Seahawks Insider

Monday Morning QB 12-27 live chat transcript

Post by Eric Williams on Dec. 27, 2010 at 9:38 am with 9 Comments »
December 27, 2010 10:37 am

Sorry, running late. We’ll get started in about 10 minutes.

Leave a comment Comments → 9
  1. SeahawkFan12 says:

    I am amazed at how many “fans” have the “lose Sunday so we get a better draft pick in April” mentality.

    Not only is it a defeatist mindset, it is ridiculous. Look at the Rams, the Lions and any other team that has spent the last 5 to 10 years in mediocrity, picking up over-paid high draft picks.

    I’ll take a division title and a home playoff game any day. But then I again, I prefer winning over losing.

  2. Dukeshire says:

    Agreed, there’s no guarantee picking earlier will land a team a better player, it does gives you more choices, but that’s it. And in addition, Carroll has preached competition since his first day. Trading a win for draft position goes against everything he stands for and is trying to build.

  3. “Real fans” are perfectly pleased with rooting for one of the worst teams in franchise history to further dig the hole they are in.

    The only possible good I can see out of a win is that somehow Whitehurst establishes himself as the QB in the future and is a factor in the team making the playoffs and winning the first game. If that was the case, this season was a major success.

    If they get into the playoffs because Leon Washington returns 3 punts for TDs and then get blown out in the first game, this season will go down as a waste of a year because of the QB situation.

  4. Dukeshire says:

    That’s a pretty dramatic either or scenario, reality will likely fall somewhere in the middle however.

  5. SeahawkFan12 says:

    Trading a win for draft position goea against everything any winner stands for. Losers pray for losses in hopes of some pay off in the end.

    Whitehurst is not the QB or the future, so get over it.

    Real fans root for their team ALWAYS, regardless of where they stand in franchise history. There is no “off switch” for true loyalty.

  6. HawkyHann says:

    Please Seattle Seahawk coaches and mgmt. Lets call a spade a spade. Marcus Trufant sucks. He brings nothing. Trade him and get something for this washed up, over paid joke. He is pathetic to watch play pass coverage. I’d put anyone out there over him. Every single WR owns him. His career is in jeopardy

    Read more:

  7. I’m a Hawks fan and I love stats. Draft picks tend to pan out according to when they were picked. “Advanced NFL Stats” is a good site to view the probability of drafting a future Pro-Bowler vs where your team is slotted to pick, to see how many years the draftee will be a starter based on where he’s taken, and # of Pro Bowl selections divided by years as starter by draft order. (Look at the graphs). The difference between winning and losing vs STL this Sunday is picking #10 (if we lose) vs picking #21 (at best – draft-wise, if we win). Historically, by picking #1 overall, CAR has over a 50% chance of picking a player who makes at least one ProBowl appearance. By picking #10, SEA has a 40% probability of picking a player with at least one ProBowl appearance. By picking 21st the odds go to just over 20% (or are cut nearly in half).

  8. Dukeshire says:

    I’m not convinced making it to one pro bowl is an accurate measure in determining whether a draft pick pans out. But then again I’m not as into stats as klm. I’m more in line with Bill Walsh’s thoughts on the matter. To quote;

    “…For example, many sports writers tend to believe that if an individual is selected in the first or second round of the draft, then that athlete should meet pro bow standards. In reality, such a perception is neither warranted not reasonable. Personally, I believe a more reasonable, objective approach to assessing the value of a particular draft choice involves looking at his specific effort on the team. In that regard, if that player contributes in a measurable way for at least two years, he should be considered a “”good”” draft choice.”

    Of course we’d all like more than two years of “measurable contributions”, but it seems a more reasonable assessment than if a player makes a pro bowl, perhaps not even for the team that drafted him. (It seems like Advanced Stats chart #2 is more along these lines.)

    Not that either approach is right or wrong, just different perspectives.

  9. Duke – Very, very interesting. Maybe too interesting – my mind starts meandering. . .

    You’re right on with Walsh’s statement. :-) Even though the slope of the curve goes downward from the #1 to the #32 pick (Advanced Stats Graph #2 of the article) just as it goes mostly downward as the “Probability of Being a ProBowl Selection”‘s curve (graph #1 of the article), the difference between 1st round players is much less in terms of yrs as starters (4 or 5). 2nd round players still beat the 2 yrs, and 3rd rd players almost average the 2 yrs.

    If years as starters was the criterion for success, and I was PA, I’d have JS pick the first 2 rounds of players, then I’d hire TR to pick the 3rd & 4th rounders, and then I’d have PC pick the 5th-7th rounders. Maybe someone other than PC should pick those last rounds, though. If the picker is the coach, he may have an incentive to give inordinant opportunities to players he’s selected over those selected by others (eg Holmgren’s 1st rounders). But, I really don’t believe PC has that kinda ‘player loyalty over whats best for the team’ approach that Holmgren was accused of having.

    Depending on position, starters vary from game to game based on the personnel required for the play called to start the game, so the definition of starter might include more than just those people who always start every game, and it might include the 22 players who started the most games – it may include only those players who started in majority of games, or, it might include anyone who started in any game. If Hawks picked a star PR/KR like LW, he could still have a major impact even without ever starting a single game.

    If it’s not years “starting” but years of significant impact, I’d go for it.

    I want a team that “wins forever” (or at least is a team of the decade) with pro-bowl starters and starter-quality backups in every position “competing” for the starter’s job and pushing the starters to play above the normal level of play needed to normally keep a starters job. Hawks have neither ProBowl starters nor backups meeting the above description. Right now, Hawks starters aren’t good enough to be backups in the set of players that I’m looking for.

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