WR Sean Morey Has Signed and Other News

There is a very interesting piece about the NFL moving the location where the umpire stands: http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnor...big-impact
They are being moved from behind the defensive line to off to the rear side of the QB.

YEah, but the problem doesnt really lie with the location of the umpire: the problem is in Roger Goodell's NFL, games are called inconsistently, and crews are inconsistent on which rules, and how, they enforce; ie, they allow one team during a game, such as the Packers (with known aggressive DB's) a lot of contact in the secondary, but tighten up on the opposing team (like the Hawks Trufant)...also, they get all nitpicky on one team one week, then two weeks later I see the same crew in another game allowing what appears to be WWF wrestling with the ball in the air...And thats just on Pass Interference calls. I wont even begin to address holding on the O-line (Pittsburgh holds on EVERY play, yet rarely is called), late hits on the qb (why was it ok to batter Favre after he threw a pass, but not Manning or Brady or Brees?!), etc etc...

Funny how the larger-market team ALWAYS seems to be the benificiary of the current interpretation of the rules--what to call, what not to call.

I dont think moving the Ump is a good idea. But then again, I never thought having the ump in the way of WR's routes made any sense either.

On another note, what are Duke Calhoun's measurables? You know, height, weight, 40 time...?!

6-2, 195 ---

40-yard dash: 4.49 seconds
20-yard dash: 2.62 seconds
10-yard dash: 1.53 seconds
Bench Press: 12 reps
Vertical Jump: 35”
Broad Jump: 10’4”
20-yard Shuttle: 4.5 seconds
3-cone drill: 6.75 seconds

this is from the northwest football.net

Thanks Steve!

So he's pretty fast, but not crazy fast. His vert is excellent, as is his broad jump. I believe 10'4" is pretty much the best among WR's this year. I know its pretty impressive.

12 reps, huh?! Thats kinda wimpy. Of course, I say that as a guy who after a year and a half of weight lifting couldnt do that! (Then again, I am not an NFL football player)

6'-2" is great, thats as tall as Dez Bryant. Too bad about him being under 200 lbs. He needs to bulk up to at leat 215 without losing any speed.

I wonder how high he will go in the draft? Another fourth round DJ Hackett?!

I think the Hawk's strength and conditioning coach will solve the 12 rep issue and bulk him up pretty easily. Hell, after a couple of months in the weightroom, I was able to put up 10 reps, and that was after taking over a year off from the gym (focusing on bike racing), not having a coach, and being 38 years old. His other measurables look really good. Might be a steal in the 4th.

Pass interference rules are awful in the NFL, nothing makes me more mad than watching a game and seeing a ref give some team a touchdown because they threw it 40 yards and there was some contact. I think they need to change to college rules, 15 yards for PI penalties.

for WR's. That's inline w/ most of them.

Not that’s it needed, but bench in general is a poor choice for an individual's measure of strength. It became popular in the late early 70's as a measure, because of the idea of large chests and lats (mirror muscles) were more appealing in a body building physique.

While is "a" measure of strength, it's funny that the NFL highlights it still. I would rather see strength measures from individual deadlift and squat. Exercises that really define core strength and have direct correlation to on the field applicability.

Pass Interference Calls
written by That Guy, March 29, 2010

Pass interference rules are awful in the NFL, nothing makes me more mad than watching a game and seeing a ref give some team a touchdown because they threw it 40 yards and there was some contact. I think they need to change to college rules, 15 yards for PI penalties.

While I agree that pass interference calls can be a pain I'd also hate to see my team's WR beat a DB on a fly route and while the ball is in the air have the defender dive and tacle the WR because he knew he'd only lose 15 yards instead of having the ball at the spot of the foul.

I hear you gnarly! At least he wasnt cb Fred Smoot--that guy holds the combine record for least reps--he only got ONE!!

From NFL.com-
03/26/2010 - PRO DAY RESULTS: Get to know the name Duke Calhoun. The wide receiver from Memphis is generating a buzz. Former Cowboys quarterback Jerry Rhome called about a month ago to give me a heads up on Calhoun's ability, and he worked out very well at Memphis' pro day on Friday............ He really helped himself and should be a middle-to-late round pick. Bengals receivers coach Mike Sheppard was there to work him out. The fact he was in a rotation at Memphis hindered his production in college. - Gil Brandt, NFL.com

I am now joining (or starting) the bandwagon to trade for Bradford.

Seattle has the draft position and the ammo to do it.

In the early 80s, the Baltimore Colts had the first over-all pick. Elway was going to be that pick. Elway said he would play baseball (he was drafted by the Yankees) before he would play for the Colts.

The Colts traded the pick to Denver, and the rest is history. Does anyone remember what the Colts got? No, because it doesn't compare with what Denver got.

In another draft year, Seattle had the top pick and Tony Dorsett was the guy. "I will not play for Seattle," Dorsett said. Does anyone recall what Seattle got in compensation? I don't.

Same situation here. This is the closest Seattle is likely to get to a talent like Bradford, as the next few years they will likely be drafting in the teens. Now is the time.

Possible cost to Seattle:

1 - 6th and 60th pick
2 - swap top two picks with the Rams (6th and 14th for 1st and 33rd)
3 - 6th and Whitehurst
4 - 6th, 60th and a fourth rounder
5 - worst case - 6th and 14th

If Whitehurst is not part of the trade, the season begins with Hass, Whitehurst and Bradford 1 2 3.

Hawksince77--I dont remember exactly what Seattle got for the Dorsett pick either. But I remember it was multiple picks, plus some players that were backups in Dallas, starters in Seattle. None were stars. The picks failed because of the Front Office, not because picks in themselves are inferior to a qb. There were other great players taken below Seattle's picks that year.

(In a wierd twist, the pick the 49'ers used on Joe Montana also came from Seattle via trade, and I believe it originated with the Cowboys and came thru us via the Dorsett pick.)

It didnt matter so much, as a couple years later Seattle traded up to take Curt Warner, who was a star for six seasons. And if only arthroscopic knee surgery wasnt in the Stone Ages of development in 1984, Warner would have been a HOF'er. Though he was a fine player for 5 more years, Warner lost some of the amazing cut-back ability and agility he posessed his rookie year. And he wore out faster due to the knee, Im sure of it.

Dorsett rushed for more yards and was a great back for more years than Warner, but we didnt do too badly with him. And he didnt mind playing for us.

Interestingly, Dorsett went to the Super Bowl his rookie year I believe, then never returned. If he had gone to Seattle, Chuck Knox may have been able to ride him all the way to the big game--he would have been great with Largent, Kreig/Zorn, and Knox's defense. Too bad we'll never know what might have been. Maybe Dorsett should have kept his mouth shut and played for the expansion team...

As for Bradford, he's the real deal. But again, why on earth would the Rams trade with us, thier rivals? And why on earth would Seattle trade so much for Whitehurst and pay him so damn much, only to turn around and trade multiple high picks for another qb?! DOesnt make sense to me. We have too many holes to fill elsewhere, and this draft is loaded at areas of major need. A perfect draft to trade down for MORE picks, not trade up and lose picks.

IF we somehow convinced the Rams to trade us thier pick, Im sure it would be a Herschel Walker type deal, and hamstring us forever. Not a good way to get a qb of the future. And it would make Schneider and Carroll look like confused fools for paying so much in picks and cash for Whitehurst.

Especially now that Hasselbeck has little or no trade value due to the Browns signing Delhomme and the fact that it obvious Philly will have to deal McNabb due to their own bungling.

Highlander,

You beat me to the punch.

If they change the PI penalty to a 15 yarder, it will wipe out long TD passes unless the receiver is all alone when the ball arrives. Under such a rule, if I'm an NFL head coach, I instruct my DB's to never let a player catch a pass more than 15 yards downfield no matter what. It would be a huge impact to the passing game and would change the requirements for playing WR in the league. They might have to take a page from basketball and allow a DB only 4 PI penalties before he fouls out of the game. Too much imnpact on the game for me. I like the game the way it is.

I agree Billt.

But the NFL really needs to do a better job calling PI consistently. The variance between how certain teams are treated, and the variance in crews interpretations of what exactly constitutes PI are ruining the game.

Most of Tru's PI's last season were utterly bogus. The one where he tripped and fell, and never actually touched the WR, and they threw a flag was just classic Goodell NFL BS. You cant throw a flag just because the WR fell down!

And I saw plays where Seattle WR's (and other teams) were MAULED, and no flag.

I have noticed a marked decline in the parity of calls, the consistency and accuracy since Goodell took over from Tags. And somehow, someway, this has got to stop.

I have also thought about how that might affect calls, and you don't see db's make PI penalties on purpose often if ever in college, and I don't think that that would change in pros, but i guess the players are better in the league and it could affect long balls. You never know how big of an impact it would really have unless they enacted it which will probably never happen.

Nonetheless it's an interesting topic.

I don't see why they can't make P.I. challengeable

A multi-year contract for an aging special teams guy? Ridiculous. So far I haven't complained much about this off season but I need to now. Why do we need this guy? Can anyone explain this signing?

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...-after-all

but who isnt

http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks

Hawkboy--Even AJ Butthead, the GM of San Diego, thinks he ripped Seattle off. They asked what SD wanted in trade for Whitehurst, SD made an offer, and Schneider and Carroll accepted immediately, no haggling, no bargaining, nothing. Pathetic!

It doesnt matter if WHitehurst pans out, they gave up far more than they had to in order to get him.

They must have been scared to death AJ would put them in a bidding war with Arizona. Still, terrible trade management. You never give up so much so easily. I dont care what the stupid Draft Chart says, we lost out on choosing 20 players that are all far better than the guy we're gonna take at 60 ON TOP of the tendered 3rd round pick. To make matters worse, the first half of the second round this year is full of excellent players who should be starters.

I am remaining skeptical, and regardless of how Whitehurst turns out, unless he's Joe Montana or Tom Brady good, the fact remains Seattle once again gave up more than they had to to get thier man.

