plays well next season and they decide to extend his contract. IF he returns to anything close to his 2007 form--which I think he will--it makes no sense NOT to extend him.

Matt is one of the best game-manager qb's ever, and seems perfect for a coach like Caroll. Wallace is a fine backup who looked awful last season under Knapp's horrible system, but he looked fine under Holmgren. So I dont really see the ugrency regarding finding Matt's successor.

Rushing to find a qb has never worked for us--remember Stouffer, Mirer, McGwire, etc?! I dont like Clausen or McCoy or Bradford enough to feel comfortable taking any of them at 6. Bradford was a great qb until he injured his shoulder--but who the hell feels comfortable guaranteeing 35 million bucks to him? Im not comfortable with any of those guys as successor.

I would rather pick a guy later who needs coaching up but has the talent to become a fine qb. That can be done, its not impossible.

And unless our Seahawk staff is quite sure one of those qb's is the BPA over anyone else, I'd rather have BPA, whether thats McCoy, Berry, Okung, Bryant, Haden, whoever. Because they will play, and play well, for 3 or 4 years of thier rookie contract, while a qb will contribute NOTHING, nor should they, for at least 3 years.

Throwing any of this years qb's in the NFL before they've had several years on the bench will not be a good thing. I would rather see another year with Wallace at the helm through training camp and the whole year than see any of the top qb's in this draft starting within 3 years. And as I said, paying them 10 million a year to ride the pine or get destroyed a la David Carr is non-productive.

I think its obvious that Seattle has far more gaping holes than draft picks this year, and that it will take at least two years to field a championchip caliber team. But investing 40 million bucks in a guy that will only give you one season as starter before his contract expires is utterly ridiculous.

Its no secret I think the guy who would help us out the most over the next 4 years at 6 is Dez Bryant--since Suh and McCoy will be gone. Haden might also be worth looking at, along with Berry.

I wouldnt mind seeing us take a qb in the fourth or fifth, and maybe taking a higher qb in a year or two. I dont like the qb's out this year that are first round material, and I think reaching for them just because we see a need to find another qb as disastrous.

Just as I would have been pissed last year to see us take Monroe or Oher over Curry--I wanted BPA then as now. I am still pleased we got Curry, and I bet by game 4 next year everyone else is too.

Hawksince77--You really think Thomas will go in the top 20? I hadnt heard he was projected that high. I was hoping to get him at 40--shows what I know, huh!

He's about 10 lbs underweight, but I really really like what I've seen from him, he's a pretty good ball hawk who hits well too. And he's no Ken Hamlin/Roy Williams idiot showboater either.

Also, as to who to take at WR, there should be a couple guys available near 40 with size and speed, though of course I believe Bryant will be long gone by pick 14.

GOlden Tate may be around at 40, but I doubt it. He is too good a player to fall so far, and he isnt tiny.

Thats why I wouldnt mind trading down from 14 to 20 or so and getting a third round pick--we could get someone like Tate and a safety or other nice addition at RB in the third. Thats of course if anyone wants our pick that much!

As for Thomas, my info has him as a solid first round pick, and taking a quick survey of some mocks (for whatever that's worth) they show him at 15, 20, 17 and 20 - so well short of 40, but likely available at 14.

Everything I have seen has Bryant going somewhere between 7 and 13, so if you want Bryant and a secondary playmaker, you have to take Bryant at 6 (which may be worth it) and Thomas at 14, taking the spot of an LT, as the best will likely not be available at 40.

That brings us back to Berry/Haden at 6, and LT at 14, and an RB/WR at 40.

Trading down from 6 would change all this, as would drafting a QB at 6, but I am having trouble seeing the latter happen, and trades tend to be more real in the minds of fans than the rest of the league (or so it seems).

If I understand, you see Locklear at LT and Willis at RT, is that right? Along with Spensor, Sims and Unger, does that make for an NFL competent O-line?

Possibly, in the short term, with better coaching, better schemes, some time playing together, and better skill players, they could reach the equivalent of, say, the Steelers Oline.

Didn't we give that offensive line the last two years to get it together? How long do they need to gel? So they've already had the time. With Solari for the last two years, they've had one of the NFL's top offensive line coaches. That means they've already been coached up.

Now here's where we agree. You said with better skill players they could be as good as the Steelers offensive line. That's exactly what everyone's talking about. A better left tackle. A better guard. A better RT. (Campbell, lupati, and the best OT from round 4). Keep Unger and Sims and bring in the three new skilled players.

Locklear, Sims, Unger, Spendcer, Willis have failed for two years to gel into even a decent offensive line. It's time to get some young warriors/maulers out there under a great line coach and let them gel.

