Seahawks Insider

Morning links: Cruising through the mock drafts

Post by Eric Williams on April 21, 2010 at 10:38 am with 32 Comments »
April 21, 2010 10:38 am

With a day left before the draft, let’s take a quick tour around some mocks to get an idea of who people have Seattle taking in the first round.

A group of NFL Network analysts got together and participated in a mock draft of the first round. Charles Davis selected Tennessee safety Eric Berry at No. 6 for Seattle, and Brian Billick selected Florida cornerback Joe Haden for Seattle at No. 14. Clemson running back C.J. Spiller was still on the board, along with Rutgers offensive tackle Anthony Davis.

Sport Illustrated’s Peter King has the Seahawks selecting Oklahoma State offensive tackle Russell Okung at No. 6 overall and Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen at No. 14.

The Sporting News has the Seahawks selecting Oklahoma offensive tackle Trent Williams at No. 6 and Michigan defensive end Brandon Graham at No. 14.

Rob Rang of still has Seattle selecting Oklahoma State tackle Russell Okung at No. 6 and Georgia Tech defensive end Derrick Morgan at No. 14, while his colleague Chad Reuter has the Seahawks selecting Trent Williams at No. 6 and Spiller at No. 14.

I participated in a mock draft on ESPN this morning, and Dukeshire will be happy to hear I selected Morgan at No. 6 and Bulaga at No. 14. I’ll post the link once the draft is finished.

I talked with Kevin Calabro and Jim Moore of ESPN 710 Seattle about the Seahawks’ draft prospects in this audio link. The conversation is toward the end. We debated the merits of selecting Tennessee’s Berry at No. 6, and I noted between Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed and Bob Sanders, all playmaking safeties Berry has been compared to, those three missed a combined 27 games in 2009. I just think at 5-11, 200 pounds Berry might have durability issues because of the constant hitting he will have to do, and I don’t think you should pay a guy the kind of money he would make at No. 6 because of the possible injury concerns.

University of Washington product running back Corey Dillon was arrested on suspicion of DUI in Los Angeles early Wednesday morning.

And with Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger suspended for six games by the league, talk of the possibility of the Steelers moving him in the trade has heated up.

Michael Rosenberg of Sports Illustrated says the draft has become the Super Bowl for team like Detroit.

Adam Schein of Fox Sports lists Oklahoma State receiver Dez Bryant and Rutgers offensive tackle Anthony Davis as tempting players to avoid in this year’s draft.

Morning links
Leave a comment Comments → 32
  1. BrianBlades says:

    Awesome. Can’t wait until tomorrow.

    I think we can all agree that no one knows what the hell is going to happen!

    I’m hoping we good some good offense, defense and special teams players.

  2. chuck_easton says:

    NFL network people just proved how dumb they really are.

    Seattle takes a Safety and a CB in the first round? No OL or DL?

    Great. We end up with a solid D backfield that will be running around all year because nobody can get to the other team’s QB and our offense can’t stay on the field for 3 plays, let alone a TD drive.

  3. I’d love to see Haden fall to us, but I still like Earl Thomas better as a DB at #14.

  4. Good point Chuck.

    Alex Gibbs will have much imput when it come to taking a LT. I have confidence in his ability to judge talent. If they take a LT in the first round, I’m sure he will be a good one.

  5. devisscher says:

    Pete Carroll is tweeting song that are supposed to have a link to our draft picks. Anyone got any ideas about those links?

  6. God damn Pete Carroll, I will spend way to much time thinking about that, and it probably doesn’t mean anything in the end, but still a fun idea.

  7. Dukeshire says:

    Eric, You got Bulaga at 14? What a coup! And I am happy to hear that. I emailed Snydro the morning of our draft and told him those were the two players I wanted and was debating who to select first. Nice work Eric. lol

  8. Could califonia love be a clue as to Jahvid Best? or to the fact that one if not all 3 backs from the state are possible targets?

    Jump around has to mean we should expect some trades come tomorrow.

  9. Dukeshire says:

    Can anyone imagine Bill Belichick doing something like this? Or tweeting, even.

  10. LOL no i cant imagine that. gotta give PC credit for bieng differat and keeping it fun. his tenure will be anything but boring.

  11. Rich Eisen has reported that the Steelers are shopping Big Ben, looking for a top ten first round pick. Would you trade the #6, or #14 pick for Ben Rothlisberger? He is suspended for 6 games next year, so definitely a win in a couple years approach. Tell me why or why not.

    I think it’s a great opportunity. The guy is big, strong, exceptional improviser and an on the field winner. We would have our franchise quarterback for another 7-10 years. Pete Carrol is good with problem children. We’re not going to be good next year anyway. Plus, as karma goes he’d be moving to a city full of educated, independent, feminist women, maybe he’ll learn something.

