This was a ton of info, thank you! If we take JS at his word that “everybody sees it” (the offensive line issues) then his moves to get a 2nd and 3rd round pick for DK and Geno will allow him to bring in more competition at iOL.
Drafting is more art than science, otherwise teams could simply look at measureables and would never miss on draft picks. So My other big takeaway is that NOT drafting iOL in the first round is a good strategy. When you look at how little impact iOL has had for teams, It’s way better to swing and miss on high value position vs the risk you pass on generational QB, pass rusher, etc.
If Grant's supposition, above, that college teams put their best linemen at tackle, then that would go a long way toward explaining why Gs and Cs tend to not be good early round picks. The ones that become successful maybe worked hard to hone their craft in college because they may not have been the most physically gifted, and had to get slid inside. Their intelligence and work ethic help them to be successful in the NFL, which is harder to see at a combine or in scouting. Therefore, they get drafted in rd 2+
I didn’t count numbers drafted for each team in this article, but my impression was that the Hawks had about as many picks as anyone listed. Most weren’t great, but several have had long, somewhat productive NFL careers. It seems the myth that the Hawks never pick OL is just that. Perhaps talent evaluation or development failed, but the Hawks haven’t been watching from the sidelines while other teams drafted all of the great, can’t miss, linemen. Maybe JS and PC, and now MM, actually know something about running a team. They didn’t win a SB with any of their last decade of teams, but they also never tanked. Last year was the first time in awhile that the last game of the regular season was meaningless for the Hawks and that was with a 10-7 team. I know we’re all frustrated that it’s been over a decade since our team won the SB, but compared to many fans in the league we’ve had a pretty good ride. Go Hawks!
* You like, say, C/G Grey Zabel in the second round but doubt he will be there at #50. You’re not sold on Tyler Booker, who is also available
* There are players ahead of Zabel on your board, but none of them have a first round grade
* Zabel and Booker are the only IOLs you have with a second round grade
Do you take Zabel at #18 knowing that he meets a definite need, or do you go with the BPA on your board and cross your fingers that Zabel or Booker will be available at 50?
Interesting thought experiment. I vote you still take BPA on your board. JS can always look for opportunities to trade up with the draft capitol they've accumulated when they think the time is right to get Zabel, in this scenario.
I'm not fussed where they add talent, just add it. Moreover, you can make an argument (and I think I will) that the Seahawks, just perhaps, don't have a talent acquisition problem on the o-line, they have a talent development problem on the o-line. When talent goes elsewhere and plays better, that's a bad look. So my o-line optimism comes mostly in the new coaches we've added, at least at the moment. Really hoping they can help the lads take a giant step forward, like the Saints o-line did last year (same dudes, different coaches).
The o-line enables all of the skill position players to look good. So I suppose it makes sense to draft the elite skill positions early, and then bring in the enablers on day 2 and 3. That sounds weird, but you know what I mean. I don't think I'll put 'bring on the enablers' on a t-shirt.
Yep. The only time we care what round someone was drafted in is when we are criticizing them or examining the minutiae like this article. Let's just go get good players who become better playing on our team!
Conclusions: guards don't tilt the field on their own, choose a higher leverage position in the 1st round, and 2nd round guards can give same impact or better than 1st round guard (probably because the field was more likely tilted by the 1st round non-guard talent taken).
Hmm...let me start here, by noting that my hunch -- for months -- has been that we'd seek to draft an impact defensive player in the first round, and then pick up some combination of OL, TE, WR and/or QB on day two, depending on how the board fell.
Now let me suggest a couple things. First, the sample size is really small, in a couple ways. First, over the scope of that study 11 teams haven't made the Super Bowl. (Sigh. I looked and counted.) Second, it's a self-reinforcing bit of NFL logic which doesn't value that position. (I'd be curious, and hope absolutely nobody does the work to find out, if there are other positions with similar profiles, or if IOL is unique.) So they don't draft them there.
