Whoever we draft, regardless of position, needs to make the team and make the team better. Looking at our roster vs where we pick and who we likely will be able to draft, I'm left thinking we are not going to make a ton of picks this year. As we get into rounds 5-7 I just don't know if there is much likelihood of players even making the team, let alone making us markedly better. Not many holes to fill and coaches still need to figure out who's on the team still. I have used several draft sims and I like my results of trading back from 16 and trading up from anything 100-120ish or later. Make 4 picks between 30ish and 100ish or 5 picks between 30ish and 120ish....I tend to get 4-5 players with great chances to make the team and help out. Just my opinion...but for the love can we speed up the clock and lets do this already!!!! DRAFT WEEK IS HERE!!!!!
Most of my votes depended upon who I thought the BPA was more than their position.
A question I have had to ask myself is, "Is trading down necessarily antithetical to Best Player Available?" And my quick answer is yes, BPA necessitates that you NOT trade down. But upon further thought, I can see it isn't black or white, yes or no, it's more of, well, trading down might mean you see a group of players as all equally good and that means trading down and getting the last one of that group is OK with you, while getting some sweetener to add to your draft haul. Or, a team could even concede that by trading down they are going to lose out on the BPA at 16, but see the added pick derived from the deal as enough compensation to make the deal palatable and worth the risk.
Still, if you give up a "blue chip player" for two that are likely to be decent but not spectacular players, I cannot see that as good value.
I don't think BPA vs Need is an "either/or" proposition in the 1st -3rd rds (depending on where JSMM draw the line). I like JS's comment quoted in the article that he will go BPA early, then needs late. I agree with that basic premise. The thing is that you draft BPA, but there has to be a tier of players you consider to be "worth" your pick. If there is 1 guy, then he is the guy. If there are 6 in that "tier", then you go with the guy from that tier that fills the biggest need.
If we ignore need, then we could theoretically get good players that never see the field (or not enough of it, or don't reach their full potential until leaving) at certain positions (say, DB), while we continually underachieve as a team because other position groups are liabilities.
That's why I like the tier system. We balance talent with needs to raise our overall team talent as efficiently as possible. Then, as our team gets closer to a Super Bowl contender, we move more towards blind-BPA.
I tried to answer my survey questions through my tier-system lens, so every answer has the caveat attached: IF these 2 guys are considered in the same tier by JS, then I go with -blank-. It is then strictly a needs-based analysis since I removed the 1st variable by assuming BPA being equal. I inferred from the details of the Mitchell vs JPJ question that Mitchell is considered a tier-above JPJ, so I voted Mitchell in that circumstance. IF MM can get them all on the field, then I say goat's head and do it. If not, and all similarly tiered players are gone, then we can trade down as far as we can while guaranteeing we get a guy from that next tier.
I voted to trade down, but only in so much as we can get more picks in that top-120 (or whever JS's line is) good starting-caliber player range while minimizing our losses of picks in that acceptable range this year and next year. I would be ECSTATIC if we trade up, though. It would mean we identified an immediate difference maker then went to get him. It just seems that we don't enough desirable resources move into the next tier of guys above where #16 pick falls. So ecstatic as I would be,I might be even more surprised than ecstatic.
I didn’t realise that Latu had retired and returned. I think that would make him a risk of potentially not a long term option and maybe shows he hasn’t got that chip on his shoulder that the hawks so love. He’s off the list in my book.
Also, what’s the 2025 QB pool looking like? I’d rather address that sooner than later if it’s looking shallow.
Fun experiment. I too made choices based on who I thought was better. My overall thought is that for a team to compete for a Super Bowl the team needs multiple all pros. In the most recent Super Bowl the 49ers had an all pro LT, RB, WR, ILB and DE. The Chiefs had an All pro QB, TE, LG (injured but they are not there without him) C, DT and CB. Some are premium positions and some aren’t. What I know is the Seahawks don’t have any - I have hopes for Witherspoon, Cross (injured all of last year turf toe = 80%), JSN, Mafe Walker, and Woolen (if he can learn to tackle) but at this only Witherspoon looks particularly promising. I have harped on the foolishness of passing on a potential all pro on the interior offensive line just because of the position value because I believe the value has changed. But I am happy with any player that is special. To contend the Seahawks need more of those.
If the rest of the roster were fixed up, Geno Smith is plenty good enough to get us deep into the playoffs. Only once we've shown we can get deep in the playoffs, should a new QB be considered -- and most of the new college QB's in our range are liable to be busts, or at least are not as good as Howell.
There are no insiders predicting that the Seahawks will trade up in the first round so it will be a huge shock if it happens. That would be exciting! And I would love to see it.