  12. Ok to trade down in the first round but not out of first round.

    First round, LT and pass rusher.

    Second round, safety, Morgan Burnett or Nate Allen.

  13. Smooth Criminal meaning a problem child? Back Door meaning a possible surprise pick?

  14. PC playing PR agent with twitter, leaving musical “clues” to the Seahawks draft. To football hard-cores like us, this is just stupid. At least I think it is. But you can also see why Seahawks marketing department would just love this guy. And no, Duke, I sure cannot imagine Bellichick tweeting!

  15. Olsonc, Ben would never be welcome here because of his character and also because Seahawk fans will never forget about stomping them in the travesty called Superbowl 40.

  16. SeahawkFan12 says:

    I love Rang’s picks. Picking a QB in the first round is such a crap shoot because they are as flighty as a teenage girl. Pick real men like tackles and d-linemen with first round picks, save the QBs for later rounds…

  17. “PC playing PR agent with twitter, leaving musical “clues” to the Seahawks draft. To football hard-cores like us, this is just stupid.”

    I know, I’m still a believer, but it’s hard not to find this a little goofy coming from your head coach . . .

  18. Dukeshire says:

    I can’t imagine he has time for this at all, right now. I’m hoping it’s someone in the Seahawk’s PR department. Or one of his daughters, as a friend of mine suggested.

  19. Seems to be even more differences of opinion between the “experts” then usual this year! Tomorrow will be interesting. I continue to hope for Okung, Williams or Berry.

  20. I’d rather have Clausen than BR. But I’m hoping for Okung and Spiller.

  21. surelyyoujest says:

    I understand the concerns re: size with Berry, but only to a point. Yes, Reed, Sanders, and Polamalu missed a fair amount of time recently, but in the first few years of their careers nobody was complaining, or suggesting they were bad picks. Bob Sanders and Troy Polamalu also have Superbowl rings to look at when they are injured.

    So, good point, but if Berry can come in and have the kind of impact those players had for 3-5 years (basically his rookie contract) then I still say you consider him in the #6 slot. A no brainer at #14, but he won’t slide that far.

  22. Ain’t going to happen, but wouldn’t it be awesome if Berry were to slip to 14?

    Personally, I would prob give up a troubled linebacker/trade #1 picks and ‘trade up’ for him…. if I had that chance….. I see Berry as a future Pro Bowler…

    Wow!!! Soooooo much speculation!!! It’s AWESOME!

    ERIC…. Any special plans for tomorrow???

  23. I meant, trade our #14 + linebacker for Berry… sorry…

  24. I’m done thinking ,talking doing anything with the draft.The draft is killing me off it’s almost here.Just like whant the butcher’s wife said when she watched the butcher step into the meat grinder.”It won’t be long now”

  25. Mock Drafting for Dummies ;-)

    Drafting is melding team needs and draft prospects skills. To mock a draft and match the actual draft you have to either be very lucky, or you have to know each team’s needs and how they rank the prospects in those positions needed. To make it easier to start and avoid complexity for now, just use the prospects position ranking instead of their name. For lazy fans like me, borrow from NFLDraftScout’s overall prospect rankings, which ranks all prospects across positions into one sequential list. If you don’t have player performance values from elsewhere, use numbers from the ‘draft pick value chart’, extending them to about the 320th ranked player, and apply them to the listed players (just the position rankings – e.g.: DT1, QB1, DT2, etc.) Then, divide each arbitrarily applied ranking by the overall sum of all of the applied performance values (then multiply the result by 100) to give a convenient (if arbitrary) relative performance value for each prospect. Overall prospect performance rankings have usually taken the traditional “positional hierarchy” of drafting into account (e.g.: you’ll never see the highest-performing kicker as the overall highest ranked prospect.)

    Then, borrow each team’s position need numbers;Team%20Needs. Position need numbers are the difference between the expected performance level of the team’s current players at a position and the performance level needed at that position for that team to be adequately staffed (i.e. weightage factors by position). Positions that are adequately staffed are given ratings from 0 to 2. Ignore these positions in the draft – they have solid starters and adequate backups. Positions that have adequate starters but lack depth are given ratings of 3 to 5. Select backup players later in the draft, or through free agency when needed. Positions ranked 6 to 8 have adequate backups but need a starter. Positions ranked 9 and 10 either need more than one starter or both a starter and backup(s). Usually, a 9 or 10 ranking means the position could really use a first rounder, the earlier the better. Divide these WF rating whole numbers by 10. Position weightage factors may have a team’s highest need being the kicker or punter (e.g.: DAL and GB this year.)