Just my prediction, I think we will be taking Clausen at 6 and Campbell or Brown at 14. Just throwing that out there.

Why are we even talking about the Steelers O line in here? I don't want our OL to be anything like the OL thats given up more sacks than any team over the past 3 years.

I honestly hope that we make a push for Marshall or Jackson in FA. That would eliminate a need, allow us to get younger at WR, dump some dead weight and focus on other areas in the draft. It is probably more likely that we are targeting a LT at #14 along the likes of Davis, Bulaga or Campbell.

I would suspect that we are targeting either a defensive playmaker in McCoy, Berry or Haden at #6 or, yes, possibly even a QB. I think #40 is really a free for all BPA scenario.

Again Johnny B, your narrow mindedness precedes you. You focus on one year of "bad tackles", and I put that in quotations because it is still WAY too early to reach a conclusion on them, but completely ignore the other 9 years that I researched of great tackles in the 1st round. I'll take a 90% + pass rate anytime. Last year I was never really convinced of J. Smith, Monroe or Oher for that matter. I'm much more impressed with this OT class. As I've said before, I think they are almost as good as the 2008 OT class. You are right, the FO has better scouting and a better idea and I agree that they have narrowed down who they are looking at. However, I speculate that of the 6, general consensus 1st round OT's, and yes there are 6, I am willing to bet that they are looking long and hard at 3, maybe 4 of them, not 2 like you think.

Okung and Davis are great pass blockers and good enough in run blocking. That alone tells me that they are looking long and hard at them. Bulaga is above average in pass pro and a good run blocker. Let's not forget how he made Derrick Morgan look like a 2nd rate little bitch DE in the Orange Bowl. That game alone is enough to raise my eyebrows. Then there is Campbell and Brown. Both are solid players all around, not necessarily on the same level as the others as they are still very raw, but that is the attraction. They are both good as it is and they are complete athletic freaks. They have much more upside than any of the other OT's in the draft and I think Gibbs would have a field day with them.

Say what you want, but I'll put any amount of cash on the hawks taking a LT at either 6 or 14. Whether you think it's a reach or not it's going to happen because the value is there, our OL will be crap again without one and it is our biggest need hands down. The only way this doesn't happen is if we go after a LT in FA, which I don't really see happening as there aren't any UFA's worth really going after.

There are never any LT's worth going after in free agency unless they've a got a screw loose somewhere. Like QB, it's a position where if you've got a good one, you franchise him or whatever you have to do to keep him until he looks like Orlando Pace did last year or Walter Jones does now.

"You'll never score a great LT in free agency".

Ferengi Rule of acquisition number #245.

The great thing about this year's draft is when you list the two quarterbacks being hailed as the elite QB's in this draft along with the other absolute blue chip players expected to be top 5 material, you get something that looks like this:

Bradford
Clausen
Suh
McCoy
OKung
Berry
Haden

The beauty of this list is twofold for the Seattle Seahawks.

1st of all, every player on that list in every position represented fills a critical need for the Seahawks and either helps repair the offensive line or the defensive pass rush our two most critical areas of concern from last year. Franchise quarterbacks are the most valuable of all.

Here's the really great part. Drafting at number 6 means we will have our choice of at least two of those players on the list and maybe more if one of the first 5 teams does something really stupid or at least unexpected. How great is that?

In almost every draft I can remember, you're always waiting for certain players to drop to you but this one is bulletproof for Seattle. Any of those players would make a great fit for Seattle and give them a great player in the process. This draft is the first one I can remember where drafting the BPA in the first round is just exactly what we need to do and know that player will be valuable to us right away with the exception of the QB's who are their own reward. That's why I'm greatly looking forward to this draft. It's like having all the Christmas presents for the whole family unwrapped and on display under the tree and you see that any one of them would make a great present for you. On Christmas, the only mystery is which one becomes yours.

Good point about the Blue Chip players in this draft and us getting one! I agree.

I still think Dez Bryant should be on that list! Ha!

One of the LT's should be available at 40--Brown or Campbell, dont you think? That's what I'm hoping for.

If Caroll and company get intel that none of the top LT's are falling that far, I expect we either get one at 14 or trade down a few spots and get them. I'd be fine with one of our top 3 picks being O-line, and I guess two would be allright too as long as it was 14 and 40, with 6 going to McCoy/Berry/Haden or Bryant.

Because they've won two Super Bowls in the last four years?

"Skill player" generally refers to RB, WRs, and QBs. If those guys are better, the offensive line has that much less they have to do to succeed. That's football. It's a team game. When the guys around you are better, it makes you better.

Didn't we give that offensive line the last two years to get it together? How long do they need to gel?