Without access to confidential medical reports on Latu and Penix (which I would be both unable and unqualified to read) I'm unwilling to advocate for either. Draft chatter says next year's QB class won't be as good, but I'm not convinced by the same draft chatter that this class is any kind of bargain. And Daniels was a marginal first rounder at the beginning of the season. At QB I want to see how Howell pans out, and hope we pick up someone as a UDFA or round 7 chance (I keep going back to Devin Leary because UK wasn't good, especially on offense -- three mid-round draft prospects, one an RB -- and he comes out of a pro scheme; and his OC is now a pro OC). One of too many mocks I've clicked on had us trade 16 with GB for, what is it, 36 and 40? And the picks there seemed as solid and hopeful and useful as anybody I've seen mocked to us at 16, only it was a two-for-one deal. We need a WR for the future and this is a deep WR class, with solid prop prospects dropping into the third round. The roster seems good...enough...for us to draft BPA. But what I want to feel at the end of seven rounds is that we got better, and that we made at least one position on the roster so dominant that other teams will have to adapt to us. Every. Single. Time. The more choices we have, the more chances we have to hit with a terrific player. If next year's draft is anticipated to be a dud, that would seem to make grabbing solid prop players out of this one a priority. Next year, maybe, you trade up because that's the best choice. But we have nothing to trade that gets us a blue chip prospect unless things fall just right.
In my opinion the cost for trading up in the first is a bit too high most of the times, but trading up from later round picks is the perfect "get who we still want" scenario. Especially when we consider that most late round prospects won't have any impact at all.
Maybe Aaron Rodgers II will fall to 16. I’d be OK with that. QB on rookie contract with our cap would be nice. Glad we aren’t the Cowboys who have to either pay Dak $60 million or start over
I think I would most like to have extra picks if possible, but if we think we can get “the guy” at QB or WR or CB or Edge, you need to grab them earlier most likely. I would include DL, OT, and TE as also someone to think about. Need to expect both Lockett and DK to be gone in the next 2 years at best. Abe is no guarantee that he comes back at full strength either and Cross isn’t dominant at all. So many mediocre position groups to improve upon. Assuming new coaches will help us maybe win 1-2 more games compared to Pete, but I don’t see the same talent on our team compared to 49ers and Rams, as well as the draft capital of the Cards. Need to make every pick count, as always.
I'm really curious about the work being done behind the scenes by John Schneider (and his team) on how to improve picks when trading down. Surely they must look at previous drafts and say something along the lines of "when we trade down, our drafts end up being kind of shitty." Maybe they incorrectly estimate who will be around when their new pick arrives? Maybe they aren't at their best at separating players into tiers?
And on that note, what's the difference between trading up and trading down (from a player/tier perspective, or from a scouting perspective)? In both cases I would presume you're trying to get one of the last guys in a specific tier (well, at least with trading up). Maybe they are good at ranking the top 30 guys in the draft, but bad below that? Maybe they go for the home run too often (they definitely have a bunch of home runs, but a bunch of strikeouts, too).
Bottom line - I want so bad to be in the room during the draft, just to hear the conversations. That'd be so fun.
Harrison/Alt I had to noodle on for a bit, but at the end of the day, Harrison might be the most talented player in this draft, and Alt can't begin to claim that, so it would have to be Harrison. There is also some debate that Alt might not even be the best OT in this draft, so there's that.
Trying to pick a single player for the Seahawks in the first round is really hard, especially this year.
- They may not pick at all in the 1st round if they can find enough willing trade downs, and depending on how their board is stacked and who falls to them at 16.
- New coaching staff, and we have no idea what they think of the current roster, or what they value at each position, other than MacDonald talking about versatility a lot. Side note, they've kept MacDonald out of the press for a while now. Some of that is just to protect his time I expect, but some of that, I think, is so he doesn't say too much ahead of the draft. Speculation of course.
- They may pick at 16, or 22nd, or 25th, or 28th, or who knows where else. Picking a player without a draft slot is, well, hard.
- The deeper they trade back in the first round (if they do trade back) the more likely we'll see the Seahawks pull an upset, and pick someone well ahead of the consensus value, just because they evaluate differently. Of all the things I ponder about the draft, this is the one I keep coming back to. Who do most draftnicks have as a 2nd round player that the Seahawks might look at quite differently. Could be one of the LB's. Could be someone like Darius Robinson. Could be one of the WR's. Nothing would surprise me.
I've given up trying to guess. They have so much more information than I do, it's silly really. If you do pick a player SSJ, and you're right again, I will tip my cap to you and become a Super Joe. That's a promise.
