Make a Seahawk draft prediction

[MKHawk]

Hawks trade up in the 2nd for a WR

 

[SonnyCID]

We're going to patiently sit through 2 rounds to see who they pick, only to have them trade back.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Hawks trade up in the 2nd for a WR

We're going to patiently sit through 2 rounds to see who they pick, only to have them trade back.

Hope your both wrong. Trading up for a WR most likely means DGB and I would hate that idea. Also really don't want them to trade back in the second or third round, bad enough that they don't have a pick in the first round. They need depth, but they also need someone in the draft to be more then depth.

 

[JMR]

Having a tough time picturing another early round pick on a WR, but have seen a few guys say that's what they think will happen. Just traded a #1 for Graham, picked Richardson in round 2 last year, mid round pick on Luke W the year before, and last off-season we re-signed ADB for about $6 mill a season. With the holes we have now on the OL and as weak as it's been the last couple years, why would go WR again early on in this draft?

 

[MKHawk]

Having a tough time picturing another early round pick on a WR, but have seen a few guys say that's what they think will happen. Just traded a #1 for Graham, picked Richardson in round 2 last year, mid round pick on Luke W the year before, and last off-season we re-signed ADB for about $6 mill a season. With the holes we have now on the OL and as weak as it's been the last couple years, why would go WR again early on in this draft?

They have to assume they're getting nothing from Richardson this year. He wrecked his knee in January.

Luke Willson got a whopping zero targets in the biggest game of the year last season. He runs very hot and cold.

Baldwin is only signed through...2016 I think?

Because there's more talent that can help the Seahawks at OL in the middle rounds than there is at WR. Frankly, I'm feeling less and less sure about my trade up for a WR prediction because if DGB doesn't last to about 55, I don't think they'd jump high enough for him, and there isn't anyone else worth jumping for who'd last that long.

 

[JMR]

They have to assume they're getting nothing from Richardson this year. He wrecked his knee in January.

Luke Willson got a whopping zero targets in the biggest game of the year last season. He runs very hot and cold.

Baldwin is only signed through...2016 I think?

Because there's more talent that can help the Seahawks at OL in the middle rounds than there is at WR. Frankly, I'm feeling less and less sure about my trade up for a WR prediction because if DGB doesn't last to about 55, I don't think they'd jump high enough for him, and there isn't anyone else worth jumping for who'd last that long.

So we will assume we won't get anything from Richardson this year AND we're going to assume that we will from whatever WR we would draft? Rookie WRs just don't typically produce much. And if we're going to project out 2015 based on what happened in the SB, then we have an all-star in Matthews anyway.

I guess I look at WR differently than most. To me it's like planting a forest. You look out and you don't see trees, so plant some. Tomorrow you're still not going to have trees, and planting more won't make them come any quicker.

The draft is just not the place to find guys to fill holes at WR. If you need a WR from the draft this year, 3 years ago was probably when you should have drafted them.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

My take on WRs is you keep adding to the competion until someone starts shining. Maybe they use the first pick in the second or maybe they take a flyer later. I think the first pick will not be a WR, but trying to out guess the FO is impossible.

 

[JMR]

My take on WRs is you keep adding to the competion until someone starts shining. Maybe they use the first pick in the second or maybe they take a flyer later. I think the first pick will not be a WR, but trying to out guess the FO is impossible.

I like your approach but for the OL. You play 5 at once and they get hurt a lot, as we well know.

Maybe it's a bit counterintuitive since it's a QB/passing league, but the WR position relative to the others just isn't that important. Look at SB winners as far back as you want and there really isn't a strong positive correlation between top WR corps and winning titles. List out the best WRs in today's game and then tally up how many Lombardis they have and you aren't even going to have to sharpen your pencil.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I like your approach but for the OL. You play 5 at once and they get hurt a lot, as we well know.

Maybe it's a bit counterintuitive since it's a QB/passing league, but the WR position relative to the others just isn't that important. Look at SB winners as far back as you want and there really isn't a strong positive correlation between top WR corps and winning titles. List out the best WRs in today's game and then tally up how many Lombardis they have and you aren't even going to have to sharpen your pencil.

I with you on that , my man! Still you got to admit...we would all like a better receiver corp. Not asking for the next Calvin Johnson mind you, just something a bit better then what we've seen of late.

 

[JMR]

I with you on that , my man! Still you got to admit...we would all like a better receiver corp. Not asking for the next Calvin Johnson mind you, just something a bit better then what we've seen of late.

Having a better WR corps, sure, depending on what it costs. We already spent our 1.31 on it from this draft, and I'm not ready to write off Richardson for all of '15. Our group of receivers should be better this year based on those moves we've already made. To me, the OL holes and CB depth issues are more pressing and line up better to fixing them with the draft. I don't think you can have too many linemen, too many pass rushers, or too many quality cover guys.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Having a better WR corps, sure, depending on what it costs. We already spent our 1.31 on it from this draft, and I'm not ready to write off Richardson for all of '15. Our group of receivers should be better this year based on those moves we've already made. To me, the OL holes and CB depth issues are more pressing and line up better to fixing them with the draft. I don't think you can have too many linemen, too many pass rushers, or too many quality cover guys.

I'm for a OL first off myself, maybe a pass rusher, but only if he's got lots of potential. A run stuffing DT may become necessary if the Seahawks have to release Mebane to extend RW. CB can be answered in lower rounds,safety depth really needs to be address also. So many needs, so few picks, even with the bounty the Seahawks have.