I almost think you're joking, but you're not, right? Don't you remember the horrible injury situation at offensive line two seasons ago, where none of the starters were playing by the end of the season? You have to know about the injury problems last season also. About all the shuffling around, about a new starting player, about the new offense and entirely new terminology and completely new blocking strategy? And of course you know about the deficiency of skill players around them, the WR problems two seasons ago and last season, the mediocre RBs, the injured starting QB?

And surely you know that continuity is one of the most important requirements for an offensive line so they learn to play together as one unit, continuity being one thing they've probably had the least of?

Suffice it to say, the offensive line players the Seahawks have are nowhere near as bad as they look.

One of the sweet ironies that almost always exist when someone starts flinging personal attacks, is that if you look at it they are almost always flinging something that applies to themselves more than anyone else.

The guy who says that the Seahawks "have to" take an offensive lineman in the first round, even if it means reaching down for guys everyone has projected to the bottom of the first round (nobody has six offensive lineman projected above the #14 pick) is calling me narrowminded? Irony of ironies, right?

The reason you don't do that was illustrated perfectly by BillT. He listed seven "blue chip" players. If someone picks the OT before he gets to the Seahawks and you are the GM, do you reach down for the next best O lineman or get one of the Blue Chip players? You'll have basically the same decision at #14 with six or seven other guys. Reach down for the OT then or take the next best guy? Your good GMs take the next best guy. The GMs who reach down end up home on the couch.

The sacks given up is the fault of Big Ben. He has a nasty habit of holding onto the ball far to long. He even admits it and has has said as much in support of his oline during interviews, when asked about protection.

Some of the name calling and insulting tone in this thread is getting old. Debate and disagree all you like, but please keep the condensending attitude to yourselves please.

JohnyB--Billt has clung to the continuity of offensive line players argument in the past to justify Ruskell's criminal failure to upgrade the talent there. Evn he has finally come around to seeing that our team is sadly lacking in talent on the offensive line.

Pretty much everyone agrees, and while Im certainly not a badwagonner who goes along with majority rules, I find it mind boggling that someone--anyone--could think our line is pretty much ok as is.

I do agree that we have SOME talent there, and do not need 5 new starters. But damn, even Unger with all his potential played pretty poorly at RG for much of last year. Spencer is a bust, plain and simple, and needs to play RG or LG for a team that doesnt use a ZBS--he's too dumb and slow to play in that system, and he's too dumb to be a C period. Locklear is aging and not a LT--in fact, he isnt even a good RT anymore, but he's fairly competent. Willis has knee issues and while a stud in the run game, isnt hot a pass pro. Unger may be the answer at C, and certainly will start all 16 games somewhere barring injury. Sims is actually playing decent, and I think Gibbs will get even more out of him than SOlari in this scheme. Frye might actually turn out to be a decent LT, but of course he's no Big Walt.

So, that leaves us with a stop-gap situation at RT, no starting RG, and only other teams cast-offs at LT. Thats pretty close to a total rebuild.

We need to get a future LT this year or next, as well as a RT and a RG.

Even when the line was playing together, they were awful. Last year other than RT, they had pretty much everyone there all year. And they were flat terrible. Spencer has had 4 years and cannot play even G at a high level. Sims is only now playing competently after 4 years, and Willis and Lock are fading.

I just dont see those guys gelling to become anything more than a mediocre line no matter how long we wait. Spencer is just like Jennings--a bust, and its time to cut dead weight and find replacements.

Just my opinion. We all have to wait and see if Caroll and company see things as we do--and mostly likely, they wont.

I just dont see those guys gelling to become anything more than a mediocre line no matter how long we wait

A mediocre line, like the two time Pro Bowl champion Pittsburg Steeler offensive line. You're saying basically the same thing I am.

I am not saying the Seahawks shouldn't take a great offensive line prospect who falls to them, I am only defending the current O line from those who say it is so hopelessly bad that the team has to reach down in the draft if necessary to rescue them. Worse case scenario, they could even be adequate as is, not to mention if they try to coach up some lower round prospects.

I'll just assume you were talking about the super bowl and not the pro bowl, because I'm sure even you know the difference...

If you seriously think the steelers offensive line won the SBs for them you need to wake up and smell the coffee. The steeler defense won that, their OL finally cost them this year as Ben went down and they finished 8-8.

Oh, and that steelers OL from 2005 is radically different from that mess they currently have out there, just so you know...

If you seriously think the steelers offensive line won the SBs for them you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Of course the Oline didn't win them two Super Bowls. But the Oline was good enough for the team to win two Super Bowls (They had the same Oline philosophy in 05). So you don't need Pro Bowl players on your Oline to win Super Bowls and dominate in the NFL. If you get the best player available when you draft, your team gets better.