Reminds me of Ruskells idiocy with LoJack and Carlson. He knew the only way to get Carlson was to trade up in the second, and he had to give up a lot to get there. But LoJack wouldnt have gone until the second or third round, and he wasnt that great anyway. Timmay! should have just picked Carlson in the first, then got his DE in the second--even if it wasnt LoJack. There is a reason even Pete Caroll thought Ruskell was nuts for drafting LoJack that high--he will never be elite. He's too slow.

Just once I want a Seattle team to get the better end of a trade. And stop dumping players for less than they are worth. Seneca and Tapp werent great, but theyre worth more than we got for them.

I agree with S.TTBM, Zduriencik needs to offer a trading 101 class for Noob sports managers.

...but he will probably be a good back-up and perhaps a decent bridge to the future.

STTBM,

Why would the Rams trade with Seattle? Maybe because they want to trade out of the top spot and get more picks, because they plan on aquiring another QB in some other way...who knows? What I do know is that Seattle needs a franchise QB just as much, if not more, than the Rams.

If they can use just two of their top three picks, or trade the first two picks, or something like that, it wouldn't hamstring Seattle's draft or roster.

What it does mean is investing for the future, as making a trade for Bradford likely means not contending next year, but it also means the potential of many contending years with top talent at the top position.

How else will Seattle acquire top talent at QB? Very rare, very expensive, and worth every dime if it's the right guy.

The Rams have so many needs that it might be considered a waste to draft Bradford. Seattle has many needs as well, but overall field a more talented roster.

Sit Bradford in 2010. Play Hass, and when he falters, Whitehurst (if Whitehurst is not used to aquire Bradford). Build the team over the next two years or so, and then contend for five or more years after that.

Somebody on this site (can't recall for sure who) made a great case for the importance of a franchise QB (perhaps last year when the team could have drafted Sanchez - a move I am happy they passed on as I thought that Hass had a few more years in him [I was wrong] and that Sanchez wasn't that good [something I think I am right about) and I have been convinced ever since. The issue has to do with timing, cost, and deciding who the right guy is.

Well, I believe the right guy is Bradford (not Clausen) and Seattle is as close as they are likely to get to a potential all-pro talent like him. Will the Rams really refuse a trade with a division rival? I don't know. I would think they would do whatever was in the interest of the franchise, and there is a chance, however small, that they would entertain an offer. If I was Seattle, I would find out what it would take and seriously consider it.

Rams are not going to be making any potential franchise building deals with the Hawks, it doesn't matter how good/bad Bradford is, they won't take the chance. The only shot the Hawks would have at Bradford is if the Rams pass on him and the Hawks make a trade with another team. Clayton says both QBs will be off the board by 6. It wouldn't be a great move in my opinion but there are a lot of problems worse than having an embarassment of riches at QB.

They might have to take a page from basketball and allow a DB only 4 PI penalties before he fouls out of the game. Too much imnpact on the game for me. I like the game the way it is.

That'd be an interesting twist, although I wouldn't want it. Another way to deal with too many PI's would be, after 2 the DB is taken out for say 3 or 4 plays, like a hockey power play and the team would have to play a man short. Again, I wouldn't really advocate for that either, but it'd be a way to deal with DB's directed to foul anyone likely to catch anything past 15 yds.

I do agree that there is a very real problem with consistency in the way games and in particular some teams are called. It's almost like the superstar rule in basketball where the big name stars just about have to throttle someone to death before they're called for a penalty...or when they are it's applied to some poor shlump from the bench that was standing next to the star.

I really like Derrick Morgan, I have seen mocks of us taking him at 14, I dont know if he will be there, I seen mocks of us taking him at 6th and I am not the only one who thinks thats a little to high so here is a little something I thought about.

Assuming that Okung, Bradford, Suh, Mccoy will not be there at 6th. I say swap 1st rounders with Buffalo Bills(9th overall) or the Jaguars(10th overall) and get a 2nd or 3rd rounder. Which means we could get Derrick Morgan with the 1st overall and our LT of the future with the 14th pick. Then we could trade our 60th and some others for Marshall, and use the 2nd or 3rd we got from bills/jaguars by drafting the BPA out of Saftey/Running back.

I suspect Bradford goes number one, most likely by the Rams selecting him, or possibly by someone trading up. If the Rams don't trade, or if they won't trade with Seattle, then Bradford won't be a Seahawk.

I also believe that Washington will trade up if necessary for Clausen, and most likely with Detroit. For reasons I have stated elsewhere, I believe Washington has the inside track trading with Detroit, and I don't believe Seattle could out bid Washington at number 2.

If all this is right, then not only will both guys be gone by six, but likely gone by 3. The only chance Seattle has, again, if this analysis is correct, is to convince the Rams to trade down, and as you point out, they are unlikely to want to do that with a division rival (I guess). I really don't know how much that plays into it. If Seattle is the only one offering, and if the Rams are inclined to trade down, then who knows?

Absent trading up for Bradford, I would think taking McCoy at 6 and Thomas at 14 a nice consolation. If that happens, we just have to hope that Whitehurst turns out better then he seems likely to.

Each team could have one or two 15 yard PI's, at their choice, then the rest are at the point-of-foul...NOT! The real answer is to allow coaches to challange "game changing" penalties (and "no calls"). Then a third official could apply a more standard interpretation of the rules. They could rule based upon other calls of the game.

That way, if some official is being bribed to "influence" a game (think of the '05 season Super Bowl), it would mitigate his ability to do so.

It's going to cost draft picks and $80 million-ish to get him. They owe Hasselbeck almost $7 million for 2010 and have $8-10 million invested in Whitehurst through 2011. I know Paul Allen's got a lot of money, but c'mon. According to his stat page Bradford has only been sacked 25 times in almost 900 pass attempts -- in other words, he's barely been touched throughout his career -- yet already has a worrying injury history. With all the needs on the team I don't see how this could remotely be justified.

Yes, obtaining and retaining a franchise QB is expensive.

Cut or trade Hass - that saves you $7mil (if money is the issue). The money and draft picks paid for Whitehurst is reasonable for a back-up/short-term-starter.

And the justification? Winning lots of football games and an SB or two.

Lets see what we have in Whitehurst, if it seems like hes nothing special then we take Andrew Luck or someone next year instead.

Mocks are like...well, you know what, everyone has one, but I really liked the result of this one from Scout.com...

http://profootball.scout.com/2/957348.html

DT Gerald McCoy
RB C.J. Spiller
OT Jared Veldheer

This is just a 2 round mock, but I'd be happy with this result.

"Cut or trade Hass - that saves you $7mil (if money is the issue)."

They already paid Hasselbeck his roster bonus, suggesting they're keeping him for another year. And yes, I would proceed as if there is going to be a salary cap again in the near future, so the mind-numbing amount of money you would pay a top five QB is a consideration.

"The money and draft picks paid for Whitehurst is reasonable for a back-up/short-term-starter."

Just so we're clear, you're suggesting they spend something like a first, a second, spots in the second, and a third on a single position all in one offseason? Even though they're a complete disaster on both lines, in the secondary...

"And the justification? Winning lots of football games and an SB or two."

If you're sure he's that good. You know, he only has 77 rushes in his whole college career (sacks are included in college rushing stats). That is to say, if you add up all the hits he's taken in his entire career it would be roughly what Jake Locker or Matt Hasselbeck take in five games, and he still has an injury history. For the investment I'd want more of a sure thing.

QBs get hit more often than rushes or sacks show. Most QBs get hit on most passing plays regardless of if its a sack or not.

Media darling of the week. One good scripted workout, that he's been practicing all off season, and suddenly he's being compared to 3x SB champion, Hall of Fame players and lightening in a bottle.

Carefull whose cool aid you drink. Some is laced w/ strong liquor and can impare your judgement, no matter how fun it is to chug - you'll be left hurting in the morning.

Highlander i'd be happy with that draft too.
Hell, just canning the crappy staff this offseason was like winning the draft in itself! Plus 2 1st rounders and adressing the qb needs already puts us years ahead of where i think we'd be by now. I think Hass mentors Whitehurst and retires a Hawk. Just think about somebody already invested 4 years into him and he's got no wear and tear. If we somehow land Marshall, i think the west is ours this year.

I've been drinking the Bradford kool-aid for some time (you may have seen me mention the possibility of trading for him several weeks ago). What happened today was simply confirm what people suspected: he has healed from his injury and worthy of being the top pick in the draft.

I think he is special. Maybe he's not, and to Steve S's point, perhaps a larger than normal injury risk. I don't know. For some reason, you see guys like Favre never miss a game, and then a Schaub who barely makes it through one season. I don't know how you can tell the difference between the two.

Most teams spend an awful like of time in the 'mediocre QB' wilderness, including Seattle, and I am having trouble seeing a clear way to avoid that any time soon.

Hass is done, Whitehurst will likely be mediocre, and Teel will probably never start in the league. Wait until next year? When Seattle is drafting in the teens? The following year in the teens? Draft Tebow/Snead/Pike and hope?

...he would have been the first QB taken, not Stafford.

So the kool-aid has been on tap for a long time.

1 - PT was there and quoted at how well Bradford looked
2 - Phili has offered up its QBs for trade, and the Rams might take one of them, probably Kolb for their 33rd pick. That would allow them to either take Suh with the overall pick, or trade down. Seattle would have to offer up it's 6th pick and probably at least the 60th to make the move.
3 - Another route for Phili would be for Seattle to package Whitehurst and the 6th pick for the 1st. Seattle would still have a 1st and 2nd round pick, the Rams would have a starting QB to compete with Bulger, and would still likely get a star DT at 6 in McCoy.

