Why I want you to be disappointed when I project Seahawks trades
Why I want you to be disappointed when I project Seahawks trades
So you’re not disappointed by the real thing: Seaside Joe 1454
This week, I posted two parts of an NFL Thought Experiment Fan Fiction Experience for Seahawks Fans as Related to the 2023 Draft with Trades. Some people call it a “mock draft” for short but I’ve spent far too much time criticizing people who spend half their lives making mock drafts to admit that I created half of one.
I felt like someone owed it to you to show you a picture of the NFL draft that didn’t obsessively connect the top teams to quarterbacks though, so there you have it.
Join the Regular Joes to read both halves and the inevitable part 3 because we haven’t made Seattle’s second first round pick yet. That’s because this particular board forced my hand to keep trading down and I believe that’s certainly a possibility for Pete and John in April.
Without giving away the whole enchilada, the first trade involved the Seahawks moving down five spots and picking up a 2024 second round pick from the Saints. The second trade involved moving down from 20 to 24, adding a fourth and a seventh. I know you’ve been sold a bill of goods that if a team trades down twice in the first round, surely they can pick up extra first round picks, or at least multiple early seconds this year.
I know some readers were disappointed to move down without a higher return but I have some thoughts on that:
1 - If a Seahawks writer proposes a trade and your response is “That would be great!” Or “Seems fair!” then I would fear that it’s unrealistic and overly optimistic. I would actually prefer it if you felt like the trade was underwhelming than “fair” because that’s likely closer to reality. And maybe if a trade happens that is better than my projected return then we can all be pleasantly surprised together. Instead of disappointed in the ACTUAL return.
2 - Trade returns usually are worse than you think. We remember the trades that involved multiple first rounders and forget the ones that don’t. I always base my trade projections on real world trades from the recent past, I never pull them out of thin air like most.
3 - The trade return is not based on a point value chart, but I agree that the chart is a starting point. Trades are based on the market (supply and demand) and the player or prospects involved. Teams have to desperately want the prospect to sacrifice more draft capital. The 2023 draft will only supply that kind of return to pick 5 if a team desperately wants a QB and for our thought experiment that was an impossibility. I still argue it is also plausible that there won’t be a highly rated QB on the board at 5. Trade returns are also based on the GMs involved and I can never rule out John Schneider making a great deal for Seattle. Good on him if he takes advantage of someone.
4 - I think my trade returns were pretty good! I always try to be conservative with my trade proposals and in this case the Seahawks went from having picks 5, 20 in what I believe is a weak draft class to having picks 10, 24, a mid-4th, a 7th, and a 2024 second round pick that I believe could be high in the round because it’s the Saints. Go look at the Saints, they might be the worst team. And I don’t believe either trade down would cost them a premier prospect.
In fact, The Athletic just posted a mock draft and also had Seattle trading down twice: Once from 5 to 7, and just like me they had the Jaguars trading up to 20 for a TE. With those two deals, Seattle added a 3rd, 4th, and 5th. My trades netted more, I believe, and I think it actually it behooves the Seahawks to not keep adding capital for this year.
5 - I think a 2024 second rounder is better for Seattle this time than a 2023 second rounder. The Seahawks already have two firsts and two seconds and a third. They can’t overdo it on how many rookies and early picks they bring in a year. Don’t stack all your eggs in the same basket, push some capital into next year and get a head start on 2024: Pete doesn’t want to coach more rookies than he has to; it saves money now; it saves money when the class is set to hit free agency.
So those were some thoughts I wanted to share on why I projected the returns like that, my methodology for projecting trades, and why the draft picks received were actually pretty good. Join the club for more part 3 and more Seahawks bonus content, or just to help support Seaside Joe!
Are you going to post an article about possibly trading up? As I have said before, when Schneider trades up it is usually for a good reason
Seattle seemed to base a lot of their draft choices on the college bowl games (seniors) and some in the combine. I think the real tale of the tape is free agency and what positions they don't address as far as draft strategy. The decision on Geno will reveal their poker hand a bit more. KC showed what a talented OL can do against a team leading defensive front 7. That matters, whether Geno stay or not. Seattle need to bolster that area (OL) as well as find another RB gem in the later rounds. TE WR yes. But Seattle needs defensive help both in FA and the draft on the line and at LB (urgent). Neal is a must re-sign with Adams injury history at Safety. We know Seattle will draft a corner in later rounds. I still think Young and Blout could be important pieces on both sides of the ball next year. Resign Penny for low ball contract and find a back in round 3 perhaps. Reid and SF sure have done well with later round RB's. The TE scenario just makes good sense Ken. Lock is still an unknown commodity and a gamble. Maybe with a better line and running game he could be tenable. I wonder what the new QB coach is thinking?