I really don't understand how people can oppose taking a good Tackle at either 6 or 14. who do you really think that we have on this line? Name our "good" linemen?
We have:

T - Sean Locklear - Decent when healthy, but has missed 10 games in 2 years, and so is a big injury risk

T - Brandon Frye - An emergency starter at best, who wouldn't crack the starting lineup on any other team

T - Walter Jones - Is probably retiring, or should be at least. he is a shell of his former self

T - Damion McIntosh - who?

G - Rob Sims - a good guard, but has missed 17 games in 2 years, so is another big health risk

C/G - Chris Spencer - an inconsistent Center who has never lived up to his 1st round status, and who has missed 7 games to injury in the last 2 years

C/G Max Unger - a great line prospect, who will likely be our center once Spencer goes his own way. One of only 2 Seahawk lineman to not miss a game due to injury last year

G - Steve Vallos - an emergency spot starter at his best, a liability at his worst

G - Mansfield Wrotto - He has played in 14 games in 3 years, so is a major injury risk and not a great lineman when he is playing.

G - Trevor Canfield - didn't see action in a single game last year. and that is saying a lot, considering how many lineman were injured

G - Mike Gibson - wouldn't have seen the field if not for the injuries. only saw action in 3 games, and was not an impact player


So to recap, we have 4 T on the roster, none of whom can stay healthy, and one is likely retiring.

we have 7 interior lineman on the roster, and only 3 of those can really be considered starting material. and 2 of those 3 guys have combined to miss 24 games in 2 years.

So let me say this again. WE NEED LINEMAN MORE THAN ANY OTHER POSITION!!!!!!!!

Do you want the hawks to make 2 draft picks that will help solidify the team for the next decade?
Then take Buluga and Lupati in the 1st round. I know these aren't the sexiest picks, but i would be really happy if the hawks did that. Both guys will be perennial pro bowlers in their NFL careers, and I would love nothing more than a return to 2005 seahawk football with the best offensive line in the game.

Just to throw some oil on the 'big guy' flame, I would suggest Gibbs knows exactly what he wants, from the current roster, FA and the draft, and let's consider the possibility that he doesn't feel the need to take O-linemen out of the first two rounds (a notion consistent with his experience, experience that may or may not apply to the 2010 Seattle Seahawks).

Let's say Gibbs plans on taking some O-linemen and molding them into the unit he feels can be successful. If that's the case, the top of Seattle's draft can be dedicated to the kind of players you can't coach-up into a solid unit. For example:

6 - Dez Bryant. Suddenly makes the WR corp of Seattle potent, considering him, Housh, Carlson and Butler on the field.

14 - Earl Thomas, ball-hawking safety. Suddenly makes one of the worst pass-defenses in the league a little better and a bit more dangerous.

40 - Ryan Mathews or Laguarette (sp) Blount. Provides the big and fast RB to complement Forsett.

Option #2:

6 - Eric Berry - maybe the best football player in the draft. Makes the anemic pass defense far better.

14 - Spiller - top RB in the draft, dangerous on special teams and out of the backfield.

40 - Ryan Mathews or Laguarette (sp) Blount. Provides the big and fast RB to complement Forsett. (I like this pick in almost any scenario).

Johnny B-

It wasn't a personal attack. I was pointing out how narrowminded using last years draft class, who hasn't been allowed proper time to develop and evaluate, as being your sole basis for LT's in the 1st round which is what you did. I was pointing out FACTS over the last 10 years of LT 1st rounders and coupling that with Bill T's research as well to make my opinions. That is being methodical, not narrow-minded. So no it is more personal. Do you need me to hire you a special ed teacher to teach you simple 1st grade math?!

If you read any of my posts you will see that I've never been an advocate for reaching. I have seen all of the top 6 OT prospects except Brown projected to go in the top 10 at some point. I personally think Brown and Williams are a reach at #14, but again, Carroll knows Brown better than anyone. That said, that leave 4 prospects that are NOT reaches at #14.

I've never said reach for a OT at #6. In fact, I've said go after Berry or Haden at #6 ever since the season got over. Those are the guys I want. But yes, if Campbell, Bulaga, Davis or Okung are there at #14 I think you can't pass on them. Who is better value there? Maybe Spiller, Bryant (just for STTBM), Thomas or if a QB falls, but none other than a QB represents a better need and all are about on the same level value wise in my opinion.

Like I've said, this is a pretty talented OT class, almost as good at 2008 and I can't see us passing on a top tier LT when we don't have an even average LT now. So yes, it is a must for me unless the top 4 are gone and the FO doesn't see that potential in Brown or Williams, which at least for me is a HELL NO for Williams in our system.