Passing
Year Games Completions Attempts Comp % Yards TDs Interception QB Rating
2006 14 247 388 63.7 3,031 26 10 146.2
2007 14 355 543 65.4 3,652 27 13 133.5
2008 11 251 376 66.8 2,784 29 6 144.2
2009 14 318 456 69.7 3,438 28 7 150.3
Career 53 1,171 1,763 66.4% 12,905 102 36 142.9

Sorry about the formatting, I took this info from a spreadsheet that didn't translate entirely.
These are the stats from one of the QB's coming out this year. Can anyone guess who it is? Are these stats good enough?

University of Tennessee quarterback Jonathan Crompton is scheduled to visit the Seattle Seahawks

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Source-Crompton-to-visit-Jaguars-Chargers-Raiders-and-Seahawks.html


I know wish that we had never traded for whitehurst.

"QBs get hit more often than rushes or sacks show."

True more of the pros than college. Keep in mind that Oklahoma schedules two or three games a year against the likes of Chattanooga or North Texas or the 0-12 Washington Huskies. These games are far, far greater mismatches than anything you'd ever see in the NFL, and if anyone came within a time zone of Bradford in those games I'd be stunned. Nevertheless, he's been knocked out of games with injury three times already.

Thats good that Crompton is visiting. He had a pretty rough start this year but rebounded nicely. I think he is as good of a project as any in this draft class. Why he didn't recieve a combine invite is beyond me.

Here's coach Carrolls impression on Sam Bradford incase nobody caught it! It's great!

http://www.seahawks.com/media-lounge/videos/Carroll-impressed/c8ffb111-7398-47aa-acc3-f1d601fda9c7

I say we trade this years #6, and next years 1st for Bradford if we are going to take him, which I would support.

Then we trade back from 14 to the mid 20s and pick up another second this year.

If this was the case My dream draft would be.

#1 Sam Bradford
14 trade Chargers so they can take CJ Spiller
28 Trade for Brandon Marshal
#40 Brian Price

This is to finish my above post. I accidentally pressed enter.

If this was the case My dream draft would be.

#1 Sam Bradford
14 trade Chargers so they can take CJ Spiller
28 Trade for Brandon Marshal
#40 Brian Price
#60 Jared Veldheer
#104 Major Wright
(Trade Sims for a 4th) Best ZBS OG
#127 Lagerat Blount
5th, 6th, 7th, 7th BPA

We get a year for Bradford to develop and play some.
We get a couple of good fits on the OL to protect him.
We get Brandon Marshal for him to throw to.
We get a big RB to team up with Forsett. (get rid of JJ)

On D we get a DT to fill up the DL problems.
We get a Safety to start in the place of recently departed Grant.


Next year we have a week draft, missing a 1st and 3rd. But the good news is it is going to be an extremely strong FA period next year.

Perhaps the passing stats weren't enough to guess, so here's the same QB's running stats...

Rushing
Year Games Rushes Yards Average Touchdowns
2006 14 123 521 4.0 7
2007 14 188 1,122 6.0 19
2008 11 168 592 3.5 6
2009 14 183 713 3.9 15
Career 53 671 2,948 4.4 47

so in
2006 he threw for 26 TD's and rushed for 7 more
2007 he threw for 27 TD's and rushed for 19 more
2008 he threw for 29 TD's and rushed for 6 more
2009 he threw for 28 TD's and rushed for 15 more

for a career of 102 TD's with 36 int's at 66.4% accuracy
Rushing for an additional 2948 yds in 4 years for 47 TD's

The QB is Dan LeFevour.

Lefevour may be a good QB but hear are some differences between him and Bradford.

1)Bradford threw about 90 TDs in two seasons. Lefevour threw 102 in 4 seasons

2)Lefevour ran for 47 TDs. In the NFL that will never happen. Vick doesn't even score rushing TDs like that

1)Bradford threw about 90 TDs in two seasons. Lefevour threw 102 in 4 seasons

Bradford threw for 36 TD's in 2007, 50 in 2008 and 2 in 2009. Even more impressive was he had 8 ints in 2007, 8 in 2008 and 0 in 2009 (of course he was injured most of that year)

Yup, Bradford did light it up for 2 years. To be honest, I like the consistency of LaFevour over 4 years as an indicator of ability.

2)Lefevour ran for 47 TDs. In the NFL that will never happen. Vick doesn't even score rushing TDs like that

Agreed, if he runs like that in the NFL he's going to be copying Hasselbeck with his back injury from last year. But it does show an ability to move around and still be effective. Everything else being equal, I'd take a good qb who can run over a good qb that can't. (and note, I am saying this in general, not as a judgement between Bradford and Lefevour).

Lefevour may be a good QB but hear are some differences between him and Bradford.

The more critical comparison is, Bradford will probably take the number 1 overall pick to obtain, which means, at best, a costly trade with a division rival. On the other hand, Lefevour should be available somewhere between 3rd and 5th round...although my guess is probably 3 or 4...I bet some team would take the bet on him.

What I'm saying is, Bradford has the more impressive stats, but isn't really available to be hand, so it's a moot point.

In that video, Carroll looks like a man who thinks he could build a championship team with that guy at QB alright. Makes you wonder if he might take a stab at making a deal.

If I had the chance to draft the next John Elway or Peyton Manning or Joe Montana, I don't think there's much I wouldn't give up to get there. Even if what they had to give would hamstring the team for two years, starting in the third year, the team becomes a contender for the next decade. Is that worth a couple more years of grief? Actually, doing something like giving up a lot that puts your team at a disadvantage for a couple of years can be just what you need to get those handfull of blue chip players in the draft so that when you do emerge a couple of years later, you've not only got a top drawer QB but the rest of the team ain't too shabby either.

Of course, that's all predicated on the notion that Bradford is in the elite Elway, Peyton, and Montana class. That's a judgement call for someone far more in tune with college quarterbacks and their potential than I. Pete Carroll might just be the guy who could make that kind of evaluation competently and if he says jump, I'll be in the air hoping for a soft landing. I'll trust Carroll until it's obvious I can't.

You can't look at just numbers, while Bradfords and Lefeavor both have impressive stats keep in mind they are inflated dut to the spread offense. That offense doesn't translate to the NFL. Just look at Graham Harrell, he put up monster numbers at Texas Tech, but he didn't even get drafted.

To me Jimmy Clausen's numbers are by far more impressive since he actually plays in a real offense and not some goofy gimmick offense. I still feel that he is the better prospect than Bradford.

If Clausen is the better prospect, then all this discussion about Bradford is moot: no sense in trading up to number one take the second best QB in the draft.

Billt,

That's exactly the question: is this guy in the Manning (Peyton)/Elway/Montana class. If so, you make the effort. If not, you don't.

recordblender;

That video was great (I hadn't seen it before) but hearing PT say they weren't out of the QB business and that Bradford was the kind of guy that could take a team a long way was good to hear. For me, with a similar opinion about Bradford, having PT acknowldege the possibility is the best I can hope for.

...in the previous post.

Smoke signals again. He's posturing to get the player he really wants at #6

'PT' should be 'PC'...

Ive seen a post somewhere that said the seahawks we have the best chance to host the 2nd of two opening monday night football games. We would host the Cardinals given the fact it will be Pete Carroll first game back, and Matt Lienart will have is start.
Anyone know anything there?

To me Jimmy Clausen's numbers are by far more impressive since he actually plays in a real offense and not some goofy gimmick offense. I still feel that he is the better prospect than Bradford.

I disagree, but I am not a QB guru.
In my opinion Bradford has height, accuracy, and leadership advantages over Clausen. If he is very competitive and is able to develop the mental game that is so important, he will be very good. So far he has shown that he has these things
We'll know in a few years.

Pick number
6 overall, value 1600 pts
213rd overall value 7.3
for Patriots picks
22nd overall value 780
44th overall value 460
53rd overall value 370

That works out to 1607.3 vs 1610

the core of the question is, is one high lvl pick (6th in 1st round) worth 3 really good choices (22nd in 1st round & 2 2nd rounders 44 & 53)?

Obviously, I have no way to know if the Patriots would be interested in such a trade, but would it be something worth considering?

The Seattle Seahawks will host University of Memphis wide receiver Duke Calhoun prior to the 2010 NFL Draft.

http://sea.scout.com/2/957978.html

With your trade scenario, what's on your mind? Accumulating picks, or were you thinking of something more specific?

No way the Pats do that trade, but I'd take it. We could fill a LOT of holes with excellent players at 14, 22, 44, and 60. We could get any combo of WR, LT, RB, S and still have picks left for OG, qb, etc.

But no way anyone trades that much for our pick. The trade value chart isnt adhered to closely by most teams anymore.

Then next year we could perhaps look for DT, DE, CB, and depth. Two years, stacked team.

By the way, PFT is reporting that Dez Bryant ran a 4.32 40 recently. Of course, no direct link to a source on that one. Still, kinda blows the idea that he only runs a 4.5 or 4.6 out of the water, even allowing for some exaggeration. There's no way the Browns, Niners and Raiders all pass on him. If Caroll has any interest in him, he's gonna take the 6th pick.

Which, much as I like Bryant, will be hard to do if Suh/McCoy fall.

Hawksince77,
I think that if the opportunity presents itself to take the trade that Highlander presented. The hawks should take it in a heartbeat. Besides a couple of players in this draft like Suh and Mccoy, maybe Bradford none are as valuable as 3 first year starters.

Here is what I would do with that draft.
#14 Charles Brown
#22 Brian Price
#44 Arelious Benn
#53 Morgan Burnett
#60 Best RB available
#104 Major Wright
#127 Best ZBS OL
and on with our last 4 picks

I really wish this would happen but I don't see the Pats wanting 1 player in this draft more than three combined. The only position the need that bad may be safety.

With your trade scenario, what's on your mind? Accumulating picks, or were you thinking of something more specific?

That's a good question. Firstly, having more picks provides flexibility in providing ammo to trade up if a targeted player doesn't look to slide.