And now let's talk about this year. Here are things which may have changed, which may impact GM choices in the present. First, we are discovering that IOL and IDL are hard to find and highly valued, especially in free agency. So that puts more of a premium on those positions which hasn't been there for some time. Maybe ever. Second, I keep hearing that the difference in draft grade between 10 and 40 -- this year -- is as much scheme fit and eye of the beholder as it is draft value. So if there is a perceived scarcity of IOL talent, AND it is more highly valued now than before...maybe the past does not predict future outcomes.
Those are probably just my habitual quibbles. The larger point probably stands, that the opportunity cost of drafting IOL in R1 v. a position of higher impact on game outcomes is substantial. Thanks to SSJ for all the work, and for the thought exercise.
I totally agree. Also, the positions of higher impact being drafted higher results in better contract value for the teams at those high impact positions, which makes them even more likely to be picked earlier.
1st round picks should save you money. For 4-5 years. So draft guys who would cost you $25M+/yr if you had to sign a top notch free agent. That’s not an OG in today’s NFL. Not an original thought, just something SSJ has drilled into my brain for a while. QB, LT, WR, CB, Edge. And Earl Thomas III when available, or the next Aaron Donald.
Maybe I have the wrong takeaway from this article but if the Hawks are gonna draft an O lineman in round 1, it “should” be a tackle that can slide inside. Or Lucas can slide inside.
Seems like first round tackles make better guards than the guards from college. Is it coaching? Or do college coach’s use their less premier linemen in the interior? I dunno. I’m just a fan.
It's as you said. College coaches will typically put their best players in the tackle positions regardless of their physical attributes. They don't want to waist their best athletes and/or most skilled players on the interion, so guys that are too short, or have smaller arms, or whatever will play at LT just because they're the best o-lineman on the squad.
Playing against NFL defensive lineman is a huge leap for most of these guys, and overcoming physical limitations becomes far more difficult no matter how skilled or athletic they may be.
I hate mock drafts. And to be perfectly honest, as much as I hate mock drafts; if you were to hire a PI to follow my every move, he'd tell you that I am constantly doing them on my phone when work is slow. So I guess I don't hate mock drafts if my unknown precious minutes when there's no customer is spent rotating between watching football on youtube and doing these pointless exercises...
What I really hate is that so many people want to share theirs! Especially the ones that do entire rounds for every team. No one can know every team's tendencies, future plans, desired outlooks -and GMs, their ownership groups and scouts change. This is where the draft projections get annoying. It's 99% "what does this team need and who should still be there." and it's lazy and often deliberately contrarian. And they boost certain players like crazy after a good combine. Or even for no reason at all.
I am sure that Mel Kiper has watched film on all of these guys and knows everyone around the college ranks and the league, and knows more about the draft process than I know about my most niche hobby. This league has mastered keeping its fans engaged in the offseason like no other.
But this post was about mock drafts relating to the article. Unlike the NFL guys who will steer us to the nearest guard; I always get hung up on certain positions. If a great guard, center or linebacker falls to us at 50 or 52, I always feel buyer's remorse as soon as I take them and watch the other guys at more impactful positions get taken. Running back is almost the same, but a special one breaks that rule. I'm not sure they are that much different from the way they slot kickers and punters. There's a set draft postional value to GMs that gets ignored by the guys who get on TV, even though it shows itself year after year.
I don’t take mocks seriously as a predictor. But for someone like me who doesn’t follow college football, mocks are a useful tool for getting an idea of who is likely to be available when the Hawks pick.
I’ve got to be honest… My eyes glazed over part way through the article. I didn’t miss the premise though!
A similar, interesting analysis would be to chart the ages (in NFL years) of linemen at any position who started and won Super Bowls. Do rookie or young linemen win rings? It would be cool to compare the ages to the overall ages of NFL starting OLs. In other words, is a team better off signing vets than drafting for the OL?
Another interesting analysis would be the average number of years with the same team and OC or line coach. Is it stability that matters? Do linemen need multiple seasons to sync with their teammates? Maybe sticking with the young players for a number of seasons is more important than getting the new, shiny jersey number of any age.
