Seahawks on Top-100: Who can it be now? Who can it be in 2024?
Seahawks on Top-100: Who can it be now? Who can it be in 2024?
Seaside Joe 1574
When discussing any ranking, common questions revolve around “Who?” and “Where?” but perhaps the most Seaside Joe-appropriate reaction would be, “Why?”.
Rankings and awards do not matter to Seaside Joe, including and sometimes especially a top-100 list, so why even bring it up? I believe that the Eagles had more “top-100” quality players than the Chiefs had in the last Super Bowl and Philadelphia couldn’t win that game. So it’s not all about volume, right?
But Kansas City also has the number one player in the NFL, in addition to a top-five defensive player and a top-five weapon. The Eagles got through the NFC in 2022 and for many people who follow football, overwhelming favorites in 2023, largely thanks to their deep roster featuring eight Pro Bowlers.
I recall reading an ESPN article years ago that said something along the lines of, “You need to have X-number of blue chip players to compete for the Super Bowl” and though at the time I believe they said the Cowboys had the most (and clearly did not get close to the Super Bowl), we can still go back to 2014 when PFF’s Sam Monson ranked the Seattle Seahawks as having the most-talented roster.
Right in between their two Super Bowl appearances.
Why does making a top-100 ranking list matter? It doesn’t.
Why does having a significant number of starters who could make such a list matter? Because talented players help their teammates look more talented. The more of those you have, the more of those you will have.
Last year’s NFL Top-100 had Tom Brady number one. Clearly these rankings can change dramatically year-over-year. The Seahawks actually cut/traded more players on the list (Bobby Wagner, Russell Wilson) than they had themselves (Quandre Diggs, 72nd overall).
Seattle should have more representation this year and I noticed this today as CBS Sports’ still-employed Pete Prisco posted his own list this week. Here are the Seahawks on his list:
#55 - WR DK Metcalf
#86 - CB Tariq Woolen
It’s probably fewer than you expected—it is fewer than I expected, and the wrong receiver, in my opinion—but the NFL’s “official” list should have more. In looking for other lists, I see that a website called Sportsnaut has Tyler Lockett 95th, Metcalf 89th, and Bobby Wagner 44th.
Prisco has Wagner, Charles Cross, Geno Smith, and Dre’Mont Jones on his “honorable mentions” list.
Personally, I would have Abe Lucas over Cross and I wouldn’t even go that far with Geno Smith or Dre’Mont Jones. Why not “go that far” for a Seahawks newsletter? The answer is similar to when I explained why I always want you to be at least a little disappointed when I make trade proposals.
Seaside Joe wants to be the most objective Seahawks writer in the Seahawks universe. I think that’s what is most fair to…other Seahawks fans.
Fan out during the games on Sundays, sure, but be objective at all other times.
Going with simply a gut feeling based on what I perceive as “probable top-100 inclusion based on previous years, positional value, and this abstract concept known as talent,” I think Lockett and Woolen are the only two players on the roster who seem like LOCKS for my roster. Maybe after I actually go through making an entire top-100 list, that number will go up, but this is just a gut feeling and not my final answer.
My players on the fringe this year:
WR DK Metcalf
Rarely have the Seahawks drafted offensive weapons who have the potential to be top-10 overall in the league, but Seattle has a guy like that with Metcalf. However, more consistency and fewer mistakes are necessary before he gets close to that and given the depth at receiver around the NFL, he may only be a fringe top-100 guy at this time.
LB Bobby Wagner
He could definitely be top-100, if not top-50, and his value to the Seahawks is immeasurable. He was the best player on the Rams last season, though that isn’t saying much. It’s a remarkable accomplishment to be a fringe top-100 player after 11 years in the league.
S Quandre Diggs
Another player perhaps more defined by his intangibles than his tangibles. But the biggest thing working against Diggs is positional value and you can’t tell me that positional value has no place in a top-100; if that’s the case, then Justin Tucker is top-10 and Michael Dickson is somewhere in the top-100 too. Safeties, linebackers, running backs, tight ends, and interior offensive linemen all have to do more than the average to prove they belong and once you go through the names like Derrick Henry, Travis Kelce, Quenton Nelson, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Roquan Smith, etc., you just don’t have many spots left.
DE Dre’Mont Jones
Just don’t know enough about him yet. Maybe next year. Which brings me to “Maybe next year”…
Maybe next year
RB Kenneth Walker III
I definitely think he could be a fringe guy right now. As far as explosiveness goes, Walker is second to nobody. Given another year under his belt, Walker could be an All-Pro at the position.
WR Jaxon Smith-Njigba
Who knows. I got a feeling!
OT Charles Cross, Abe Lucas
It’s very difficult to prove yourself at the offensive tackle position and it will be even harder for Lucas. How many top-100 right tackles will there be after Lane Johnson?
SS Jamal Adams
If he’s healthy, you can’t completely rule him out.
CB Devon Witherspoon
If Sauce Gardner can do it in one year, maybe Witherspoon can too.
Why I don’t include
QB Geno Smith
Nothing against Geno, but given the difficult nature of the position, and the skepticism that follows him around after a decade on the bench, maybe he has to prove a lot more than others to get that kind of respect. Even if he has a great season in 2023, will people say it’s because the Seahawks have such a talented supporting cast? We’ll see! If Justin Fields can get on the top-100, literally anyone can make it.
OLB Uchenna Nwosu
A very good player and the Seahawks should extend him, but not sure I saw anything “top-100-y” about him as an edge rusher in 2022.
We could definitely expand the “Maybe next year!” to a long list of names, Zach Charbonnet, Derick Hall, Jordyn Brooks, Damien Lewis, Jason Myers, and so on. I had to make a cut-off somewhere though.
What’s perhaps more important though: How many top-25 players could the Seahawks have in 2024? Right now, they aren’t likely to have any. If Metcalf, Woolen, and a couple of others can get into that territory by next year, that could be far more beneficial to Seattle’s Super Bowl chances.
Who is on your top-100? Let me know in the comments, share us with other Seahawks fans, and consider upgrading to premium to support Seaside Joe and get a lot of bonus content!
I would love to see two guys in our front seven (not including BWagz) be at least in the conversation next year. Dre'mont Jones, Nwosu and Brooks may be the best bets, but my vision board has one of our young edge players force his name into the top 50 this season. I know it's just preseason optimism, but I feel like Hall has the best chance of exceeding expectations out of the edge group. I think he is going to be a better all-around player than Taylor, and Mafe might just be a solid backup.
I also believe JSN will be a mainstay on that list beginning in 2024. Get ready for the press conference where DK and NoE are like "Yeah Jaxon is the best player we've ever been around," and JSN says "ah man, those guys have taught me so much, but yeah, they're right about me being the best." Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
If we disconsider positional value, Dickson is the only guy on the team I can say with confidence: “he’s the best on the league at his position”.
A healthy Adams can be the best safety in the league. Woolen and Witherspoon can eventually become the two best corners. Lucas eventually the best right tackle. To me, those are the guys with highest potential.
But a list with positional value is much different. You can have a team with Mahomes and scrubs and they will fight for the Super Bowl. QBs have an outsized value. Kirk Cousins is probably more impactful than Justin Jefferson, even though he would be much worse without the latter.