Who's Your Pick At #5

Who's Your Pick At #5

Poll ended at Wed Apr 26, 2023 6:20 pm

QB Bryce Young
0
No votes
DT Jalen Carter
9
33%
Edge/OLB Will Anderson Jr
6
22%
QB Will Levis
0
No votes
QB CJ Stroud
1
4%
QB Anthony Richardson
5
19%
CB Devon Witherspoon
0
No votes
Edge/OLB Tyree Wilson
3
11%
Edge/DE Myles Murphy
0
No votes
Trade Down (Please feel free to write-in your TD pick)
3
11%
 
Total votes: 27

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 13261
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Donn Beach » Mon Mar 27, 2023 1:31 am

There are reasons to trade back, mostly if the best player available isn't one you need. Instead of picking for need you trade the value. It's what the Bears did at number one. I wouldn't expect the Hawks to trade down very far. it's interesting Carter being mocked to the Bears at nine. they could trade down and still possibility get the player projected to go number one.

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Michael K. » Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:18 pm

auroraave wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:26 pm
Michael K. wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:54 pm
auroraave wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:46 pm

You're not understanding the concept. By drafting outside the top ten you are taking a lower cap hit. By acquiring more picks you are increasing the talent pool/competition to draw from. Theoretically you can improve more roster spots and create an overall higher floor, talent-wise, for the whole roster. You also have a more affordable roster with money more evenly distributed. These are critical moves because the biggest problem in the NFL is a season that is too long - resulting in injury attrition decimating teams. If you have a higher floor you likely have an overall better roster - and more affordable - and more likely to overcome season killing injuries. These are moves for the long game. You don't need stars - you need players that can get on the field and play - Seattle proved last year the over valuation of "stars" when they shipped out the 'star" quarterback. Stars are nice for marketing and you always want the best talant, but when those stars get injured the next man up may be a huge drop off - this theory makes the drop off lesser. The team with the best roster at the end of the season usually prevails. It's not about having a 3-4 "99" level players whose back ups are 75s. It's about having a complete roster of 89/90's. You can disagree with that theory, that's fine, but the league is about attrition - this angle makes sense because it looks to offset that. It's the future of the league, IMO. Geno is literally the test subject. This also losers the risk of concentrating assets in 'stars' who can get injured and the fall off hampering the team.
Aren't you the one always telling us the 49ers are so good because of all the high first round picks they accumulated from when they sucked? So, now? The goal should be to get one of those picks and not use it?

Trading back in this draft is only worth it if they stay in the Top 10. Not going to pretend I have disected the entire talent pool here, but I ususally buy into what Brock Huard says and what he hears. He has over and over this off season said this draft has 8 maybe 10 real studs. We have a shot at one. I am not in for trading away from those guys to acquire more Tedrick Thompson's and Mike Tyson's the way we used to do. Stay inside the top 8 or 10 and THEN maybe add a middle rounder? OK. But your worry over the salary cap, IMO, is misguided. No one worries about the salary cap anymore. It is going to explode here real soon based on the new TV deal.

The niners built a monster roster off of top end drafting because they were bad for years while the seahawks were constantly having winning seasons - you are skipping all context to what I have said. What LITERALLY derailed the 9ers run last year? Injuries TO STAR PLAYERS. Meaning? The depth behind them was a major drop off. You just proved my point. What I am suggesting is Seattle may be looking at a an alternative style of roster building with a minimum of top end investments in lieu of a higher overall talent average across the roster. I don't know how else to explain it. The league is about attrition and dealing with attrition - I have said this a thousand times on here - this is a logical way to address that. Really not sure how this isn't obvious. You do realize that the NFL's biggest infusion of recent cash in NOT the tv contracts - it's corporate sponsorships - the top ones being Draft Kings (gambling) and Phizer. I assume you altready know this... right? There will not likely be more monster TV deals coming up - the emergence of streaming and the recession make it risky. ESPN is already on life support.

Huh? So, the 49ers were "derailed" and lost the NFC Championship game because they had not one, not two, but three FUCKING QBS get hurt? Guess what? One of those guys is a guy they traded up in the first to get! The Niners have Stars, and they have those Stars because they USED high end first round picks. Not because they traded back. We have guys, we need Stars. If your definition of "derailed" is what the Niners did last year? Sign me up for us being "derailed" next year.