Secondly, maybe the Hawks could trade one of those 2nds for Marshall and still have a viable draft.

thirdly, without a doubt the Hawks will have a shot at a premier player at 6, but one player won't turn the corner for the team...the needs are widespread.

I think it could easily be argued that the Hawks need an OT, OG, RB, WR, S, DE, QB and CB wouldn't hurt.

With this trade the Hawks would have 2 1st (14, 22) and 3 2nd round (44, 53, 60) picks

So for the cost of the number 1 or 2 ranked player at one position the Hawks would have 3 players who should be able to be starters.

There is a million and one mocks to draw from but I’ll just grab the one from Scout.com and see what players might be available at each pick.

At 14 Steuber has the Hawks taking RB Spiller, also available at that point would be the choices of OT Davis, S Thomas DE Morgan & Griffen. All of these could fill a need.
At 22: OG Iutapi (I know, not everyone is sold on him, just saying), DT Cody, OT Brown, RB Matthews, Best, CB McCourty & Wilson and every WR with the exception of Bryant.
At 44: OG Ducasse, CB Jackson, DE Wooten, WR Price, RB Dwyer, and most of the QB’s
At 53: DT Price, CB Cook (6’2” 212 lbs) CB Franks, FS Allen, RB Tate, still most of the QB’s
At 60: OT Velheer, S Jones, RB Hardesty, DT Atkins & Houston, still and most of the QB’s

The point being, one can get 1 starter or 3 starters, all in positions of need. There is no guarantee that a first round player turns out that much better, if at all, than one in a later round.
Michael Oher was pick 23, Max Unger was 49, LeSean McCoy 53. Plenty of quality players are to be had this year outside of round one.

As was pointed out, maybe the Patriots don't take the trade...but it'd be interesting to explore. With the 6th pick the Patriots could take Dez Bryant, for instance and fix a worry of theirs.

So I guess special teams minded players only make a team stronger and Schneider/Carroll feel the team has opportunity here. I guess if you are punting a lot and returning a lot of kickoffs you need to be good on Special teams.

http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...s-big-day/


if the reviews are glowing of dez today, i expect the bryant at 6 idea to pick up steam fast

Anyway, Bryant posted 40 times between 4.5 and 4.6 - not bad, but not blazing either.

(I worked in Lufkin and have been there a hundred times...oh boy)

Special teams minded players only make a team stronger.

You are focusing on the small moves in this off season. Morey is a good sign because the loss of Laury and other special teams players we have lost over the years Koutevides (spelling). So, what we have here is a lot of people worried about signing special teams player when out special teams have sucked the last couple of years. It's not about us punting a lot and returning a lot of kick offs. It's about making every facet of the team better. That, wait for it....DOES include special teams, along with Offense and Defense.

So PapaHawk and others, you all need to chill a little. Not a single person on this blog can do better that the people in the front office, bottom line. Otherwise you would be a GM of a football team.

BullBalls
I second that.
I can't count the amount of times I read complaints about loosing Laury, but like the next day when we signed a guy McCoy that is possibly a better back up and special teamer, I heard complaints about signing a backup special teamer.
there are three aspects to a football game
1)Offense, you must have one to score points
2)Defense, you must have one to keep other teams from scoring points
3)special teams, In closely matched games this aspect of the team can win games. Field Position, Field position, Field Position!!!!!!

...Bryant insisted on having his work-out there? It's a bitch to get to - the only way to fly is with a small private plane (four hour drive to nearest major airport).

Was he too good for the combine? Sick or injured? What about Oklahoma's pro day? Didn't want to get overshadowed by Bradford?

Who else was there to see in Lufkin? Was he it? If so, who wants this guy (other than STTBM)?

Hawksince77--Most players with the talent to draw scouts to a personal Pro Day will do so, given the opportunity. It allows them to choose the time and place of the most important workout of their lives. If upwards of $20 Million depended on the results of one workout, you'd want to stack everything in your favor too. It makes sense to hold your Pro Day at a time and place that allows you to maximize your performance--and that requires a setting and time that makes the player the most comfortable.

Im tired of hearing NFL coaches and execs bitch and whine when a player doesnt jump through every stupid hoop they come up with at the combine (they ask questions like "When was the last time you smoked crack?"), or decides to skip the combine and hold thier own Pro Day. Notice few if any of those coaches decline to attend the Pro Days. They seem to think the players owe them something, when its the reverse--the top players know many teams want them, they dont have to interview with the plebes.

How can anyone blame a player for choosing thier own time and place for a Pro Day, if they can get away with it? If no one shows up, then they screwed up: otherwise its in thier best interest to do so. It doesnt mean they "lack character".

It means theyre listening to thier agent.

And PS, quite a few other folks think Seattle should be interested in Bryant too, even if you dont. Read back through some of the comments and check out the web. He is fast enough, very strong, and tall. And last time I checked, we had an aging WR corps without a single legitimate deep threat. I dont think a group consisting of Deion Branch, Housh, and Butler scares anyone. Or do you think the additions of Sean Morey and Ruvell Martin changed that? Do you really think Obomanu will ever catch more than 20 passes in a season? SHould we continue to draft WR's from Auburn for thier blocking ability in the sixth round?

I guess we should draft our sixth DE in four years since none of them have panned out--just draft DE's forever untill you accidentally land one who's good?

You cannot win in the NFL refusing to draft a WR in the top 3 rounds for 6 straight years. Thats what some are advocating.

We have plenty of needs, and Bryant may not be the right guy at 6, or even at 14: But WR is most definitely a position of severe need, and the guy HAS to be on the Hawks radar. His play in college and his size and speed make him a very legitimate option.

Hawksince77--Its not you that Im ticked off at, its the idea of going a sixth or seventh year without taking a WR in the top 3 rounds. We will never have a legitimate passing attack without drafting a WR high, and in my opinion we should go the Arizona route and pick a WR in the first two rounds two years in a row, if they are BPA.

Caroll can talk all he wants about running the ball, but most of the successful teams in the NFL, and most of the recent SB winners, were and are pass-first teams. Hence the switch by many teams to the 3-4 defense, which is geared toward stopping the prevalence of pass-first teams.

And like Ive said many times, Seattle stands to land impact players (which will make me happy) regardless of which ones they take at 6 and 14. McCoy/Suh, Bryant, Berry, Haden, Thomas, Okung, Bulaga, Brown, Spiller, all would look good--and hopefully play very well--in Hawk Blue.

BTW, I saw this earlier but it just dawned on me to mention it. It appears that PC has hired a team blogger. Trojans blogger Ben Malcolmson announced Monday he's quitting his position at USC to take a similar job with the Seahawks.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/archives/199896.asp

Ok, PFT just reported that Dez Bryant FORGOT HIS CLEATS when he showed up for his Pro Day! (and as Dave Barry says, "I am NOT making this up!")

Um, either he did it on purpose so he could have an excuse for running times in the 4.5-4.7 range, or he's been smoking something wacky.

What is his agent doing?! That moron should have PERSONALLY packed Bryant's cleats, if thats what it took to ensure a strong performance.

Good lord, how can someone with so much talent be such an idiot?!

Hawksince77--Its not you that Im ticked off at, its the idea of going a sixth or seventh year without taking a WR in the top 3 rounds.

I understand your frustration. In the trade for draft pick discussion above I was advocating taking a WR somewhere in picks 22 to 60, which would be the first and 2nd rounds. The availablity of very good WR talent in the 2nd round is one of the things that got me to thinking about that trade. There are half a dozen at least solid WR's in this draft...probably more...and that's excluding Bryant.

The tone of my post was aimed more at Lufkin (not my favorite place) than a top WR prospect.

As far as Bryant goes, it's the cost of using a high first round pick that has me concerned. If he was on the board at 14, depending on what is done with the 6th pick, getting a big-play offensive threat should be seriously considered. There seems to be more of a drop-off in talent at WR than RB, in that a better RB might be had at 60 or later, than a WR, and if both positions were targeted for early rounds, taking Bryant at 14 might make sense.

At this point, I don't know how the Marshall deal gets done, and as we have already agreed, he brings a ton of risk as well. Even if Marshall does get done, it makes sense to get another playmaker at the position.

Getting another big-play WR seems paramount for Seattle, if Whitehurst and a running game is going to be successful. Drafting Bryant or signing Marshall makes Housh much better (supposedly) and of course opens up the middle of the field for the slot guy or TE(s).

So we need a receiver for the offense, and we need a RB (IMO). And of course an offensive line that can run block and pass-protect.

We need more draft picks...

Yeah, I like Demaryius Thomas, but he's climbing up the boards and probably will be gone by the 20th pick. Bryant is by no means the only WR I like, and I actually was hoping for a 6) McCoy/Suh/Berry, 14) Bulaga/Brown, 40)Demaryius Thomas draft before Whitehurst took a dump all over that pipe dream (damn his Catholic Jesus hide!).

That explains it: I forgot, Bryant signed with Eugene Parker--the same fool who had Crabtree hold out for half the season, only to cave and sign the offer the 9ers had on the table pre-season. So Parker cant even ride herd on Bryant to stay in shape and practice the 3-cone shuttle drill, and help him remember his cleats?!

What a dumbass player, and an even more dumbass agent!

The niners are sure to pick him now! LOL!

Though the skilled players make the plays and score the points or prevent the points from being scored, I am a believer that we need to build from the trenches. We have to control the line of scrimmage - something we haven't done since our superbowl appearance. If Suh or McCoy slide to 6, we GOTTA take them. Then use 14 to pick up offensive line help. If Suh or McCoy are not available at 6, I would like to see us trade back to get more picks and build the D and O lines with multiple players. I don't want Spiller until I know we have a strong line to block for him. I would love to see Whitehurst turn into the player that PC and JS believe that he can become. That way, we don't have to spend a high draft pick on a QB. This will be a multi year rebuild. In next year's draft/free agency, we pick up more skilled players. If Marshall can't be gotten this year, then we go after him next year in FA - assuming the Donkeys don't franchise him or something stupid like that. If we trade back, we may be able to get Dez Bryant on the cheap.