    Performance value (PV) times weightage factor (WF) equals prospects’ potential worth (PW) to the team:

    (PV)(WF) = PW

    Each team selects the prospect with the highest PW at each pick. Then, reduce the WF of that position for subsequent picks by the same % that the prospect’s expected to improve the performance of the position. Rates of expected PV vary by position and over time. Prospects selected for one position are more or less likely to play above the level of the average veteran at that position than prospects selected for another position, based on the nature of the position. The average annual number of drafted prospects who end up playing above the level of the average veteran together with the average number of prospects taken at a position each year follows, in order from the most likely position for rookies to succeed in to the least likely position: RB-7.7of 20.3, FB-2.7 of 7.3, CB-8.3 of 27.3, S-6.3 of 23.3, WR-6.3 of 29, DT-5 of 17, TE-3 of 12, LB-6 of 35.7, DE-3.7 of 19.7, P-1 of 3.3, QB-1.3 of 8, and K-1 of 2.7. Three positions not listed are OT, OG & C. It’s too easy to mis-attribute blame or platitudes to rookie OL players without knowing the actual assignments of each player for every play. However, they can be seen as needing a few years of working together on the OL before they become proficient. Like DEs, the sooner you get them on the team and working together, the sooner they can become an effective OL. Also, although 7 or 8 RBs may normally succeed out of the 20-odd drafted each year, they aren’t always the top 7-8 ranked RBs.

    Ignoring trades for now, a draft described above looks something like the displayed optimization of a hard disk, working down the list of ranked players – with teams slightly reaching at under-stocked positions towards the end of the draft, and yielding good values for teams picking players at positions not commonly required.

    The resulting complete mock represents how the draft would play out given the assumption that NFLDraftScout has both player rankings and position needs that match those of the 32 NFL teams. Teams that want to optimize the overall worth of the draft to their team will jockey positions round to round. If the assumptions were valid, teams could easily automate the process and quickly review the outcome of all potential pick trades prior to the draft. Beats sliding name cards in and out of “big board”?

  26. Based on NFLDraftScouts Team Needs and Prospect rankings, following each team’s picks before and finding the prospect with the best PW Hawks would pick:
    1-6: FS1 (Berry)
    1-14: RB1 (Spiller)
    2-60: CB9 (Owusu-Ansah)
    4-104: OT11 (Capers)
    4-127: DE14 (Geathers)
    5-132: WR16 (Cooper)
    5-139: OG6 (Newhouse)
    6-176: SS7 (Stewart)
    7-245: DT24 (Ivey)

  27. If I had it I’d bet $1M that the Hawks draft won’t look like that. ;-)

  28. Oops, I jus’ made a typo: 133 – not 132.

  29. Dukeshire says:

    Is this – Performance value (PV) times weightage factor (WF) equals prospects’ potential worth (PW) to the team: – your formula? And then I’m further confused a bit by the premise; to assemble a mock where the teams select BPA for their needs? By your second to last post, I presume you don’t intend it to be an accurate guess as to who they are likely to take.

  30. This is simple value-engineering applied to football, used for selecting between competing alternative solutions in many fields, including architecture with which I’m most familiar. For an owner whoose expertise is computers, you’ld think he’d have the software developed to follow which children in grade school are the potential best selections for LT in 2020. Looking at the Hawks ‘war room’ last year, if I’m remembering right, Hawks had slips with prospect names arranged vertically by rank and horizontally by team.

    Garbage in = garbage out. I simply plucked the ‘pick value chart’ to give numerical performance values to prospects – that’s an obvious error, but only to the extent of difference between the adjacent ranked players (given that the rankings are uniformly acceptable-LOL). The objective is to view the selection process as more of a math problem then getting caught up in pro-personnel staff ‘selling’ players to JS, which leads off into egos embued in prospects that doesn’t help solve the basic problem of selecting players.

    Maybe pay sites may have better performance values for prospects, but CBS Sports hasn’t upgraded their sites (neither overall player rankings nor team needs) for some time – even though Rang (et al) must have upgraded at NFLDraftScouts (otherwise you’ld think he’d end up with the same prospect selections). For instance, the numbers say it should be R.Cooper ( early in round 5, but he’s saying he’s being told that he’ll be selected before the 4th round. Either the WFs or the PVs (player rankings) are in error. The same must be true (either WF or PV error) if Rang truly believes OT1 will be available to Hawks.

    Did you see the ESPN article on taking RB1 before OT1: ? Interesting stuff.

  31. Wish I could spell. ;-(

  32. klm…. i agree…..won’t look like that… LOL!!!

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0