 

[Southieinnc]

There are plenty of good WR's in the middle rounds. There are a lot of guards in this draft. I'm not seeing a lot of tackles......

 

[JMR]

There are plenty of good WR's in the middle rounds. There are a lot of guards in this draft. I'm not seeing a lot of tackles......

This is a rare draft class where you don't see hardly anyone talking about a stud LT in the top 10.

 

[MKHawk]

So we will assume we won't get anything from Richardson this year AND we're going to assume that we will from whatever WR we would draft? Rookie WRs just don't typically produce much. And if we're going to project out 2015 based on what happened in the SB, then we have an all-star in Matthews anyway.

I guess I look at WR differently than most. To me it's like planting a forest. You look out and you don't see trees, so plant some. Tomorrow you're still not going to have trees, and planting more won't make them come any quicker.

The draft is just not the place to find guys to fill holes at WR. If you need a WR from the draft this year, 3 years ago was probably when you should have drafted them.

It took him 1/2 to 3/4 of a season, but Richardson worked his way to becoming arguably our #2 receiver. That doesn't guarantee someone drafted in the 2nd round this year could do it too, but it's been done in this offense.

If the Super Bowl were Willson's only disappearing act, I'd feel differently about counting on him in any appreciable way.

Ideally, we'd be looking to replace #3 WRs and the like in the draft. But this team has plenty of #3/#4 WRs. We're past the point of being able to bring in a top-2 WR target in free agency (because the cap room won't allow it). Also, what FA WR would want to come here when a) they'll have to take less and b) their stats will take a big hit in this offense. If Seattle wants a top-2 WR target, they're going to have to draft and develop him.

 

[JMR]

In Willson's defense, he was probably the #3 or #4 option in a passing attack that only throw it 25 times a game. That math almost assures him of "disappearing" at times. My main criticism of Luke is that he tends to have iffy hands unless it's an aboslute dime. He's the new John Carlson.

A #3 WR is more or less a starter in today's NFL, so I can't agree you try to find a replacement for those guys in every draft. And we just traded for a top 2 WR target, so I also think there are ways to get that guy other than the draft & develop approach. Graham, Richardson, Baldwin, Kearse, Matthews, Lockette, and Norwood are the receivers. That's already 7. Where's the room to add another greenhorn to push out up to 3 of those names?? I don't mind at all to burn a 5th rounder or later on another WR just to see what happens (maybe a returner), but there are better ways to spend earlier picks on more important positions. WR just isnt as important as OL or anything on defense.

 

[MKHawk]

In Willson's defense, he was probably the #3 or #4 option in a passing attack that only throw it 25 times a game. That math almost assures him of "disappearing" at times. My main criticism of Luke is that he tends to have iffy hands unless it's an aboslute dime. He's the new John Carlson.

A #3 WR is more or less a starter in today's NFL, so I can't agree you try to find a replacement for those guys in every draft. And we just traded for a top 2 WR target, so I also think there are ways to get that guy other than the draft & develop approach. Graham, Richardson, Baldwin, Kearse, Matthews, Lockette, and Norwood are the receivers. That's already 7. Where's the room to add another greenhorn to push out up to 3 of those names?? I don't mind at all to burn a 5th rounder or later on another WR just to see what happens (maybe a returner), but there are better ways to spend earlier picks on more important positions. WR just isnt as important as OL or anything on defense.

One of Lockette/Norwood is going to be pushed out for a returner already. The other one and Matthews will have to battle for a spot with a rookie for 1-2 spots (I think 2 for the initial 53 because I expect Richardson to be PUPed)

And while we may use Graham out wide, he's going to count roster-wise towards 1 of the 3 TEs.

 

[JMR]

One of Lockette/Norwood is going to be pushed out for a returner already. The other one and Matthews will have to battle for a spot with a rookie for 1-2 spots (I think 2 for the initial 53 because I expect Richardson to be PUPed)

And while we may use Graham out wide, he's going to count roster-wise towards 1 of the 3 TEs.

I wouldnt be so sure about Lockette or Norwood being gone. Maybe the returner is going to be a CB we draft to make up for the loss of Maxwell.

We'll probably keep 9 WRs/TEs. You can count them however you want, but I think Willson, McCoy, and Helfet have a pretty good chance to stick. And we may even draft a TE. Just my opinion, but I think the best chance a WR has to make the team is with Richardson starting off on PUP.

 

[blstoker]

Seahawks take David Johnson, RB in the second round and for the second time take what most think is their greatest strength with their first pick.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Seahawks take David Johnson, RB in the second round and for the second time take what most think is their greatest strength with their first pick.

Heard good things about him. Interesting prediction for sure.

 

[dude82]

Seahawks take David Johnson, RB in the second round and for the second time take what most think is their greatest strength with their first pick.

I don't know, man... I get the feeling from some people that they aren't sold on Turbin as a Lynch replacement and if Marshawn eventually turns those annual retirement rumors into a retirement announcement, I think those people would move the running back position down the list of greatest strengths on the team. Michael's inability to get onto the active roster consistently is either a sign that Carroll and his staff are confident enough in Lynch and Turbin to use that spot on another position or a sign that Michael isn't doing enough to force his way onto the active roster week in and week out. I'm not saying that using our first pick on a running back for the second time in three years is ideal, but I guess I disagree with the idea that RB is our greatest strength as a position beyond Lynch based on the overall reaction to the thought of Turbin and Michael taking over when Lynch does hang 'em up that I've witnessed the past two years. Personally, I'd rather see us take a lineman over a skill player with that first pick, but we'll have to see what Schneider decides to do.