By trading back, we may get Iupati, Bruce Campbell, Charles Brown, Velheer, etc.

In this draft, unless we can take one of the two D-linemen, I'd rather go for volume of picks. Bradford is good, but not behind our current line.

Cheers,

Go Hawks!

These are Pat Kirwans words

"A new coach and general manager, and the roster is being turned upside down. Among the remaining issues are the futures of left tackle Walter Jones and defensive end Patrick Kerney, which will really impact the draft decisions. If they have to replace both players, plus get a running back and a safety early, it may be too much to ask, even with two first-round picks. The decision to trade for quarterback Charlie Whitehurst was questioned by fans and the media, but time will tell. Ultimately, it may say more about the draft class at QB than anything else. There is still a chance Brandon Marshall winds up here before the draft is over. Coupled with that potential move, if they can grab a left tackle and a safety like Eric Berry or a defensive end, they will contend in 2010. Expect the Seahawks to be active trading picks and moving around throughout the draft."


So what I get from this is that if we can get Marshal without loosing one of our top 3 picks. And with those picks we drafted Eric Berry at 6, Charles Brown at 14, and BPA at #60 we could be contenders this season.

Well lets hope it happens that way!!!!

Anyone know whats going on with Big Walt? If we can talk him into playing for one more season we can put off LT for one more year and this would allow us to go BPA with our top 2 picks. We can take guys like Berry/Haden/McCoy/Dan Williams(my first round sleeper)/Bryant without worrying about protecting Matt's blindside for one more season. I would also like to see us send Walt out with one more pro bowl season to further solidify his position as the greatest OL to ever play the game.

We can still draft a devlopmental LT after the first round and have him play guard, like Jon Ogden did as a rookie, to see if he is true LT material. I don't know much about the mid round tackles but I do like Jason Fox out of Miami, he injury history is a little iffy though.

Kirwan has one thing wrong--if we draft a DE early, chances are almost 100% that it WONT help us contend in 2010, because DE's rarely, if ever, provide top-notch play thier first year or two. Take Patrick Kerney, Jared Allen, and Mario Williams for instance.

Then there are DE's like Tapp or Jackson: Tapp was good at pass rushing yet horrible against the run his rookie year, while Jackson was the opposite: ok against the run, and no threat at all to get to the qb. By his second year, Tapp had improved his run D, yet his sacks declined dramatically. And Jackson continued to be a decent run stuffer and only occasionally a threat to the qb. I dont see either player becoming an elite player like Kerney was.

So how does drafting a DE high (especially in a WEAK DE class) help us this year? It doesnt.

Hawkdude--I agree, the offensive and defensive lines are critical. Two of Ruskell's biggest mistakes were refusing to draft OL or WR above the first round. I think he pretty conclusively proved what happens when you undervalue such key positions--you stink.

Funny though--Ruskell poured all our first and second round picks into DB's and the D-line (except Spencer), yet our D-line and DB's were awful, and looking at our team now we have little depth and no stars outside Mebane and Trufant.

Personally Im gonna be sick if we draft another DE in the first two rounds. Enough! Id rather just stick with Reed and Jackson. Hell, Reed appears to have more upside than any of the DE's we drafted!

Im still pissed at Ruskell for exposing Michael Bennett to waivers. What a stupid move. Sure would be nice to have a guy like that who could play both DE and DT with pass rush ability.

I meant above the fourth round.

you read my mind. C'mon Big Walt! I know, I know. wishfull thinking

Duke is not 6'2 195 - His actual measurements are 6'4 205 verified at combine and school. I like what I read about him. Reminds me of Alex Bannister with more potential

http://www.gotigersgo.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/calhoun_duke00.html

According to this article written on February 7th, he's retiring.

http://bleacherreport.com/arti...om-the-nfl

Eric Berry is planning visits with 5 times, one of which is not Seattle. One team he is visiting however is Philly, the only of the 5 without a top 5 pick. Trade partner anybody...

Hawksince77--I just saw your post. Excellent points.

I agree, its a risk to take Bryant at 6 and he wont be there at 14. I like Bryant better than Spiller, but his "forgetting" his cleats thing stinks to high heaven.

We definitely have more gaping holes than we can fix via the draft this year. It will take 2-3 years to build a great team. I firmly believe you gotta take the BPA in rounds one and two, factoring in BPA at position of need somewhat--we certainly arent gonna take a LB in the first, for instance. You also have to look at which positions the draft is loaded at--S and RB for instance--and maybe you pass on a Berry or Earl Thomas or Spiller to take third and fourth round guys youre sure can start, so you can take that LT/WR/DT you also covet; that way you cover more needs quicker.

As for the argument that you should pick Lineman before skill positions, thats the old chicken vs egg argument. To me, you wont do as well loading up on one position just to fill holes. You have to take the best player at a need position; If Seattle decides that Arrelious Benn is a better pick at 60 (he wont fall that far) as opposed to a Price or a Ben Tate, they should pick Benn even though they also need lineman badly and a RB.

And I think you have to take those skill position players whenever they fall to you--whether your line is set or not. There are more lineman than any other position, and skill players of top caliber are rarer than starter caliber lineman. You take the best of what the draft offers in the early rounds, fill depth later.

So what if our line is patchwork this year? Draft a Spiller/Bryant now if you like them more than the lineman at your picks: especially since I think it will only take Caroll and company a year or two to fix our line, and by the time they are gelling, we will have experienced young playmakers ready to go.

Also, Gibbs supposedly can work wonders with mostly lower-round talent. While that went over like a lead balloon with Ruskell at the helm, its likely his talent evaluation was more to blame than his philosophy.

That said, I still feel Seattle will take a LT at either 6 or 14 depending on how the cards fall. You just dont get quality LT's lower very darned often. Just as you dont often find excellent starting SE's and FL's below the high second round.

Reading your last post finally clarified my views of taking an offensive lineman in the first round.

If PC and company think that the only way to assemble a very good offensive line is by taking top picks, then I am all for using them for the o-line. To the point of those who advocate addressing the trenches first, it's difficult for a QB, WR or RB to succeed behind a poor one (although it can be done ala Rothlesberger).

If, however, PC and Gibbs don't require 1st round talent, but instead, can sign a few FAs, draft guards/OTs in the 4th round and beyond, and 'coach' up the talent already on the roster, then I am happy to spend those picks on high-quality skill players.

From this distance, I have no way to judge the probable case. If they don't use any high picks on the o-line and field a crappy one next year, they will have committed a firing offense, IMO.

Aaaaww...you cant fire them for not fixing this atrociously undertalented O-line in one year! Billt and others gave Ruskell 4 years, and advocated even more time for him to fix it! Ya gotta give Caroll at least as long! LOL!

Seriously, I hear you. There's no excuse for not fielding a better line, considering its been obvious to anyone with eyes that our line has gone from bad to worse to laughable over the last four years and it should be the new regime's first and top priority. (but I guess thier top priority was to get Charlie Whitehurst at all costs! ha!)

I want to see improvement, but I doubt we have a solid line this year. Next year should be a different matter though. Next year I expect a good line or else!

Im hoping at leat one of our top 2 picks is a LT that turns out well, even if Big Walt returns.

it's difficult for a QB, WR or RB to succeed behind a poor one (although it can be done ala Rothlesberger).

I'm not so sure the Steeler line is so terrible but rather Rothlesberger regularly held onto the ball too long. he took his sacks because he failed to read and throw quickly. Now maybe the line was bad as well, but I know I've seen video where I thought...throw it to x...and he didn't...then I think....y is open...and he didn't throw it...then sack. I believe that a significant number of his sacks weren't the line's fault but the QB's.

The firing would only occur if they DON'T take an offensive lineman (or two) in the first round.

Highlander,

That was the only example I could think of, so if that one doesn't apply, exceptions probably don't exist.

I recall a couple of years ago (it might have been the AFC Championship between Pittsburgh and the Colts - 2005?) when after losing Peyton said something about his protection breaking down. Kind of threw his o-line under the bus, but he was pissed.

That was the only example I could think of, so if that one doesn't apply, exceptions probably don't exist.

Don't misunderstand. I'm sure there must be an example...I just think that Rothlesberger is worse than he's given credit for and that his line was taking the blame of his lameness.

On the subject of trading our top pick for something like NE's three picks (low 1st and 2 seconds) as was suggested, I'd like to make a comment on that kind of move.

Teams that win championships have impact players (or playmakers as they're sometimes called) on both sides of the ball. There are teams that have above average talent at almost every position, in fact, the Seahawks have been said to have tht recently but as was correctly pointed out at the time as the reaon for failing, we didn't have any playmakers and that will doom a team.

It was always said of Seattle that they had talent and you'd have to call a team that fields above average players at almost every position talented but without those impact players, they can't win a championship against teams that have those great players sprinkled throughout the offense and defense.

Players in the NFL are the absolute cream of the crop of all football players. There is very little difference in the vast majority of them in terms of ability or performance. There are a few players that fall below the average player and a handfull that are truly above or elite but the majority are all good football players. The difference between the best team in the league and the worst is such a fine line that on any given Sunday, the worst team could simply anihilate the best team and it's been done time and time again over the years. It just takes a little swing in emotion or intensity or simply the will to win that day that can turn the trick.

The impact players/playmakers are those players that in the above described environment are demsonstratively better than the majority of players. Those impact players are very few in number which is why teams that have three or four of them on each side of the ball are super contenders to win the championship every year. New England and Indy are like that. If I had to pick two teams that I'm sure will be in the playoff's and legitimately in the hunt for the title next season, I'd pick NE and Indy. Why? They have those playmakers on both sides of the ball and have proven that they can win with them.