So before you go spouting your mouth off spewing your ignorance, make sure you know just what it is you are saying and what the people you are attacking have said. Because what you've accused me of is not what I said. Me saying it's a must is different from saying we reach. If the draft pans out that an adequate LT isn't available at #6 or $14, which is possible, but not probable, then yes, by all means pass. However, passing on a capable LT when we have no LT as it is, is completely absurd and setting ourselves up for failure.

CTS- Thnaks for the bone!

One thing you didnt take into account during your analysis of the past decades LT's and thier success/failure rate is scouting: YOu have made no allowances for poor and/or inadequate scouting, regime changes (Such as swtiching to/from a ZBS after the player was drafted, etc), or injuries.

For example, judging the last decades DE class would be thrown off by including LOJack, as he was taken an entire round or round and a half above his talent level by Ruskell (due to his USC fetish) and was simply put in an unfair position by a GM who didnt properly evaluate his skill set.

So, while your info and stats are interesting and definitely food for thought, they are hardly concrete evidence of anything. Its incomplete data that wouldnt cut it in any scientific study.

Everyone pretty much expects Seattle to take a T with one of our first three picks. But maybe we wont--no one knows what our staff is up to. Im quite sure they are analyzing our needs inside out and backward, and the line--both G and T--have factor in majorly.

Just as they have to have the conversation on Clausen and Bradford, if for nothing else but doing due diligence.

CTS--That wasnt a knock, just an observation: I really enjoy most of your comments.

Balancing the different points of view, the highest value use of the top three picks would be:

6 - Berry/Haden

14 - Targeted LT (not sure who that would be, but likely available at 14)

40 - Ryan Mathews or Laguarette (sp) Blount. I am pretty sure one of these guys will be there at 40.

I really can't see anyway to get Bryant, unless Seattle trades down, but even then, they give up the possibility of drafting Berry or Haden, and if they target an LT at 14, they miss Earl Thomas, and that means they don't get one of the top 3 defensive playmakers in the draft, at a position of dire need for Seattle. These kinds of talents are rare, and season-impacting (in a positive sense).

Having said that, I agree that the offensive line should be the number one priority, but when everything gets said and done, the team needs to maximize the talent they can get out of the draft, and put together as balanced a team as possible.

It wasn't a personal attack

and

make sure you know just what it is you are saying and what the people you are attacking have said

You called me narrow minded. You apparently don't realize that when you say, "You are (pejorative term)" it is a personal attack. Well it is, so stop. Apparently they ban people here for such behavior.

You also have now suggested I needed a special ed teacher. Another personal attack. Ironically again, it appears that special ed is what I am having to provide you right here. And by holding up a mirror to you like this, you apparently get confused and think I am attacking you. Funny. You can't see it when you do it, you only see it when it's in the mirror, apparently.

It actually didn't bother me, I was just trying to point out that you are violating the rules of this blog by leveling personal insults at people. Not to mention, all it's doing is highlighting how badly your arguments are getting demolished. People start leveling insults when they are getting their asses kicked.

Maybe you should look up narrow-minded buddy. It not only impies being biased, but focusing on an incomplete view of something. So again, I was only pointing out that you didn't focus your arguement on what has actually been the case over the last 10 years, but what has happened JUST last year. And even that stand point is skewed based on the lack of time frame. Right after the statement I made I explained why it was narrow-minded in a non-confrontational manner. If I was going after you I would have made it obvious, like I intentionally did in my last post. It never would have gotten here if you hadn't started running your mouth when it was unnecessary. Anyways, I'm here to talk football not continue this childish banter that never should have started in the first place, so I'm done talking about this.

STTBM-

I only think what you have said helps my point. If a guy like Jackson is taken in the 1st it hurts the stats and indicates that it should actually be higher. Having one drop indicates that the 1st round talent should have been better and the percentage should have been higher. I just don't see how that hurts the odds.

Either way, it's not an exact science. All it is, is looking at trends and predicting value based on those trends. I'm not saying that 4/6 WILL be good LT's and that 2 of them will go to the pro bowl, I'm saying that the last decade suggests that it might be the ratio.

I'm just saying that what I found is great odds. That coupled with the step off from 1st round OT's just makes it that much more of a priority in the 1st. Yes, I think it's a must, but I wouldn't reach either.

Hawksince77-

I personally wouldn't take Blount at #40 and probably not Matthews either. I think that if we took Berry, Haden or a QB at #6 and a LT at #14, RB could be an option, but those two guys don't present the best value. Guys like Hardy, Cox, Wilson, Robinson, Asante, Allen, Jones, Odrick, Dwyer, Ducasse, etc. present greater value at greater need. I think Blount can be had in the 4th personally. I do think you are pretty dead on with the 1st 2 picks though. I'd be happy with that.

