HawkShack.com

https://www.seahawks.com/news/inside-th ... -nfl-draft

Cool article on the Hawks website about the draft. It's a good read.

I'm always skeptical at these types of articles. It's written by a guy who works for the Seahawks, John Boyle, the team's digital media reporter, and published on the team's website, so obviously he's going to cast everything in a super positive light, highlighting the brilliance of his bosses. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's inaccurate, just that it's a very one sided point of view and they'll tell you only what the Hawks want you to hear.

I read a similar article a number of years ago that lauded Schneider's move to pick Bruce Irvin, a player not expected to be taken in the first round, with the #15 overall, how Rex Ryan of the Jets, who just happened to be sitting on the #16 overall, was hugely upset when we selected Irvin just ahead of them as the Hawks were high fiving each other in celebration. I've always wondered if the Hawks didn't start that rumor just to soothe the fan base, many of whom was questioning the very curious selection, that the Hawks weren't the only team willing to spend such a high pick on Irvin.

I'm not trying to equate Cross with Irvin. Cross was not nearly the reach that Irvin was. All I'm saying is to consider the source.

No he wasn't, in fact we were lucky Cross was still available. Many mocks (especially the earlier ones) had the "big three" Tackles gone by our pick, one had them going 1-2-3.

c_hawkbob wrote:No he wasn't, in fact we were lucky Cross was still available. Many mocks (especially the earlier ones) had the "big three" Tackles gone by our pick, one had them going 1-2-3.

Oh, I agree that Cross wasn't a reach, which is why I went out of my way not to compare him to Irvin. I guess I shouldn't have said "near the reach". My point was more about the source of the article than it was about any of our selections.

Cross was clearly one of 3 players they wanted. All OT's.
They had to take an OT because of the holes not filled by FA, so it was obvious in hindsight that was the pick.
I didn't pick him in Bob's draft, though dammit.

RiverDog wrote:I'm always skeptical at these types of articles. It's written by a guy who works for the Seahawks, John Boyle, the team's digital media reporter, and published on the team's website, so obviously he's going to cast everything in a super positive light, highlighting the brilliance of his bosses.

Skeptical? It was an article to give some insight on the energy of a draft room as decisions get made. What negatives do you think might have been left out when the draft seemed to fall in place for our choices? I thought there would be disappointment when Edge Rusher Arnold Ebiketie was taken by the Falcons as he seemed like an obvious target for them. It's a feel good article but unless there was blatant lying about what went down I am not sure of the perspective you're placing on its content?

tarlhawk wrote:Skeptical? It was an article to give some insight on the energy of a draft room as decisions get made. What negatives do you think might have been left out when the draft seemed to fall in place for our choices? I thought there would be disappointment when Edge Rusher Arnold Ebiketie was taken by the Falcons as he seemed like an obvious target for them. It's a feel good article but unless there was blatant lying about what went down I am not sure of the perspective you're placing on its content?

I don't necessarily believe that "the draft seemed to fall in place for our choices". Keep in mind that their job is to create excitement, and what better way to do that than to write an article saying that we got everything that we wanted?

For example, I don't necessarily believe (nor do I disbelieve) that Charles Cross was the top OT on our board. There were two other tackles taken ahead of him, so who's to say that he wasn't our 3rd option? But it creates a lot more excitement for fans if the team comes out and says exuberantly that "we got our man!" Ticket sales goes up. Jerseys start selling like hotcakes. Advertisers start lining up for time slots. You'll never, ever, see a war room of any NFL team looking like they're at a funeral. They're always going to be bubbling with optimism.

Reading those articles directly from the team's PR is like reading a company's quarterly report. They're always going to paint the situation in the best possible light, whether it's an accurate reflection or not.

I suspect we would have had the same article if it was one of the other two who
was there at pick number nine.

NorthHawk wrote:I suspect we would have had the same article if it was one of the other two who was there at pick number nine.

Yup, which is my point. I don't necessarily buy the company line no matter what company is selling it. Just take it with a grain of salt.

You two are trying to make a point that isn't as "clear" as you are professing...the article never mentions Cross as their top rated Tackle...it mentioned that when Neal was taken with the Giants 7th rd pick (no doubt why the Giants had no interest in trading down to the one team they feared would take the Tackle they wanted) they decided to wait it out since Cross was the top remaining Tackle choice at the time when Evan Neal was taken...which implies they knew the Giants were taking a tackle and by "trading up" to their
7th pick we would have Cross for sure. This doesn't mean Ekwonu wasn't the top tackle on their board...he was already gone. Evan Neal dropped from being the "tackle" of choice shortly before the draft as some (rumors) started to reason he may be better suited to play at guard.

Every team says the same thing after the draft.
WE GOT THE GUY WE WANTED!!!!
And everyone knows they are probably lying.
The first overall pick would be the exception.

NorthHawk wrote:Every team says the same thing after the draft.
WE GOT THE GUY WE WANTED!!!!
And everyone knows they are probably lying.
The first overall pick would be the exception.

Exactly! How many HC's/GM's have you ever heard say that they were disappointed in the results of their draft? All of the live videos you see of any NFL team's war room during the draft shows them celebrating each and every pick as if they'd just won the lottery when everyone knows that it isn't the case, that it's all for show.