Now to the point of all this. Impact players who are really above the cream of the crop of football players are generally taken at the top of the first round and once those "blue chip" players are off the board, the ones left are going to be good starters and above average players but very few of them will become impact players for their teams. Of course you hit one once in a while all the way through the draft but the highest percentage picks by a wide margin are those top 5 to 10 players in any years draft. This year the players most likely to become impact players Suh, McCoy, Berry, Okumg, and Bradford. Certainly, others will emerge as time goes on but those 5 players in this draft spell an almost certain chance they will be playmakers/impact players for their teams. There are probably only 10 to 15 players out of every draft that become real impact players in the NFL which is less than 1/2 a player per team per year. That's why having three or four of them on each side of the ball can propel your team to being an annul contender. If the top 5 or 6 players are sure things, that means there are probably only 5 to 10 more players who will emerge as impact players from the other 27 selections in the whole draft not just the first round.

If we use our number 6 pick to take a player, we have a very good chance that we will get a playmaker/impact player. At the bottom of the first round and the second round, we are much more likely to pick up above aberage starters but not true impact players.

I'm tired of watching the Seahawks have a good DB (Trufant), and good linebackers, plus a good DT (Mebane) yet, the defense isn't good because we don't have that elite shutdown CB and that linebacker that strikes terror into the heart of the offense (I'm still confident Curry will grow into that guy), or the Cortez Kennedy type of DT that demands a double and triple team every play or he'll kill ya or the kind of DE Kerney was for one season. On offense, a receiver that can't be beat like Fitzgerald will take you to a championship if he's got a couple more impact players around him like a great QB, a great offensive lineman like Walt Jones, and maybe an all-pro TE or RB.

Continued on next comment...........

I've still got high hopes for Curry. That many scouts and evaluators can't be that wrong about him and with last year's coaching staff, it isn't unbelievable that he failed to produce as expected. I think Carlson can grow into an excellant TE in a good coaching environment as well as Unger at center with some more experience at the position. Other than that, unless Tatupu and Trufant return to form, we don't have any players who have a possibility of growbeing impact players for the Seahawks. I want an impact player out of this draft and that number #6 pick is where we can almost certainly pick one up this year. Suh, McCoy, Okung, or Berry would make a great addition to our team and influence the players around them to play better. They would prove more valuable in the long run than an above average player instead even with two more above average players thrown in to make us feel better about not getting an impact player again. We've already tried a team full of above aberage players with no true standouts and got nowhere. I want some crazy talented players like one of the above mentioned rookies and Marshall to come here and start putting impact players on both sides of the ball that will make opposing offenses have to game plan for our defensive personnel and opposing defenses scrambling to cover receivers or running backs who can and will kill you if you don't address their talent. I want to start putting some players on theis team that can compete with the Fitzgeralds, Mannings, and Petersons in the league. Don't you?

I hate trading down when the team's in a position to get one of the truly elite players that will be playing in the next decade.

I totally agree with BillT on this one. The furthest we trade down is 9 so Buffalo can grab Clausen and we get a third. We have depth on this team. What we are lacking is a couple more playmakers. A guy that is going to lead his squad, or amp them up with a big hit, or play.

Suh
McCoy
Okung
Berry
Spiller
Iupati
Dez Bryant
Mays

All these players I can almost guarantee will be gone by pick 20.

I agree with BillT except that I don't believe Suh, McCoy or Okung (as great as they may become) will get us the turnovers or touchdowns like Berry or Spiller will.

There are other playmakers in this draft, but no CB like Deion Sanders, no WR like Calvin Johnson, no RB like Adrian Peterson, no QB (available to us) like Peyton Manning, no DE like Julius Peppers. At least it appears that way right now. It seems like there are lots of big men who fight in the trenches this year.

Riggle,

I always considered Walter Jones as a playmaker who should be credited with a portion of Alexanders TD's or for keeping the pass rush off Hass. One season he didn't allow a sack. How valuable is that? You have to call a guy like that a playmaker or impact player.

I always liked the idea of having a playmaker in the defensive backfield, the linebackers, and the defensive line. If you have a fourth, doubling one of the three main units, you will most likely have a top 5 defense.

On offense, either a WR or RB, plus one of your offensive linemen, and your QB make the best distribution of impact players. Once again, if you have a fourth impact player somewhere even on the offensive line (remember Hutch and Jones), that makes your offense truly elite.

When we went to the Super Bowl, we had just such an offense. Hutch, Jones, Alexander, and Hass were all impact players that year and you had a couple more very strong supporters in Mack Strong and Jurevicius. When you sprinkled in a TE who may have dropped some balls but was a big enough threat to impact how the defense played them plus Tobeck at center, all above average player in support, we went where no Seahawk team has gone before..... or after.

If we had similar impact players on defense, even with the officiating, we would have crushed the Steelers but as luck would have it, we didn't.

I do agree with you about trading down. I've always been against it when you are drafting in the top 10. Like you said before this is where the best players are, and I'm all about quality over quantity. I don't get everyone's desire to trade out of a prime spot, especially with such a talented top 10!

One analogy that Mora used that I really liked was his "moment of truth". When the ball's in the air and your DB goes up for it with the receiver, at the very moment the ball arrives, you've reached the moment of truth. That is exactly when all those three players you took after trading down don't do squat for you. That's when that impact corner (Haden) or safety (Berry) will deny the WR the ball and save a big gain or TD or better yet intercept and give you the ball or TD. That's what impact players do for you that merely above average players can't especially when you're playing against impact players like Fitzgerald who flat out takes the ball away from ordinary NFL DB's. Yoiu have to match firepower with firepower or you're just out gunned, out fought, and totally out matched. Sound familiar?

I really wish we'd get talking to Denver about Marshall. We need to get on this before some team in the late first (NY, Baltimore) decide that Marshall is the missing piece to get to the SB.

Check out Seahawks draft blog today.Great pick Steve.

(NY, Baltimore) decide that Marshall is the missing piece to get to the SB.

Thank You!
If I were working for the Jets/Baltimore, I would work a trade out asap. They dont have much to lose, and both need a true proven number 1 reciever.

Bill, your own argument deafeats your point. You argue that a team needs impact players, obviously everyone would agree with you on that. And you argue that high round draft picks have a higher chance of developing into one of those...again, that is likely true. But when you list the impact players the Seahawks have and need more of you list Mebane, Trufaunt, Tatupu, Carlson, Unger and Curry. But only 2 of those were even first round picks, and one of them you conceed hasn't yet hit stride as an impact player.

You argue passionately that teams like the Patriots and Colts have big time playmakers, and they do, but consider for a moment....

The playmakers on the Patriots for example are:
Tom Brady 6th round pick

Randy Moss 21st pick 1st round (only 1 below the current pick I argue for trading down to)

Wes Welker Undrafted!

Ben Watson 32nd pick 1st round

Vince Wilfork 21st pick 1st round

Teddy Bruschi 3rd round

Laurence Maroney 21st pick 1st round

In fact, the only draft picks higher than 21st that I noticed were free agency pick ups that'd been drafted by other teams.

So by your own admission then, the Patriots are a superior team with playmakers, and yet they've built that through the draft without using high round picks.

If the Seahawks were just one or two impact players short of being a major contender it'd be foolish to trade away high round picks because those one or two pieces would be high round picks and have a good chance of being impact players.
But that isn't the situation the Hawks are in. I submit that 3 quality starters are better than one quality plus a bit starter, at least when one compares the increase in quality at those other 2 upgrades over the one you may be taking a little loss at (and that's not a guarantee).

The Hawks may get someone like Suh to drop to them at 6. So would Suh and say the current Safety and WR be better than the number 2 or 3 WR in the draft, the 2nd or 3rd safety in the draft and one of the top OG's in the draft or possibly your choice of RB's other than Spiller? Compare the value at all 3 upgraded positions versus the upgrade at one position...which team is better then, the one with just 1 upgrade or 3?

Thanks BillT. While I agree that linemen like Jones and Hutch are impactful on a great team (evidenced by the final four teams in this year's playoffs), the playmakers touch the ball and create the turnovers and TDs.
In our 2005 run, they were mainly on offense as you identified: Alexander, Jurevicius, Hasselback. But they are ones that get their hands on the ball.
We need a lot of help and as you eloquently point out, the best players are found in the early part of the first round. We need playmakers who win the battles during the moments of truth, and we need the players that have an win the battles in the trenches.

The problem with high first round draft choices and one of the many reasons losing teams remain losers is because unproven guys get paid. They get the big checks without having earned them in the NFL.

The reason why New England and other smart teams love high second round choices is because those guys have the talent to do well in the NFL if they have the desire. And a major contributing factor in the desire is the wish to earn the big paycheck. Unfortunately a lot of them slide backwards after their contract years where they get the check (**cough...Tatupu...cough...Trufant**).

Guys like Walter Jones are a rare breed--he was a top ten pick who overachieved. Most top ten picks underachieve because they already have the check and they've gotten by on their talents to get where they are and they don't have the kind of work ethic to play 10+ years in the league.

K so I have said this before and Ill say it again.
Last year there was like 5 or 6 pro bowlers that were also rookies.
How many of those were in the top 10 picks? None
Two were in the mid 1st round range and I believe either one or two were in the 20s
One was picked at #50 and still another was picked in the 5th round.
I do not see your thought that the best players are always chosen top 10. At the very least the best 5 or 6 performers last year were not chosen in the top 10.

That is true Jon B, but I can think of a few reasons for that. One those teams drafting in the middle of the first have a better supporting cast to help their rookies, instead of having the rookies being the focal point of their team. They also usually finish with better records, which unfairly affects pro bowl selections. Don't believe me on that one look at Calvin Johnson back in 2008, he had 1300 yards and led the league in TDs for a WR. He got snubbed due to the fact the lions went winless.

Now thats only explaining why the pro bowlers came outside the top 10 this last season. Lets wait a season or two to see who the real stars are.

The recent history of the NFL draft is littered with first-round defensive tackles who never lived up to their press clippings.