Whoever we draft, regardless of position, needs to make the team and make the team better. Looking at our roster vs where we pick and who we likely will be able to draft, I'm left thinking we are not going to make a ton of picks this year. As we get into rounds 5-7 I just don't know if there is much likelihood of players even making the team, let alone making us markedly better. Not many holes to fill and coaches still need to figure out who's on the team still. I have used several draft sims and I like my results of trading back from 16 and trading up from anything 100-120ish or later. Make 4 picks between 30ish and 100ish or 5 picks between 30ish and 120ish....I tend to get 4-5 players with great chances to make the team and help out. Just my opinion...but for the love can we speed up the clock and lets do this already!!!! DRAFT WEEK IS HERE!!!!!
Most of my votes depended upon who I thought the BPA was more than their position.
A question I have had to ask myself is, "Is trading down necessarily antithetical to Best Player Available?" And my quick answer is yes, BPA necessitates that you NOT trade down. But upon further thought, I can see it isn't black or white, yes or no, it's more of, well, trading down might mean you see a group of players as all equally good and that means trading down and getting the last one of that group is OK with you, while getting some sweetener to add to your draft haul. Or, a team could even concede that by trading down they are going to lose out on the BPA at 16, but see the added pick derived from the deal as enough compensation to make the deal palatable and worth the risk.
Still, if you give up a "blue chip player" for two that are likely to be decent but not spectacular players, I cannot see that as good value.
I don't think BPA vs Need is an "either/or" proposition in the 1st -3rd rds (depending on where JSMM draw the line). I like JS's comment quoted in the article that he will go BPA early, then needs late. I agree with that basic premise. The thing is that you draft BPA, but there has to be a tier of players you consider to be "worth" your pick. If there is 1 guy, then he is the guy. If there are 6 in that "tier", then you go with the guy from that tier that fills the biggest need.
If we ignore need, then we could theoretically get good players that never see the field (or not enough of it, or don't reach their full potential until leaving) at certain positions (say, DB), while we continually underachieve as a team because other position groups are liabilities.
That's why I like the tier system. We balance talent with needs to raise our overall team talent as efficiently as possible. Then, as our team gets closer to a Super Bowl contender, we move more towards blind-BPA.
I tried to answer my survey questions through my tier-system lens, so every answer has the caveat attached: IF these 2 guys are considered in the same tier by JS, then I go with -blank-. It is then strictly a needs-based analysis since I removed the 1st variable by assuming BPA being equal. I inferred from the details of the Mitchell vs JPJ question that Mitchell is considered a tier-above JPJ, so I voted Mitchell in that circumstance. IF MM can get them all on the field, then I say goat's head and do it. If not, and all similarly tiered players are gone, then we can trade down as far as we can while guaranteeing we get a guy from that next tier.
I voted to trade down, but only in so much as we can get more picks in that top-120 (or whever JS's line is) good starting-caliber player range while minimizing our losses of picks in that acceptable range this year and next year. I would be ECSTATIC if we trade up, though. It would mean we identified an immediate difference maker then went to get him. It just seems that we don't enough desirable resources move into the next tier of guys above where #16 pick falls. So ecstatic as I would be,I might be even more surprised than ecstatic.
I didn’t realise that Latu had retired and returned. I think that would make him a risk of potentially not a long term option and maybe shows he hasn’t got that chip on his shoulder that the hawks so love. He’s off the list in my book.
Also, what’s the 2025 QB pool looking like? I’d rather address that sooner than later if it’s looking shallow.
Fun experiment. I too made choices based on who I thought was better. My overall thought is that for a team to compete for a Super Bowl the team needs multiple all pros. In the most recent Super Bowl the 49ers had an all pro LT, RB, WR, ILB and DE. The Chiefs had an All pro QB, TE, LG (injured but they are not there without him) C, DT and CB. Some are premium positions and some aren’t. What I know is the Seahawks don’t have any - I have hopes for Witherspoon, Cross (injured all of last year turf toe = 80%), JSN, Mafe Walker, and Woolen (if he can learn to tackle) but at this only Witherspoon looks particularly promising. I have harped on the foolishness of passing on a potential all pro on the interior offensive line just because of the position value because I believe the value has changed. But I am happy with any player that is special. To contend the Seahawks need more of those.
If the rest of the roster were fixed up, Geno Smith is plenty good enough to get us deep into the playoffs. Only once we've shown we can get deep in the playoffs, should a new QB be considered -- and most of the new college QB's in our range are liable to be busts, or at least are not as good as Howell.
There are no insiders predicting that the Seahawks will trade up in the first round so it will be a huge shock if it happens. That would be exciting! And I would love to see it.