Just to clarify before too many guys like STTBM put more words in my mouth.

I actually think we have talent on our offensive line and haven't really changed my mond too much there but what I've become disenchanted with mostly is they can't stay healthy. Sims made it thorugh a whole season last year which hopefully is a sign that his big injury a couple of years ago was more of a fluke but crap, Spencer, Locklear, Willis, and Wrotto are just injuries waiting to take the field and manifest themselves every Sunday and every season. How can our offensive line gel when they can't keep themselves active on the roster? Lately, that includes our all universe lineman Walter Jones too. When we have to keep bringing in guys like Sackintosh, it's time to get new blood in the trenches.

I'm to the point where I want some young healthy fire-breathing dragons on the Oline who can take it as well as dish it out without becoming ambulatory. With Sims becoming the veteran of our offensive line, I want to see a new guard to play opposite him (whichever side Gibbs wants them to play on) and both tackles replaced by young hungry tough players without injury concerns. I want a big talent LT and at least a good prospect at RT who will last the season.

Last season, I also campaigned for drafting two offensive linemen with our first two picks as well as scouring free agency and going after one of the centers (Brown or Birk) or at least one of the Oline position we needed. Last season, I wanted to replace LT, Guard, and Center. I would have drafted Oher and Unger before the draft actually took place and we saw who was on the board. Like everyone else, I felt we had to take Curry when he fell and I still think that one will justify itself.

Now, this season even after getting Unger last year, I still want to replace three offensive linemen at LT, Guard, and RT so all we've done in one year is fix the center position and become needy at the RT position which puts us right back where we were last season at this time. We're not paying attention to the offensive line nearly enough and certainly not fixing it fast enough for my tastes. Even though I eventually shut up about Oher and the three linemen we needed last year, I think last season pretty well proved my point and put the exclamation mark on the end of it.

I still get worked up over some of the arguments I had over Oher last year and the concept of taking two offensive linemen with two top picks and getting a third lineman in free agency for which I was just bombarded with criticism. I'll always wonder if Curry didn't fall if Ruskell would have pulled the trigger on a LT or not. Doesn't matter now but I still believe you build your team from the trenches out and some tempting skill player picks are worthless until you have those essential building blocks in place on both sides of the ball.

I hated to see Hutch leave as much as anyone else but I had a different take on it. I blame Hutch and even though I miss his playing and what he brought to the team, I hate what he did and how he lied to all of us at the end. I still think he's a two faced lying sack of crap but like everyone else, I'm looking for the next great guard to be back on Seattle's roster. That's why you wouldn't hear a squak out of me if Okung fell to us at #6 and we scarfed up lupati at #14 and then drafted another OT later in the draft or found one in free agency. Fix the damn offensive line and everything else will fall into place. After that, draft all the damn RB's, WR's, TE's, FB's, or any other player who can score you want. They will finally be able to plan plays and execute them before the play gets broken down half way through it's progression due to zero protection. Our quarterback will play a full season and good things will happen throughout the team. Trust me unless you want another season like the last one (unless you're going to tank the season to get Locker of course).

Oh crap, who listens to me anyway? But I'm cool. I'm cool.

Even though I eventually shut up about Oher

Yeah, you did. Instead you advocated taking "any of the top four OT prospects." You can't now rewrite history and pretend that you had better insight into what makes a great OT than everyone else. They all had big question marks. They all still do, actually. In fact, you may want to tone down the Oher love for another off-season or two until you see what he spends all that money on.

Why all the hate on Mike Oher? Oher is not a character concern. He proved that just to get where he is today.

If you ever read The Blind Side, which I highly reccomend, you will know that he was surrounded by money once the Tuhoy family took him in. He stayed clean and out of trouble growing up without a real family all through his youth and up to his JR. year in high school. For a young kid in Memphis this is quite an accomplishment. Every team that passed on Oher is already kicking themselves in the ass for passing up on one of the best LT prospect in years, for Oher to fall that far to a stacked team like Baltimore was insane.

he was surrounded by money once the Tuhoy family took him in.

There is a big difference between being surrounded by money someone else controls, and having millions in your own pocket like he has now.

Every team that passed on Oher is already kicking themselves in the ass

Not yet they're not. If he holds up under all the pressure and temptations that are hitting him right about now they probably will be though.

Thats pretty flawed logic don't you think?