We have PLENTY of fucking picks. Adding more mediocrity makes no sense at all. They may trade back, but trading back to add multiple mid round or even a third rounder CAN NOT be the plan. This team needs more stars, not more depth. Your love with Depth is an odd one to me. We have Depth guys. Did you watch Cody Barton play last year? Depth guy. Did you watch our Center play last year? Depth guy. Did you watch our front 7 last year? Depth guys. Sorry, this team needs more DK's and fewer Dee Eskridge's.

This league is NOT about attrition, it's about Stars. You watched the playoffs last year and thought, "yep, good thing these teams have so much depth and didn't waste their time getting stars"? Injuries are going to happen. By your logic we should just make sure and have a TON of mediocrity to ensure that when one average to below average player gets hurt we have another one to put in. THAT is how you stay average. Great idea. You have flat out excused this team's fall to mediocrity for a few years now by pointing to them never drafting high in the first. Now? Your answer is to take that high pick and turn it into depth. Holy Shit.

As for Monster TV Deal. Google Sunday Ticket. I am sure gaining one BILLION a season for the NFL was chicken feed, right?
YouTube won the rights to “NFL Sunday Ticket” in a seven-year deal for a reported annual value between $2 billion and $2.5 billion. DirecTV pays $1.5 billion annually for “Sunday Ticket” in its current deal.
https://frontofficesports.com/nfl-sunda ... er-season/

EVERY SINGLE TIME I hear someone talk about the implications of the salary cap, I hear people that know shit saying "with the new television deal, these figures are going to rise". When they discuss why these deals are signed the way they are, huge money being pushed back, it isn't just because these teams are passing the buck along to later years, it's because they know that some of that BILLION extra EVERY DAMN YEAR is going to go back to the teams to spend on players.

They made a SHIT TON on television before, and just for the rights to show their games they damn near DOUBLED what was 1.5 Billion. Yep, no impact.
Last edited by Michael K. on Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Michael K. » Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:31 pm

SeattleAddict wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:53 pm
Michael K. wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:54 pm

Trading back in this draft is only worth it if they stay in the Top 10. Not going to pretend I have disected the entire talent pool here, but I ususally buy into what Brock Huard says and what he hears. He has over and over this off season said this draft has 8 maybe 10 real studs. We have a shot at one.
I agree in principle, but the Seahawks are in a unique position this year where the high-cost skill positions are pretty well covered. QB, RB, WR, CB, S, OT all have good starters, and those are the positions that usually dominate the top 10. There are only two players in positions of need that are really in the top 10, probably even the top 15. The best players at positions we NEED - IDL, C, G, MLB(not so much any more) are generally taken around the top of the 2nd round, give or take.

So in this particular case, it might make the most sense to pick up a couple extra picks in the late first to mid second if those two guys I mentioned earlier are gone. You'd still get studs, just not at the expensive positions. JMS/Wypler/Torrence, Bresee/Ika, Dexter/Foskey, Simpson/Sanders/Campbell, Addison/Johnston for example.

On the flip side, they've unexpectedly addressed some of the glaring issues in free agency, meaning they might not need 10 picks, so might even trade up.

as for the cost savings, the cap hit for the #5 pick is expected to be about 6m, for the #10 4m, #15 3m, then there is minimal difference after that, with the last pick in the first round is about 2.2m.
Like I said, saving money shouldn't be the driver, and I promise you, it isn't. There are players at positions of need that are worthy of being in that top 8 or 10 draft slot. Just because we added 2 DTs in Free Agency doesn't necessarily mean we wouldn't take one. Hell, maybe they think they can trade down and add a second or third and still get Carter. BUT, I am pretty sure despite his recent issues, he is one of those 8 or 10 considered to be impact players. This team needs pass rushers and impact players in the front seven, more than anything else. Those guys could possibly be there, and the Carter case is intriguing. I had a mock were I traded back a few times, added first round picks next year and still got Bresee, or however you spell his name. I didn't mind that draft at all. I realize that isn't one of those top 8 or 10 guys this year, but I added three #1s next year and a number 3. That isn't your traditional trade back that we have seen were we stock pile mediocrity like Tedrick Thompson and Mike Tyson!

auroraave
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 9:35 pm
Location: Beverly Hills, Ca.

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by auroraave » Mon Mar 27, 2023 3:41 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:18 pm
auroraave wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:26 pm
Michael K. wrote:
Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:54 pm


Aren't you the one always telling us the 49ers are so good because of all the high first round picks they accumulated from when they sucked? So, now? The goal should be to get one of those picks and not use it?