Top-10 selections such as Glenn Dorsey (Kansas City, 200, Sedrick Ellis (New Orleans, 200, Amobi Okoye (Houston, 2007), Dewayne Robertson (New York Jets, 2003), Johnathan Sullivan (New Orleans, 2003) and Ryan Sims (Kansas City, 2002) have never played in a Pro Bowl and probably won't. Two of the six, in fact, are no longer in the league.

Defensive tackle isn't the ultimate hit-or-miss position, but it is pretty close.

excerpted from: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/...id=5040003

Although i won't die if we traded down, i have to agree with bill on this one. We have to take advantage of those precious 1st rounders AND bring in Marshall to take the west.

Point No. 7: Andre Roberts is one of my sleeper picks at wide receiver in this year's NFL Draft.

Poised to make NFL history as the first wide receiver ever drafted out of the Citadel, Roberts is an impressive young man who you have to watch in action to truly appreciate.

During Senior Bowl week practices, Roberts' acceleration from the line of scrimmage commanded such respect from the all-star gathering of cornerbacks that a number of them were dropping back a couple of extra steps just before the snap.

The 5-foot-11, 195-pound receiver is likely to be selected between the third and fifth rounds, but he's got tremendous potential to be a high-impact receiver, especially out of the slot, with his precise route-running, laser-like focus and reliable hands.

And he's fast.

At the Combine, Roberts was clocked as low as 4.40 with a handheld timer in the forty-yard dash, but even his electronic time of 4.46 placed him among the top ten in this year's draft class. The talented receiver credits his well-rounded skill set to his work ethic, and believes it's going to be a tremendous asset in his development at the next level.

"I think work ethic is what helps people succeed. Some people work to get there, but once they're there, they stop working as hard," he said. "I've worked very hard to get to the position I'm in, and my goal is to be the best receiver in the league, so I'm going to be working to reach that goal the entire time I'm in the NFL."

One of the many teams who have shown interest in him is the Indianapolis Colts. Based on their track record of identifying potential starters out of mid-round talent in recent years with players such as Pierre Garcon and Austin Collie, plenty of teams should be taking a closer look at Roberts.

source: http://profootball.scout.com/2/957809.html

Glad to see someone else showing Andre Roberts some respect. I thought I was the only one who really noticed him. I'm not sure where he fits in on this team if we draft him, we'd probably have to trade up into the third to get him, but I do like him a lot. He has that one uncoachable trait I like in WRs, the ability to catch the ball. Don't underate this in a WR, its what seperates the Steve Smith's from the Troy Williamson's.

I can't see the colts drafting him, especially since Anthony Gonzales will be coming back, but I think that just by showing interest we should be checking him out too.

Highlander,

Here's what I said:

I'm tired of watching the Seahawks have a good DB (Trufant), and good linebackers, plus a good DT (Mebane) yet, the defense isn't good because we don't have that elite shutdown CB and that linebacker that strikes terror into the heart of the offense (I'm still confident Curry will grow into that guy), or the Cortez Kennedy type of DT that demands a double and triple team every play or he'll kill ya or the kind of DE Kerney was for one season.

I think you missed my point about Trufant, Carlson, Mebane, etc. What I meant was that I was tired of watching those guys perform at less than impact player or playmaker levels when they're the best players on our team right now. I said I had high hopes that Curry would become that impact player at linebacker. I also said:

I think Carlson can grow into an excellant TE in a good coaching environment as well as Unger at center with some more experience at the position. Other than that, unless Tatupu and Trufant return to form, we don't have any players who have a possibility of being impact players for the Seahawks.

The rest of the guys I mentioned are not playing at an impact player level and that's the whole problem. I did say that Carlson, and Unger might grow into that role and that unless Trufant and/or Tatupu get back to playing as well as they have in the past, they aren't going to be impact players for us either.

Right now, the Seahawks don't have an impact player on the team. Who would it be? The best players are probably Trufant, Tatupu, and Mebane on defense and Hass, Housh, Unger, and maybe Carlson on offense. None of those players are even close to being an impact players at the levels they've played for the last two years. Maybe different coaching will make a difference and some of those players will develop into impact players but I wouldn't hold my breath.

While hoping that some of our players have enough upside to possibley grow into the impact player role, we have to understand that at this moment we don't have any leaders or any elite players period. The last thing we need in three more good players, starters even, but not impact players. Three more players that will be good servicable starters but lack that extra talent to go against the star playmakers like Fitzgerald etc. and win half of those battles. Give me one of the top 5 or 6 -players in the draft and make a deal for Marshall and we'll have a couple of impact players plus when Curry breaks out we'll be almost halfway there as far as having those 6 to 8 playmakers you need to be in contention. Otherwise, we don't have squat.

I'll take one Cortez Kennedy over Mebane, Jackson, and Tapp. I'll take one Kenny Easly over Trufant, Babs, and Wilson. I'll take one Peyton Manning over any 5 players you can name except other all world QB's like Elway and Montana. I'll take one Steve Largent over Housh, Branch, and Butler. You can find players like Mebane, Jackson, Tapp, Trufant, Babs, Wilson, Housh, Branch, and Butler pretty easily. The Seahawks did. But finding a Kennedy, Manning, Easley, and Largent are much much more rare. When you have a chance to get your hands on one of them, you're mortgagin your future to let them go to other teams while you settle for lesser talent.

As far as Suh or McCoy busting, I would say that both of them are as good a DL prospect as Cortez Kennedy was for us when we chose him. Many scouts said he was too fat to be a premium DT. Cortez said something like "I may be fat but I'm one hell of a football player" and he was. If we have one of the absolute premium prospects fall to us like Suh, McCoy, Berry or Okung, we'd be fools to turn down the opportunity to score on a possilbe HOF player, even for three lessor players.

One more thing about impact players. In the hall of fame, there are around 90 players (I had to count by hand) drafted in the first round while the second round is by far the next most populated round at 28 (huge dropoff). All other rounds have far less. You'd have to call HOF'ers impact players.

Of the 90 players in the HOF drafted in the first round, the greatest majority by far are drafted in the top nine (65 players). Only 25 players out of the 90 drafted in the first round were drafted lower than number 9 and only 12 lower than 15. The rest of the HOF including round 3 through 27 and free agents is 78 players.

That means there are 90 players drafted in the first round and 106 players drafted in rounds 2 - 27 plus free agents. Thats 45% of all hall of famers were drafted in t he first round with the other 55% being spread over 27 rounds plus free agents.

Of the 45% of all HOF players drafted in the first round 72 percent of them were drafted in the first 9 rounds. Now here's my major point. 33% of all HOF players drafted in all 27 rounds and including free agents were drafted with one of the first nine picks in the first round. If that doesn't prove where the vast majority of your impact players come from, I don't know what does.

The players drafted outside the first nine picks in the first round comprise 13% of all HOF players and the second round has 14% of all HOF players or 27% combined. There are more impact players that make the HOF drafted in the first nine picks of the first round than the next 55 picks combined by 33% to 27% of the total number of HOF players. That makes up the first 64 picks in the draft or the first two rounds where 60% of all HOF players are selected. Now if 60% of all HOF players are selected in the first 64 picks but over half of those players come from the first 9 picks, how valuable is a top 9 pick? Worth three players who statistically have very little chance at the HOF versus a top 9 pick who statistically dominates the HOF in number who make it?

Here's the stats:

http://www.profootballhof.com/history/general/draft/round.aspx

Sorry I didn't make it a hot link but I forgot to put it in initially and when I edit a comment, I don't have all the tools available.

That should pretty much finish the argument I would say.

Very nice.

Best 7 Round Mock Draft Ive Seen By Far.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/370907-2010-nfl-mock-draft-7-round-seahawks-addition

Billt--Excellent points, and logical reasoning.

I do think the argument for trading down THIS YEAR has merit though, for several reasons. One reason is that we have many holes to fill, some of them quite glaring. We only have one personnell grouping that is where we need it to be, talent-wise, and thats LB.

Given that Caroll has said that he intends to compete this year, I dont think they are intending to take 3-5 years to rebuild our team. It looks to me like they have decided to keep our core team together for the next 4 years or so, as they have been cutting/trading some good players who just dont fit thier system. So the idea of more picks, and thus more holes filled immediately, has some merit.

Another reason to consider trading down is the quality of players available in the first and second rounds this year, especially at positions of need, including WR, S, RB, CB,and even OL. While in years past a low first rounder and a second were likely starters with few star potential players, this year has quite a few potential stars all the way to the 50th pick or so. The talent drop-off that is usually seen in previous years is less of a concern this year, and I think it would be wise to take advantage of that. (Just like last year when outside Curry/Crabtree, there really werent any impact players (Sanchez is still a question) in the top 15 so it would have made sense to trade down for us)

I feel we are in a position to replace most of our glaring holes this year, especially if we trade down for more picks. Doing that would help us field a solid, if not spectacular team. And it would allow us to begin nabbing playmakers as the fall to us over the next couple seasons.

The most important thing in both scenarios is to draft well. As good as Ruskell's drafts seemed, he whiffed on all his first round picks, and rarely found legitimate playmakers. That cannot continue. If Caroll and Schneider dont do thier homework and judge carefully, niether scenario will work.

Personally, Im on board with taking any of the supposed impact players likely to fall at 6, and at the same time I would be fine with a trade down, as long as it netted us the appropriate players. I dont want to see any more reaching for players destined to be mediocre at best (LoJack etc). If youre gonna reach, it should be for a player with size and speed from a small school, not a slow/undersized player from a big school. You can teach scheme and technique, but never speed or size.

Which brings me to one thing your arguments didnt address: The coaching staff. One very important factor in player performance is the coaching/scheme employed. You see evidence all the time of players being perennial pro bowlers until the system changes or they change teams, then suddenly they are chopped liver. ANd the reverse is true, with guys like Junior Seau, who appeared toad-slow and utterly washed up YEARS ago in SD, only to become a very solid player again in NE where the scheme compensated for his lack of speed/quickness and highlighted his strengths--instinct and technique.