Without access to confidential medical reports on Latu and Penix (which I would be both unable and unqualified to read) I'm unwilling to advocate for either. Draft chatter says next year's QB class won't be as good, but I'm not convinced by the same draft chatter that this class is any kind of bargain. And Daniels was a marginal first rounder at the beginning of the season. At QB I want to see how Howell pans out, and hope we pick up someone as a UDFA or round 7 chance (I keep going back to Devin Leary because UK wasn't good, especially on offense -- three mid-round draft prospects, one an RB -- and he comes out of a pro scheme; and his OC is now a pro OC). One of too many mocks I've clicked on had us trade 16 with GB for, what is it, 36 and 40? And the picks there seemed as solid and hopeful and useful as anybody I've seen mocked to us at 16, only it was a two-for-one deal. We need a WR for the future and this is a deep WR class, with solid prop prospects dropping into the third round. The roster seems good...enough...for us to draft BPA. But what I want to feel at the end of seven rounds is that we got better, and that we made at least one position on the roster so dominant that other teams will have to adapt to us. Every. Single. Time. The more choices we have, the more chances we have to hit with a terrific player. If next year's draft is anticipated to be a dud, that would seem to make grabbing solid prop players out of this one a priority. Next year, maybe, you trade up because that's the best choice. But we have nothing to trade that gets us a blue chip prospect unless things fall just right.
My QB OK is based on the assumption that Penix is still available…lol
I thought about trading up vs down.
In my opinion the cost for trading up in the first is a bit too high most of the times, but trading up from later round picks is the perfect "get who we still want" scenario. Especially when we consider that most late round prospects won't have any impact at all.
Participatory article. Fun SJ. Be nice to have a few more in your repertoire please.
Maybe Aaron Rodgers II will fall to 16. I’d be OK with that. QB on rookie contract with our cap would be nice. Glad we aren’t the Cowboys who have to either pay Dak $60 million or start over
I think I would most like to have extra picks if possible, but if we think we can get “the guy” at QB or WR or CB or Edge, you need to grab them earlier most likely. I would include DL, OT, and TE as also someone to think about. Need to expect both Lockett and DK to be gone in the next 2 years at best. Abe is no guarantee that he comes back at full strength either and Cross isn’t dominant at all. So many mediocre position groups to improve upon. Assuming new coaches will help us maybe win 1-2 more games compared to Pete, but I don’t see the same talent on our team compared to 49ers and Rams, as well as the draft capital of the Cards. Need to make every pick count, as always.
I'm really curious about the work being done behind the scenes by John Schneider (and his team) on how to improve picks when trading down. Surely they must look at previous drafts and say something along the lines of "when we trade down, our drafts end up being kind of shitty." Maybe they incorrectly estimate who will be around when their new pick arrives? Maybe they aren't at their best at separating players into tiers?
And on that note, what's the difference between trading up and trading down (from a player/tier perspective, or from a scouting perspective)? In both cases I would presume you're trying to get one of the last guys in a specific tier (well, at least with trading up). Maybe they are good at ranking the top 30 guys in the draft, but bad below that? Maybe they go for the home run too often (they definitely have a bunch of home runs, but a bunch of strikeouts, too).
Bottom line - I want so bad to be in the room during the draft, just to hear the conversations. That'd be so fun.
Harrison/Alt I had to noodle on for a bit, but at the end of the day, Harrison might be the most talented player in this draft, and Alt can't begin to claim that, so it would have to be Harrison. There is also some debate that Alt might not even be the best OT in this draft, so there's that.
Trying to pick a single player for the Seahawks in the first round is really hard, especially this year.
- They may not pick at all in the 1st round if they can find enough willing trade downs, and depending on how their board is stacked and who falls to them at 16.
- New coaching staff, and we have no idea what they think of the current roster, or what they value at each position, other than MacDonald talking about versatility a lot. Side note, they've kept MacDonald out of the press for a while now. Some of that is just to protect his time I expect, but some of that, I think, is so he doesn't say too much ahead of the draft. Speculation of course.
- They may pick at 16, or 22nd, or 25th, or 28th, or who knows where else. Picking a player without a draft slot is, well, hard.
- The deeper they trade back in the first round (if they do trade back) the more likely we'll see the Seahawks pull an upset, and pick someone well ahead of the consensus value, just because they evaluate differently. Of all the things I ponder about the draft, this is the one I keep coming back to. Who do most draftnicks have as a 2nd round player that the Seahawks might look at quite differently. Could be one of the LB's. Could be someone like Darius Robinson. Could be one of the WR's. Nothing would surprise me.
I've given up trying to guess. They have so much more information than I do, it's silly really. If you do pick a player SSJ, and you're right again, I will tip my cap to you and become a Super Joe. That's a promise.
A pro scout, friend of the family, once told me that there isn't a significant difference after the 1st ten to 15 picks than the next 60
players talent wise. It all comes down to drive to be the best, heart, and love of the game. That can't be measured by physical metrics.
For every Cam " Bam" Chancellor there's a Ryan Leaf.