Trading back in this draft is only worth it if they stay in the Top 10. Not going to pretend I have disected the entire talent pool here, but I ususally buy into what Brock Huard says and what he hears. He has over and over this off season said this draft has 8 maybe 10 real studs. We have a shot at one. I am not in for trading away from those guys to acquire more Tedrick Thompson's and Mike Tyson's the way we used to do. Stay inside the top 8 or 10 and THEN maybe add a middle rounder? OK. But your worry over the salary cap, IMO, is misguided. No one worries about the salary cap anymore. It is going to explode here real soon based on the new TV deal.

The niners built a monster roster off of top end drafting because they were bad for years while the seahawks were constantly having winning seasons - you are skipping all context to what I have said. What LITERALLY derailed the 9ers run last year? Injuries TO STAR PLAYERS. Meaning? The depth behind them was a major drop off. You just proved my point. What I am suggesting is Seattle may be looking at a an alternative style of roster building with a minimum of top end investments in lieu of a higher overall talent average across the roster. I don't know how else to explain it. The league is about attrition and dealing with attrition - I have said this a thousand times on here - this is a logical way to address that. Really not sure how this isn't obvious. You do realize that the NFL's biggest infusion of recent cash in NOT the tv contracts - it's corporate sponsorships - the top ones being Draft Kings (gambling) and Phizer. I assume you altready know this... right? There will not likely be more monster TV deals coming up - the emergence of streaming and the recession make it risky. ESPN is already on life support.

Huh? So, the 49ers were "derailed" and lost the NFC Championship game because they had not one, not two, but three FUCKING QBS get hurt? Guess what? One of those guys is a guy they traded up in the first to get! The Niners have Stars, and they have those Stars because they USED high end first round picks. Not because they traded back. We have guys, we need Stars. If your definition of "derailed" is what the Niners did last year? Sign me up for us being "derailed" next year.

We have PLENTY of fucking picks. Adding more mediocrity makes no sense at all. They may trade back, but trading back to add multiple mid round or even a third rounder CAN NOT be the plan. This team needs more stars, not more depth. Your love with Depth is an odd one to me. We have Depth guys. Did you watch Cody Barton play last year? Depth guy. Did you watch our Center play last year? Depth guy. Did you watch our front 7 last year? Depth guys. Sorry, this team needs more DK's and fewer Dee Eskridge's.

This league is NOT about attrition, it's about Stars. You watched the playoffs last year and thought, "yep, good thing these teams have so much depth and didn't waste their time getting stars"? Injuries are going to happen. By your logic we should just make sure and have a TON of mediocrity to ensure that when one average to below average player gets hurt we have another one to put in. THAT is how you stay average. Great idea. You have flat out excused this team's fall to mediocrity for a few years now by pointing to them never drafting high in the first. Now? Your answer is to take that high pick and turn it into depth. Holy Shit.

As for Monster TV Deal. Google Sunday Ticket. I am sure gaining one BILLION a season for the NFL was chicken feed, right?
YouTube won the rights to “NFL Sunday Ticket” in a seven-year deal for a reported annual value between $2 billion and $2.5 billion. DirecTV pays $1.5 billion annually for “Sunday Ticket” in its current deal.
https://frontofficesports.com/nfl-sunda ... er-season/

EVERY SINGLE TIME I hear someone talk about the implications of the salary cap, I hear people that know shit saying "with the new television deal, these figures are going to rise". When they discuss why these deals are signed the way they are, huge money being pushed back, it isn't just because these teams are passing the buck along to later years, it's because they know that some of that BILLION extra EVERY DAMN YEAR is going to go back to the teams to spend on players.

They made a SHIT TON on television before, and just for the rights to show their games they damn near DOUBLED what was 1.5 Billion. Yep, no impact.
What I said...
Theoretically you can improve more roster spots and create an overall higher floor, talent-wise, for the whole roster.
What your response is...
By your logic we should just make sure and have a TON of mediocrity to ensure that when one average to below average player gets hurt we have another one to put in.
I've never said any of these things and your absurd 'conclusions' are childish at best. As usual you are having an argument with yourself about something no one said and, as always, ignoring all context. God damn you do that a lot. You should seriously try, just once, actually reading for understanding and clarity, rather than just to repond with silly exaggerations and out-of-left-field arguments that no one is having.

Enjoy arguing with yourself - please keep us posted as I am dying to know how how it turns out! :lol:

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Michael K. » Mon Mar 27, 2023 4:41 pm

I asked you a simple question. Are you not the one that has said the 49ers are great because they loaded up on early first round picks? Are you not the one that said the Seahawks have been mired in average to just above average for a while because they have not had the luxury of early first round picks?