I just looked at the Eagles’s OL Super Bowl starters. The average is 5.6 years with the league and 5 years with the team. Four of the five have been Eagles for their entire careers. One arrived this year from the Jets. Wow.
So maybe the key is to draft for physical ceiling, intelligence, and work ethic, and hold onto the players you have. Invest in coaching, strength, and conditioning. Don’t worry about the college tape too much. Treat the unit as a long-term project. Spend cash to keep them together, not on one-year deals, except for depth.
It might be more important to keep and develop guys like Olu and Haynes than to draft high.
That said, if you can draft a really special lineman, it doesn’t hurt. Just don’t see him as a short-term solution.
Agree with both of y'all.... and Mark Schlereth on the topic. He always stresses how important it is that the OL work together as a unit. That tends not to happen if we're constantly changing players, coaches, and plans. Drafting smart athletic big guys and keeping them together seems to be the way to go.
BUT, all of this is a lot easier said than done.
Hey! Let's just draft BPA. "Best" is subjective and very hard to identify before it materializes.
Pretty sure Seahawks draft historian is quite aware of this. The great Max Unger, rd 2. What’s interesting is the number of very late drafted Centers. Kelce 6th round. Lots of 2nd Rd centers but a lot of SB Centers drafted very late, or drafted be another team and picked up.
Why do you think 1st round Gs have historically been such busts? Your article was very interesting, and it did, in fact, change MY mind on drafting IOL in round 1. Seems like a waste of a pick and money, like paying a 31+ WR a lot of money for multiple years. I can see why GMs (or smart GMs) don't take IOL early, use the picks on skill positions, and take a flyer in later rounds.
Mark me down as a NO for a 1st round guard. I am now all in on defense or WR for pick 18.
Really not the point- What did we just see this year? And Why are the most resigned players in the whole NFL O-linemen ? That is an answer in itself!
This was a ton of info, thank you! If we take JS at his word that “everybody sees it” (the offensive line issues) then his moves to get a 2nd and 3rd round pick for DK and Geno will allow him to bring in more competition at iOL.
Drafting is more art than science, otherwise teams could simply look at measureables and would never miss on draft picks. So My other big takeaway is that NOT drafting iOL in the first round is a good strategy. When you look at how little impact iOL has had for teams, It’s way better to swing and miss on high value position vs the risk you pass on generational QB, pass rusher, etc.
If Grant's supposition, above, that college teams put their best linemen at tackle, then that would go a long way toward explaining why Gs and Cs tend to not be good early round picks. The ones that become successful maybe worked hard to hone their craft in college because they may not have been the most physically gifted, and had to get slid inside. Their intelligence and work ethic help them to be successful in the NFL, which is harder to see at a combine or in scouting. Therefore, they get drafted in rd 2+
Meant this to be a reply to Rusty's comment that Grant replied to. I got Substacked.
I didn’t count numbers drafted for each team in this article, but my impression was that the Hawks had about as many picks as anyone listed. Most weren’t great, but several have had long, somewhat productive NFL careers. It seems the myth that the Hawks never pick OL is just that. Perhaps talent evaluation or development failed, but the Hawks haven’t been watching from the sidelines while other teams drafted all of the great, can’t miss, linemen. Maybe JS and PC, and now MM, actually know something about running a team. They didn’t win a SB with any of their last decade of teams, but they also never tanked. Last year was the first time in awhile that the last game of the regular season was meaningless for the Hawks and that was with a 10-7 team. I know we’re all frustrated that it’s been over a decade since our team won the SB, but compared to many fans in the league we’ve had a pretty good ride. Go Hawks!
Scenario:
* You’re unable to trade down
* You like, say, C/G Grey Zabel in the second round but doubt he will be there at #50. You’re not sold on Tyler Booker, who is also available
* There are players ahead of Zabel on your board, but none of them have a first round grade
* Zabel and Booker are the only IOLs you have with a second round grade
Do you take Zabel at #18 knowing that he meets a definite need, or do you go with the BPA on your board and cross your fingers that Zabel or Booker will be available at 50?