If he survived all the tmptations growing up in an enviroment rich in failure and crime, coming from what can be best described as a broken family, got to and thru colllege without a single law violation and proved everyone wrong at every level he will be fine in the NFL. He has no past tendancys of being a Koren Robinson or Matt Jones, how many players just one day start becoming a character concern out of the blue? I can't name a single one. You rooting for Oher to fail will not do anything to change him, or his story. He has already proven to the world that he deserves to be in the NFL.

Also I'll bet my house that the lions are really wishing they drafted this top 10 talent over Brandon Pettigrew, especially considering Matt Stafford did not exactally have a great rookie season, ending it on the IR list.

I was about to drop this when I saw this softball tossed up:

how many players just one day start becoming a character concern out of the blue?

Hundreds! And it hits most of them right when they hit their first NFL off-season with millions in their pockets and shady characters coming out of the woodwork. It's an entirely new thing for all of them, including Oher. Thus the sophomore slumps.

You are falsely accusing me of rooting for him to fail. I just don't have the same romanticized view of him of those who have seen the movie or read the book.

So you haven't read The Blind Side?

I suggest you do, because it really goes in depth on the history and significance of left tackles. Read it, that way you can stop forming uneducated opinions on Mike Oher and why we need to pass up on the chance to draft a left tackle.

left tackles and their importance. Having a player like Walter Jones is a huge advantage for a team. The bad news is, Jones is one of a kind.

The other bad news is that football is a team game. One player even of Walter Jones's ability can't make you win. You should look into how the Steelers (and other teams) win Super Bowls with mediocre left tackles and mediocre offensive lines. If you have enough talent elsewhere on the team, it can make up for deficiencies at any position, even left tackle, even QB. This is why you draft the best players available instead of a worse player at a position of more need.

Johnny B-

So who would you draft at #14? Let's say that, for sake of arugument, we took Berry or even a QB at #6 and Bulaga and Campbell are still on the board. Who, in that situation, presents a better value? What would your first 3 picks be if you were Schneider? You disagree with everyone on here about everything so if everyone is so off base then throw out your #6, 14 and 40 picks. You talk a lot, but never throw out any names, or do you have no idea and just like the confrontation?

You talk a lot, but never throw out any names,

I've said exactly what I'm for and against. I'm for the BPA. I'm against focusing in on one particular position and taking that with your picks even when there are other better players available. And FWIW, I think it's kind of silly to throw out names when we know so little about them, compared to the guys actually doing the picking. But since you asked...!

You have to take McCoy or Suh at #6 if one of them fall which they probably won't. Berry or Haden might be good there too, if they're available. Pierre-Paul or one of the other DEs might be good too. It all depends on the scouting. Maybe an OT is worth it there, probably Davis would be the only one. If Bradford is truly going to heal, depending on the injury, he might be good at 14. Spiller would be killer at 14 too, and so might Dez Bryant. Of course, any of the above would be even better to get at 14 than 6. Satisfied? I could go on.

That's all I wanted to hear. It's all speculation right now and until draft day we fans get to play GM. It's easy to say what you want and just say BPA and not know anything about any of these players. Actually having an opinion about specific players is another and what most of us are looking for to discuss on here. To be honest I'd rather not waste my time talking to people if they don't know what they're talking about, which is why I was insistant on you having a more detailed opinion. Thanks for the input.

I agree with you about McCoy and Suh. I also am big on Berry and Haden. There's DE I like, including Morgan and JPP, but not at #6 for reasons I have posted on other threads. I like Davis more now than before, but I don't think he's the only worthy OT at #6.

I'm HUGE on Spiller, so so on Bryant, but I think #14 is where we will get good value for a LT if Bulaga, Davis, Okung or Campbell falls there. I know you disagree. I would be happy with Bradford at #14, but that won't happen.

a LT if Bulaga, Davis, Okung or Campbell falls there (14). I know you disagree.

I don't! I never have! I don't know who would be good, but if they can pick out the great LT and take him at 14, I think it would be fantastic. All I'm arguing against is forcing the pick because OT is a need. If they think no offensive lineman available is worth 14, take a pass. Get an offensive lineman lower down, or in free agency, or next season.

I think the top of the draft is going to be pretty cut and dried for Seattle. I've listed what the most mocked top 7 players are in another place (Suh, McCoy, Bradford, Calusen, Okung, Haden, and Berry). If things go as expected we should have a choice of two of those players.

If one of those is Okung and the two QB's are gone, I think you have seriously consider going LT with our top pick in that circumstance. Okung is a superb pass protector and can be coached up on run blocking in the ZBS by Gibbs. Okung isn't a terrible run blocker by any means just average at this point but full of promise. There's a reason he's considered the top LT in the draft.

Having said that, I haven't seen too many mocks where he falls as far as #6 so it's probably nothing to worry about anyway.