That's why I take these articles with a grain of salt.

wow you guys are so skeptical I'm surprised you even watch the draft? A lot of people not associated with the team have raved about the draft and our selections but yet you find some who hate PC/JS so much they dislike/suspect anyone or source that throws credit their way...I am not surprised...just saddened.

tarlhawk wrote:wow you guys are so skeptical I'm surprised you even watch the draft? A lot of people not associated with the team have raved about the draft and our selections but yet you find some who hate PC/JS so much they dislike/suspect anyone or source that throws credit their way...I am not surprised...just saddened.

A lot of people also said the 2020 draft was one of the worst drafts ever made and it got us Wilson and Wagner, so what others say is quite irrelevant.
Remember most of those talking about and grading drafts have a stake in being right on the picks. So if it matches their "Board" they think it's great.

As far as teams go in the draft process? They will never ever come out and say we wanted player X but had to settle for player Y. If they did so, it would
be an acknowledgement that they failed, and it would put the drafted player in a bad position of being second or 3rd choice and maybe lose some confidence.
As well, when teams say the player they selected was number one on their board, they might not be lying. They may be talking about when they made the
selection so it's technically true that at the time their pick came up that player was at the top of their board as the others they rated higher were gone.

That's not to say the picks are bad, rather it says that teams FO's are all disingenuous when it comes to divulging what they really wanted to do and what
their actual board looked like.

tarlhawk wrote:wow you guys are so skeptical I'm surprised you even watch the draft? A lot of people not associated with the team have raved about the draft and our selections but yet you find some who hate PC/JS so much they dislike/suspect anyone or source that throws credit their way...I am not surprised...just saddened.

Speaking for myself, I was very pleased, more so than any draft in recent years, with our picks. I'm just not enamored with the hype, which describes most of what is in the article in the OP.

And I do not 'hate' PC/JS. IMO the word 'hate' is the most misused term in the English language. There aren't many people in this world that I truly hate that aren't murderers or rapists.

NorthHawk wrote: They will never ever come out and say we wanted player X but had to settle for player Y. If they did so, it would
be an acknowledgement that they failed, ...

Its a draft...a lot of luck and good fortune is unfortunately at play. Perhaps they were hoping for Thibodeaux or Ikwanu when they called the Giants to trade up 2 spots...but after getting off the phone for the Giants to get their 5th rd pick (snagged Thibodeaux with that one) then the follow up call became a non-issue as Ikwanu got selected with the 6th leaving the Giants who no doubt feared we also wanted to trade up to grab a tackle...revealed they were staying with their pick (selecting Evan Neal with their 7th pick)...so we sweated out the Falcons selection till Cross fell to us (There are still many draft geeks who felt Cross could be had mid to late 1rst rd...even high second).

Still others who rated both Cross and Lucas highly...felt they were a bad "scheme fit" for a Seahawk team set to emphasize the run...perhaps bad scheme fit from two years ago...but Waldron's expected offense leans with expectations of more zone blocking and less power blocking which minimizes the heavy "hand in the dirt" power run blocking and instead emphasizes speed and athleticism.

I've always said the draft is about selecting potential and it's no different where you pick, no player is a sure thing.
However, in not addressing OT in FA, they were forced to go for the best remaining OT at #9 being that they only had
2 2nd year players left on the roster of any real value and not much other depth.
Who did they really want? Only those in the draft room really know.

Regarding Waldrons Offense, Pete has is formula for Offense and his OCs have had to adhere to that view.
If Bevell and Schottenheimer who both had far more experience as an OC in the NFL had to play within that
box, what makes you think Pete would allow a relatively inexperienced OC to change that philosophy? We've
run power schemes and ZBS schemes and hybrid ZBS schemes under this regime, but the Offense has remained
the same.
I don't expect anything to change, with the exception of being even more conservative because of the downgrade
at QB and it will get even tighter if turnovers caused by QBs occur.

That they tried to move up from 9 and back into 1st tells you Cross was not their #1 guy and they acted Karloftis or Johnson II ahead of Mafe. Not that they don’t like these, but settled.

TriCitySam wrote:That they tried to move up from 9 and back into 1st tells you Cross was not their #1 guy and they acted Karloftis or Johnson II ahead of Mafe. Not that they don’t like these, but settled.

My guess is when Evan Neal started to slide they wanted him.
Our FO seems to like versatile OL, and since he's played 4 of the 5 OL positions, he would fit that profile.
But having said that, I'm pretty sure their plan was to get one of the OT's regardless of who it was and it ended up being Cross.
Let's hope he's a quick study and they let him play and develop at one position.

Evan Neil was my #1.

c_hawkbob wrote:Evan Neil was my #1.

He also fits from a physical standpoint with how McVay's OL is constructed at 6-7 350lbs should Waldron want to follow that plan.

I thought that Neal would have been gone by at least #5 and was surprised at how many cornerbacks went as high as they did. Even though it was a weak QB class, I figured that one of them, perhaps Malik Willis, would go in the top 10. I had Gardner as my top pick for the Hawks.