Interesting thought experiment. I vote you still take BPA on your board. JS can always look for opportunities to trade up with the draft capitol they've accumulated when they think the time is right to get Zabel, in this scenario.
I figure that they operate the draft on the basis of a whole bunch of scenarios.
I'm not fussed where they add talent, just add it. Moreover, you can make an argument (and I think I will) that the Seahawks, just perhaps, don't have a talent acquisition problem on the o-line, they have a talent development problem on the o-line. When talent goes elsewhere and plays better, that's a bad look. So my o-line optimism comes mostly in the new coaches we've added, at least at the moment. Really hoping they can help the lads take a giant step forward, like the Saints o-line did last year (same dudes, different coaches).
The o-line enables all of the skill position players to look good. So I suppose it makes sense to draft the elite skill positions early, and then bring in the enablers on day 2 and 3. That sounds weird, but you know what I mean. I don't think I'll put 'bring on the enablers' on a t-shirt.
Yep. The only time we care what round someone was drafted in is when we are criticizing them or examining the minutiae like this article. Let's just go get good players who become better playing on our team!
Conclusions: guards don't tilt the field on their own, choose a higher leverage position in the 1st round, and 2nd round guards can give same impact or better than 1st round guard (probably because the field was more likely tilted by the 1st round non-guard talent taken).
still regretting that we didn't draft O'Cyrus Torrence
Hmm...let me start here, by noting that my hunch -- for months -- has been that we'd seek to draft an impact defensive player in the first round, and then pick up some combination of OL, TE, WR and/or QB on day two, depending on how the board fell.
Now let me suggest a couple things. First, the sample size is really small, in a couple ways. First, over the scope of that study 11 teams haven't made the Super Bowl. (Sigh. I looked and counted.) Second, it's a self-reinforcing bit of NFL logic which doesn't value that position. (I'd be curious, and hope absolutely nobody does the work to find out, if there are other positions with similar profiles, or if IOL is unique.) So they don't draft them there.
And now let's talk about this year. Here are things which may have changed, which may impact GM choices in the present. First, we are discovering that IOL and IDL are hard to find and highly valued, especially in free agency. So that puts more of a premium on those positions which hasn't been there for some time. Maybe ever. Second, I keep hearing that the difference in draft grade between 10 and 40 -- this year -- is as much scheme fit and eye of the beholder as it is draft value. So if there is a perceived scarcity of IOL talent, AND it is more highly valued now than before...maybe the past does not predict future outcomes.
Those are probably just my habitual quibbles. The larger point probably stands, that the opportunity cost of drafting IOL in R1 v. a position of higher impact on game outcomes is substantial. Thanks to SSJ for all the work, and for the thought exercise.
I totally agree. Also, the positions of higher impact being drafted higher results in better contract value for the teams at those high impact positions, which makes them even more likely to be picked earlier.
FYI Bradberry has been replaced in Minnesota. Vikes IOL wasn’t great, as seen in playoffs. Two of 3 guys replaced.
1st round picks should save you money. For 4-5 years. So draft guys who would cost you $25M+/yr if you had to sign a top notch free agent. That’s not an OG in today’s NFL. Not an original thought, just something SSJ has drilled into my brain for a while. QB, LT, WR, CB, Edge. And Earl Thomas III when available, or the next Aaron Donald.
Maybe I have the wrong takeaway from this article but if the Hawks are gonna draft an O lineman in round 1, it “should” be a tackle that can slide inside. Or Lucas can slide inside.
Seems like first round tackles make better guards than the guards from college. Is it coaching? Or do college coach’s use their less premier linemen in the interior? I dunno. I’m just a fan.
It's as you said. College coaches will typically put their best players in the tackle positions regardless of their physical attributes. They don't want to waist their best athletes and/or most skilled players on the interion, so guys that are too short, or have smaller arms, or whatever will play at LT just because they're the best o-lineman on the squad.
Playing against NFL defensive lineman is a huge leap for most of these guys, and overcoming physical limitations becomes far more difficult no matter how skilled or athletic they may be.