Yeah I really doubt Okung falls past KC. Scott Piloi or whatever his name is drafts for value first and foremost. Just look at his time in New England or last year for a prime example. He took Tyson Jackson over Aaron Curry simply because he offered more posistional value even though Curry was the consensus best defensive player in the draft.

Just for that reason I'd wager that Okung is gone, he offers the best posistional value period for KC, it doesn't matter if they were picking first, I'd still say its Okung.

Omar--KC doesnt need to draft a LT as they have one allready who is pretty good--and no old either. I doubt they pick LT personally. Hell, Detroit might pick him though!

Billt--DIdnt mean to put words in your mouth, but reading your recent comments on the line, they seemed to directly contradict your stance for the last several years that we had a decent line that just needed time to gel.

With injuries, age isnt always the factor: Sims blew his shoulder/pec out his second or third year, for instance, so taking young players just to try to avoid injuries makes no sense--Sims and Willis are young and injury prone.

I do agree we need to draft two lineman this year if possible. And two next year--one high and one low each year. I also think that we need to at least work out several free agent G's to see if they look better than what we have: if they do, then freakin' pay 'em!

Isnt Kyle Williams still on the team? He's a young LT prospect with talent who is still raw but has upside. Everyone has forgotten him when listing our lineman lately...

STTBM,

Brandon Albert started playing pretty well at seasons end. But he was a penelty machine and let up something like 9 sacks before he played well down the strech. He is also more of a natural guard, since Eugene Monroe kept him playing on the inside during his collegiate career. They can definitly use an upgrade at the posistion, especially since they view Cassell as the future.

I think that is the point of Albert. I think the guy will be a good OT as he develops, but I'm not too sure he doesn't fit better at RT. That would be the point of taking another LT prospect. You don't waste that much cash on Cassel to not be able to protect him and let him throw.

Johnny, the reason I stated that is because if I remember right, I remember you saying that you thought there were 2 OT's worth taking with one of our picks. That's where my statement stemmed from. I honestly believe that all 4 have a great shot at becoming solid NFL LT's. At this point, all 4 are top 10/bubble prospects and in that case are good value at #14. Of course that is just my opinion though.

I have researched the OT possibilities pretty extensively over the last week or so and IMO the top ranked prospects are not that much more impressive than a couple of 4-th round ranked players. I think the important factors for OLT are: Quick feet, initial quickness, lateral movement, Strength, flexibility, good effort, leadership and lack of major injury issues as well as I prefer a 3-4 year starter from a major school that has faced the best competition. The two OT's I like best (considering when they may be drafted) are:

(1)Rodger Safford,OLT, 6'-5", 312-lbs. from Indiana. He was '09 team captain, allowed one sack all year, has started at left tackle for 3.5 years (40+ games), has not had any significant injuries, is strong with very quick feet and excells in BOTH pass and run blocking. He's very durable & mobile. Per Reuter, "he was best player on the field" at the E. W. Shrine game. He's projected late 3-rd, early 4-th round. (Sounds like a potential Walter Jones clone to me, except Walt is listed at 6'-5", 325, but a little more weight lifting could make up the difference in weight.)

(2)Kyle Calloway,ORT, 6'-6", 322-lbs. from Iowa. he was the ORT to Buluga's OLT, has played the last two yrs. at ORT and also had 1 year at OLT (he's a 3 year starter) and even has played some guard. He also has very similar qualities to Safford (above) and evaluators say he is tough, disciplined, versatile w/loads of potential. He's injury free and is Projected 4-th round.

I don't think either or both of these guys would be anything but good selections in the 4-th round area. I think there are more positives and less negatives on these two than the higher round projected guys (In fact I like both almost better than Okung, Davis, Williams, Buluga, Fox, Capers, Lang, et. al.) I would like to see both drafted by the Seahawks with their #101 & #135 picks. Check them out!

Thanks for the info on ALbert guys. You may be right, sounds like KC might be in the market for Okung after all. Still, they might go defensive line, though with a 3-4 it changes how they view talent.

Yeah, KC is the wild card of the top 15 IMO and I can see them going DL except they drafted Glenn Dorsey in 08 and then Tyson Jackson in 09. Unless they trade Dorsey (not ideal for the 3-4) I really don't see them going DL again.

I don't think KC is a wild card at all. Dorsey and Jackson are exactly the reason they won't draft DL. Crazier things have happened though... like KC drafting Jackson at #3, haha. I think they're about a 70% lock to get an OT. Of the talents worthy of a #5 pick only Haden, Berry or an OT represent value there.

I could see them go after a DE or DT (if they fall), but not sold at all on that. Wild cards for me for them would be McClain, Bryant or Spiller. Not huge needs but could happen.

i like this website