If I am in fact misremembering this, fine, but you didn't answer the question. But, you don't get to make those arguments, and then suggest that what we really need to do is trade down from our early first round picks to stock up on Depth, because, and I quote, this league is about attrition. Sorry, name me a playoff team that you watched that one because their depth pieces were better than the other team?

What you quoted is ridiculous. You litteraly said
The niners built a monster roster off of top end drafting because they were bad for years while the seahawks were constantly having winning seasons - you are skipping all context to what I have said. What LITERALLY derailed the 9ers run last year? Injuries TO STAR PLAYERS. Meaning? The depth behind them was a major drop off. You just proved my point. What I am suggesting is Seattle may be looking at a an alternative style of roster building with a minimum of top end investments in lieu of a higher overall talent average across the roster. I don't know how else to explain it. The league is about attrition and dealing with attrition
Again, the 49ers took a talented roster full of first rounders to the fricking NFCCG with a guy playing QB that was the last player picked. That was NOT because he was a stud, it was because they surrounded him with talent. Again, maybe I am misremembering, but I can remember many times you telling us all it's not John and Pete's fault they draft in the late first and the 49ers don't. You don't get to use that excuse for why the Niners are better than us, and then tell us that how we are going to get back to Championship games is to do what we always did and load up on mid range talent because we don't use early first round picks. Yes, Injuries happen. Yes, mid round picks are important...but no, having two average players does not make you better than you would be if you got a Star. Tedrick Thompson and Mike Tyson are not stars...but, as we have hashed and rehashed multiple times? Lots of the guys they traded away from to get those two became stars.

This team HAS depth. What it doesn't have is play makers. Specifically in the front 7. Adding J Reed, Jones, Bush, Wagner and Love is a great start. They still need an edge guy. Those guys are available, and maybe, as I have said, can be obtained, or even Carter, by trading back a bit. Not the old school Seattle way of loading up on mid rounds tho. They don't need a guy, they need a playmaker.

User avatar
douche
Posts: 2066
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by douche » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:25 pm

A playmaker would be great, it really would, but how many times have we seen SEA shit the bed when going that route? Percy Harvin, Jimmy Graham, Jamal Adams and his injuries... guys who were going to take this team to the next level. Apparently playmakers are more difficult to find than anyone thinks.

Honestly, I think the last 'playmaker' this team had was Marshawn. But that's just my opinion. I suppose Lockett could be considered a playmaker. But if you're defining a playmaker as a 'game-changer', I don't think Lockett is that guy.

Serious question... is Carroll even interested in a playmaker? We all know his mantra is to run the ball, avoid turnovers and keep it close. I think he's more drawn to consistent players who work hard and 'buy in'.

Michael K.
Posts: 11345
Joined: Wed May 01, 2019 5:27 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Michael K. » Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:41 pm

We might be looking at this differently. I am referring to a Star, a guy worthy of being taken in the Top 5 of the draft. It worries me, this philosophy of trading back to acquire more players of average to below average talent. Again, I feel this has been used as a crutch for why the Seahawks quickly fell back to earth after being once labeled as the youngest and most talented team in the league to this. Three seasons ago they were 5 and 0 and riding high. Since then they are 23 and 22. Missed the playoffs one of those years and lost their first playoff game in the other two years.

From a team that was second and goal to back to back rings, to that. I don't think they get over the hump by finally acquiring a high end first round pick and trading back. I thought they had good value in the draft last year and used it on players worthy of those spots. Why not try that philosophy again? I guess it completely depends on the trade back. But I don't know how many teams just a few spots below them are going to give up much to move up a few spots.

I would even not be completely against Richardson, but they would really have to hit the next three picks out of the park. My thinking is a guy like Hooker later in the draft to go along with four picks in the first two rounds would be a better option that Richardson and three other guys in the first two rounds.

This team could be real competitive next year with the right pieces around Smith. IMO, the first pick needs to be a pass rusher, whether that is edge or interior probably doesn't matter. My preference would be Anderson, for two reasons. I think he is safer than Carter, and I think we are far better on the interior right now than we are on the Edge. That said, I don't want them drafting for need. If they think Carter is still the guy that many said could be the #1 over all pick? Maybe that is the route to go?