Coaching/scheme has a lot to do with how rookies, and indeed all players, perform. Which is probably why Curry dropped off so sharply last year--we had the worst coaching staff in the NFL in 18 years.

Another argument in favor of taking a player at 6 rather than trading down is that since Caroll and company intend to compete, that implies that they believe we will not be drafting in the top 15 next year. Which means as tempting as it may be to trade down for more picks, if its playmakers we're after (potential HOF'ers, if you will), we wont have a shot at any the next few years so we better take two of them this year.

Either way Im good. So long as we dont end up with a mediocre player or a bust.

By the way, Billt, youre an animal looking up all those stats. Keep that up, we're gonna have to call you Sando2!

The last thing we need in three more good players, starters even, but not impact players.

You set up a strawman argument. You assume your top 10 pick is HOF quality and compare him to Cortez Kennedy, and then discount any player from picks 22 down as at best good but not impact. But as I pointed out, you provided the Patriots as an example of a team with impact players and I showed you that they don't have a single player above pick 21 that they drafted (they have some they picked up in free agency). So it's very possible to get impact players outside of the top 10 picks. I also linked an article that indicated that DT picks in particular are difficult to hit on, so there is a higher risk of bust on those type picks, so just assuming Suh is Cortez Kennedy is a bit of a stretch, although maybe he turns out to be that sort of impact.

Out of curiosity I looked back at the NFL draft from 3, 4 and 5 years ago to see how many of those players made the pro bowl. I picked 3-5 because it allows for them to be newer players while allowing some development time.

out of the 2007 draft there were 2 of the top 10 that made the pro bowl
out of the 2006 draft there were 4
out of the 2005 draft there were 3

I'm sure some of the other players might be considered very good or maybe even impact, but a huge impact player of the type you're describing (Cortez Kennedy) should make the pro bowl. After Tez's first year he made the next 6 pro bowls, even though he was on one of the worst teams in the league.

Also out of curiosity I looked at the last 10 picks of those same 3 drafts to see how many players made the pro bowl.
2007 there were 2
2006 there were 4
2005 there were 4

So there was actually more players selected to the pro bowl from the last 10 picks of the first round over those 3 years than out of the first 10 picks. Now I'm sure the argument would be that with better talent around them allowed them to stand out better, and I'm sure there is some validity to that argument, but then the point would be, the players had the talent to stand out...to be impact players...at those last 10 picks in the first round none the less.

Now if the choice is between assuming a hit in picking a DT and he turns out to be a HOF player vs 3 non-impact players go for the HOF player. But that's stacking the deck debate wise.
If the choice is taking one impact player vs 3 impact players...sorry, but I'm taking 3. See, now that would be stacking the deck the other way, right?

Your second post makes this big case about HOF players. No team is filled with HOF players, not even the Patriots or Colts. What those 2 teams have that the Hawks don't have is a HOF level QB, and that is making all the difference for them. Who else on the Patriots or Colts would you argue is a HOF caliber player? Moss maybe? He was obtained with what, a 4th round pick, and was drafted in the bottom end of the first round when he was first drafted, 21st overall. And Brady was drafted in the 6th round.

So does it take making the HOF to be considered an impact player? That is the core of your argument in the 2nd post. Is Welker an impact player? Wilfork?
How about the Colts...Manning throws it to...Wayne, pick 30 1st round, Collie 4th round, Garcon 6th round, TE Clark 24th pick 1st round, Addai 30th pick 1st round.

On the defense the Colts have the pair Freeney 11th pick 1st round, Mathis 5th round, Bob Sanders 2nd round, Bethea 6th round.

The colts have 2 players that are impact players from the top of the 1st round, Manning and Freeney. The rest of their impact players are from the bottom of the first round down to the 6th round.

So your debate about HOF players is specious.

So in response to one Cortez Kennedy I'll take
Joe Montana, 3rd round
Darrell Green, 28th pick 1st round
Jackie Slater, 3rd round

So, with your choice of Cortez Kennedy I go with QB Montana, CB Green and OT Slater...which option makes a team better?

More on the debate of impact players.
How long have the Lions been picking in the top half of the first round and they are going to again this year and almost 100% likely that they will next.
I would rather have a great team that ends up sending 1 or two players to the HOF over say the next 20 years than take a top 10 pick that goes HOF but never has a supporting cast to even make the playoffs (again think Kennedy He is not in the HOF yet and it is likely because the team did not win enough games.)

You have to overlay those statistics with the real football world for them to be in context.

I was using the hall of fame because that's where every player was an impact player. Of course there are players who never make the HOF but who are/were big time impact players. They probably didn't make the HOF because either their team didn't win enough games or maybe they were only an impact player for 4 or 5 years instead of their whole career (needed time to develop or had injury problems). The point is, the only place I can get a list of bona fide impact players not open to debate is the HOF. Besides, with around 63 years of history, it's a much more reliable statistic base especially as compared to the last three years.

Thre real world is that there are factors like who is doing the talent evaluation on each team and how talented they are, coaching staff abilities, and yes, whether you're being picked high first round and are playing on a team that had a bad record last year or not. A top ten drafting team is likely to be struggling again in the player's rookie year and have a suspect coaching staff. Conversly, if you're picked in the bottom ten of the first round, you're playing on a team that made the playoffs last year and who are likely to lose some free agents giving you a better chance of starting on a really good football team in your rookie season. Which players are more likely to flourish?

Also, the coaching staff and how they use a player particularly a rookie can have a huge impact on his performance in the first year. Is the coaching staff of a winning playoff team likely to be better than one where the team went oh... say 5 - 11. So those top ten players had someone like the Jim Mora and Greg Knapp show to coach them up as opposed to someone like Belichick and Company who were working with the bottom 10 draftees. Look at Curry. There are two linebackers picked after him last year that played better statistically. I think Curry's still the best player taken and a once in a decade player. He's the Taylor Mays of linebackers except he can really play. Last year's coaching staff just bungled his talent and mangled his chances of doing something great in his rookie season. With the new coaching staff, he's going to break out. Just watch.

The thing with using the HOF and statistics is that it should give you realitic odds of finding HOF (and therefore impact) players in the NFL draft without much bias. It's looking at what happened therefore is using hindsight which is 100% accurate as aopposed to using foresight which is only as accurate as your predicting skills.

The speculating the fact that 10 players drafted in the bottom of the first round and playing on great teams made the pro bowl in their rookie season over a three year period and only 9 players picked top 10 and playing on the 10 worst teams in the league means that there are 10 impact players out of the bottom 10 and nine out of the top ten is forecasting that these 19 players will all be impact players for much of their career. Some of them will be just one or two year wonders like Tatupu is turning out to be. He made the pro bowl his first and 2nd season and one more on reputation and since has been ineffective. You might have pegged him for an elite impact player picked out of the lower rounds to support your argument but he's not going to be considered a real impact player unless he returns to doing what he did in his rookie and second year for the remainder of his career which doesn't look like it will happen now. Foresight doesn't remotely give you the results that hindsight does amd predicting which of those 19 players will become impact players over their career is iffy at best.

If we look at those 19 players 12 years from now, what will we find? The HOF says that 6 of those players drafted in the top 10 will have been impact players for most of their careers and 2 will have a similar career from the bottom ten (33% of 19 versus 13% of 19 rounded). The other 11 players will not be considered impact players when their career's are over.

If you want to do a more accurate test by far, go back to 12 years ago and do your same test (identify the top ten and bottom selections) only sum up the pro bowls for each player for the last 12 years. That will make it easy to identify the impact players. Those who have made 5 or more pro bowls will most likely fit the title of impact player. That should closely match the prediction of 6 of the top ten and 2 of the bottom ten.

With the 6th pick in the draft you have a significantly better chance of getting an impact player than in the bottom of the first round and astronomically better chance than the lower rounds. You can select small snippets of the overall picture and try to prove that these statistics lie but when you do a proper evaluation (do the 12 year thing), I think you'll find they don't. I don't have time to do that test but I hope you do. I could be wrong.

Wow BillT...were you using Tolstoy as a template for writing style?

You covered quite a few elements, but let me touch on a few.
Firstly, you were using HOF quality players as a baseline of impact players. To be sure, HOF players were all impact players, but as I was trying to point out with the rosters of the Patriots and the Colts, which were your 2 examples of teams with impact players, that they didn't get the vast majority of their talent from the top 10 of the first round. And, in fact, the Patriots didn't have a single one on their roster that they hadn't picked up in free agency, and the Colts had just 2, Manning and Freeney. The rest of their immpact players were selected in the 21st pick on down all the way to an undrafted impact player.

Now you argued that later drafted players end up on teams with more general talent, and I would agree with that...in fact, I addressed that specifically. The point is, are you going to judge the talent of a player based upon their talent, or the talent of thier teammates?
Now if you say on their talent, then you'll have to agree then, that rather they had decent teammates or not then, these Patriot and Colt impact players possed the talent themselves to be impact players.
And if you say the talent surrounding them should be taken into account then you support my position more than yours when I suggest that 3 impact players are better than a single great player when the general talent of the team isn't already top notch, which I think we'd agree is the situation the Seahawks are in.
So it seems to me that either way you go, my argument is the stronger one. But obviously opinions are just that...and no matter what you or I think the team is going to do what they think.

Welcome to http://www.monclerwomens.com , Official online Wholesaler and Retailer of moncler coats the leading brand-moncler coats. We are Official Online Retailers of Moncler Jacket, we are glad that you spend your time to browse our selection of authentic moncler coats commodity, and also you can read our news, reviews and blogs. These boots are a must have among celebrities such as Kate Moss. We hope that you can write your reviews about our products on our site and find our collection of moncler coats news and information articles.