I hate mock drafts. And to be perfectly honest, as much as I hate mock drafts; if you were to hire a PI to follow my every move, he'd tell you that I am constantly doing them on my phone when work is slow. So I guess I don't hate mock drafts if my unknown precious minutes when there's no customer is spent rotating between watching football on youtube and doing these pointless exercises...
What I really hate is that so many people want to share theirs! Especially the ones that do entire rounds for every team. No one can know every team's tendencies, future plans, desired outlooks -and GMs, their ownership groups and scouts change. This is where the draft projections get annoying. It's 99% "what does this team need and who should still be there." and it's lazy and often deliberately contrarian. And they boost certain players like crazy after a good combine. Or even for no reason at all.
I am sure that Mel Kiper has watched film on all of these guys and knows everyone around the college ranks and the league, and knows more about the draft process than I know about my most niche hobby. This league has mastered keeping its fans engaged in the offseason like no other.
But this post was about mock drafts relating to the article. Unlike the NFL guys who will steer us to the nearest guard; I always get hung up on certain positions. If a great guard, center or linebacker falls to us at 50 or 52, I always feel buyer's remorse as soon as I take them and watch the other guys at more impactful positions get taken. Running back is almost the same, but a special one breaks that rule. I'm not sure they are that much different from the way they slot kickers and punters. There's a set draft postional value to GMs that gets ignored by the guys who get on TV, even though it shows itself year after year.
I don’t take mocks seriously as a predictor. But for someone like me who doesn’t follow college football, mocks are a useful tool for getting an idea of who is likely to be available when the Hawks pick.
That's not wasting time, sir, that's allowing your creative subconscious to process important business decisions.
I’ve got to be honest… My eyes glazed over part way through the article. I didn’t miss the premise though!
A similar, interesting analysis would be to chart the ages (in NFL years) of linemen at any position who started and won Super Bowls. Do rookie or young linemen win rings? It would be cool to compare the ages to the overall ages of NFL starting OLs. In other words, is a team better off signing vets than drafting for the OL?
Another interesting analysis would be the average number of years with the same team and OC or line coach. Is it stability that matters? Do linemen need multiple seasons to sync with their teammates? Maybe sticking with the young players for a number of seasons is more important than getting the new, shiny jersey number of any age.
I just looked at the Eagles’s OL Super Bowl starters. The average is 5.6 years with the league and 5 years with the team. Four of the five have been Eagles for their entire careers. One arrived this year from the Jets. Wow.
So maybe the key is to draft for physical ceiling, intelligence, and work ethic, and hold onto the players you have. Invest in coaching, strength, and conditioning. Don’t worry about the college tape too much. Treat the unit as a long-term project. Spend cash to keep them together, not on one-year deals, except for depth.
It might be more important to keep and develop guys like Olu and Haynes than to draft high.
That said, if you can draft a really special lineman, it doesn’t hurt. Just don’t see him as a short-term solution.
Agree with both of y'all.... and Mark Schlereth on the topic. He always stresses how important it is that the OL work together as a unit. That tends not to happen if we're constantly changing players, coaches, and plans. Drafting smart athletic big guys and keeping them together seems to be the way to go.
BUT, all of this is a lot easier said than done.
Hey! Let's just draft BPA. "Best" is subjective and very hard to identify before it materializes.
Pretty sure Seahawks draft historian is quite aware of this. The great Max Unger, rd 2. What’s interesting is the number of very late drafted Centers. Kelce 6th round. Lots of 2nd Rd centers but a lot of SB Centers drafted very late, or drafted be another team and picked up.
Robbie Tobeck for example
Yep. Exactly.
Why do you think 1st round Gs have historically been such busts? Your article was very interesting, and it did, in fact, change MY mind on drafting IOL in round 1. Seems like a waste of a pick and money, like paying a 31+ WR a lot of money for multiple years. I can see why GMs (or smart GMs) don't take IOL early, use the picks on skill positions, and take a flyer in later rounds.
Mark me down as a NO for a 1st round guard. I am now all in on defense or WR for pick 18.