I just don't think the word "project" should go with a top 5 pick. And a guy that barely completes half of his throws in college is just that...a project. I also don't want them getting all fancy and turning two firsts and two seconds into a late first, two seconds and a shit ton of fourths. This team needs difference makers. If the story of this only having eight to ten difference makers is true? I don't think this is the year to trade back from five to late first.

SeattleAddict
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:25 pm

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by SeattleAddict » Mon Mar 27, 2023 7:45 pm

right now, we only have one defensive player on the roster over 300 lbs. In a 3-4, that is unheard of. Jones is listed as a DT, but he's a DE in this defense, and Jarran Reed isn't really the huge guy in the middle, either.

I promise you the Seahawks will take a big DT early. Whether that's Carter or Bresee or Ika or Mazi or whomever, it will happen (unless of course they bring in or bring back a couple guys).

User avatar
Cascade Kid
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2021 2:11 am

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by Cascade Kid » Mon Mar 27, 2023 9:03 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:18 pm

Huh? So, the 49ers were "derailed" and lost the NFC Championship game because they had not one, not two, but three FUCKING QBS get hurt? Guess what? One of those guys is a guy they traded up in the first to get! The Niners have Stars, and they have those Stars because they USED high end first round picks. Not because they traded back. We have guys, we need Stars. If your definition of "derailed" is what the Niners did last year? Sign me up for us being "derailed" next year.
Which "Stars" did the 9ers have on their roster last year, besides Bosa, that were "high-end 1st round draft picks? What is a high-end 1st round draft pick anyways?

Many of their top 10 draft picks don't even play on the team anymore. Nonetheless, the 9ers do an exceptional job at drafting overall.
Last edited by Cascade Kid on Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
douche
Posts: 2066
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:41 pm

Re: Who's Your Pick At #5

Post by douche » Mon Mar 27, 2023 11:19 pm

Michael K. wrote:
Mon Mar 27, 2023 6:41 pm
We might be looking at this differently. I am referring to a Star, a guy worthy of being taken in the Top 5 of the draft. It worries me, this philosophy of trading back to acquire more players of average to below average talent. Again, I feel this has been used as a crutch for why the Seahawks quickly fell back to earth after being once labeled as the youngest and most talented team in the league to this. Three seasons ago they were 5 and 0 and riding high. Since then they are 23 and 22. Missed the playoffs one of those years and lost their first playoff game in the other two years.

From a team that was second and goal to back to back rings, to that. I don't think they get over the hump by finally acquiring a high end first round pick and trading back. I thought they had good value in the draft last year and used it on players worthy of those spots. Why not try that philosophy again? I guess it completely depends on the trade back. But I don't know how many teams just a few spots below them are going to give up much to move up a few spots.

I would even not be completely against Richardson, but they would really have to hit the next three picks out of the park. My thinking is a guy like Hooker later in the draft to go along with four picks in the first two rounds would be a better option that Richardson and three other guys in the first two rounds.

This team could be real competitive next year with the right pieces around Smith. IMO, the first pick needs to be a pass rusher, whether that is edge or interior probably doesn't matter. My preference would be Anderson, for two reasons. I think he is safer than Carter, and I think we are far better on the interior right now than we are on the Edge. That said, I don't want them drafting for need. If they think Carter is still the guy that many said could be the #1 over all pick? Maybe that is the route to go?

I just don't think the word "project" should go with a top 5 pick. And a guy that barely completes half of his throws in college is just that...a project. I also don't want them getting all fancy and turning two firsts and two seconds into a late first, two seconds and a shit ton of fourths. This team needs difference makers. If the story of this only having eight to ten difference makers is true? I don't think this is the year to trade back from five to late first.
I've said this before (and my apologies if I sound like a broken record) but I believe that Carroll enjoyed the advantage of competing against players from the college game, diamonds in the rough so to speak (Sherman (5th round) and Baldwin (undrafted) to name a couple). When I look at SEA's Super Bowl teams, I see a lot of lower round picks (Sherman was a 5th, Wilson was a 3rd, Chancellor was a 5th, KJ Wright a 4th), undrafted players (Bennett, Browner) and the Lynch trade that built the team. ET was an exception. But they drafted Okung before Thomas. Irvin was a 1st rounder, Wagner a 2nd. James Carpenter was a 1st rounder. Marshawn went 12th overall.

I understand what you're saying, but the draft is not foolproof, not even close. How many highly drafted players have we seen fizzle out?

I'm with you, I would love to see a freak defensive player get drafted. Or a freak QB. But the outcome is usually much different from the expectation. I don't think the playmakers are as plentiful as one might think.

Post Reply