FROM MICHAEL LOMBARDI:
7 April 2009
QUOTE: “It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority. By definition, there are already enough people to do that.” ~ G. H. Hardy (1877 - 1947)
FROM ERIC D. WILLIAMS OF THE TACOMA NEWS TRIBUNE... “If Matt Hasselbeck is healthy for 16 weeks, this team has a chance to do some special things because he’s an outstanding player,” (Jim) Mora said. “And we’d love to see that happen. And right now all indications are that he’s going to be fine.” Hasselbeck said he believes the team should pass on taking a quarterback with the No. 4 overall pick. Although he understands he has no say in the matter, Hasselbeck would like to see the Seahawks bring in another impact player, and not use the pick to bring in a promising quarterback such as Georgia’s Matt Stafford or USC’s Mark Sanchez to groom as his replacement. “I’m a little biased here, right?” Hasselbeck said when asked about Seattle taking Stafford during an interview broadcast on ESPN’s local radio affiliate, KIRO 710-AM. “We could draft him, but it would kind of stink for him, because he would have to sit on the bench for a while.”
This is a tough spot for the Seahawks because if Matt Hasselbeck is healthy, he’s the quarterback. But past performance does predict future achievement, and Hasselbeck has missed games two of the past three years. When he’s healthy, the ‘Hawks are a tough offense to defend, and if they can get their defense fixed, they’ll be back in the playoffs. However, if Matt is not healthy, Seattle has a very hard time winning, and counting on Seneca Wallace is not a viable option. When Seattle has to play Wallace, it struggles to play with any consistency. I realize the Seahawks were devastated by injuries at the receiver position last year, but Wallace is not a west coast system player. Gregg Knapp, the new offensive coordinator, has struggled to find a pure west coast passer since he left the 49ers. Coaching in Atlanta, he had Michael Vick, and in Oakland, he had JaMarcus Russell. Both are talented players but hardly pure west coast offense-style quarterbacks. Having Hasselbeck will be a welcome relief -- as long as he can stay healthy.
Moreover, the health factor is a tough one for Seattle as it prepares its game plan for the draft. It has made no attempt to bring in anyone to compete with Wallace for the back-up job and didn’t get involved in the Jeff Garcia market before he signed with the Raiders. So what does this tell us? My sense is that the Seahawks will let the draft board make their decision. If they lose both offensive tackles, Jason Smith and Eugene Monroe, whom they have rated very highly, then I’m assuming they’ll turn to the next best player, regardless of position.
The best time to draft a quarterback is when you have one, as you can control the development of the new player. In 2010, do you think Hasselbeck will be the starter? Do you think he’ll be healthy enough to play at a winning level? My sense is that the answer to both questions is no -- and I like Hasselbeck as a player. But I’m not sold that he can play injury-free for two years.
Drafting a quarterback is a very viable option for Seattle.
FROM JIM THOMAS OF THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH... The Rams need help at the wide receiver position and got some Monday by trading for Atlanta wideout Laurent Robinson. The Rams acquired Robinson by switching draft positions with the Falcons in both the fifth and sixth rounds. They didn’t lose any picks; they just changed positions in both rounds with Atlanta.
The Rams get Atlanta’s fifth-round (No. 160 overall) and sixth-round (No. 196 overall) picks; Atlanta gets the Rams’ fifth-round (No. 138 overall) and sixth-round (No. 176 overall) picks.
Robinson was a third-round pick by the Falcons out of Illinois State in 2007. Rams general manager Billy Devaney was with the Falcons at that time and in the draft room when Robinson was selected.
Atlanta improved its fifth-round draft position by 22 spots and improved its sixth-round position by 20 spots. So, doing the math and looking over the history of trades in this round, the Rams in essence paid two seventh-round picks for the player. Laurent Robinson was only active for six games last year after having a very respectable rookie season. Clearly, he was not the favorite of the new coaching staff and this trade will give him a chance to re-start his career.
Monday’s wonderful article from Lee Igel about Bill Walsh had me reminiscing about our 1986 draft, and I thought I would share it this morning. No one could work the draft room like Bill, and no one had a better sense of how to make a deal.
We held the 18th pick in the first round that year. At the 12th pick in the draft, Walsh instructed me to go to the blackboard (remember, this is 1986) and write down three names in this order: Gerald Robinson, defensive end, Auburn; John L. Williams, running back, Florida; and Ronnie Harmon, running back, Iowa. The Vikings, picking 14th, snare Robinson, and I erased his name from he board. Then the Seahawks, picking 15th, grab Williams -- there goes another one. And then the last bomb hits at No. 16 when the Bills grab Harmon. The blackboard was blank. Walsh, being a creative genius, ordered us to trade down to the 20th pick – essentially buying a half hour to determine what we would do next. As we waited, we had offers from Buffalo to move to No. 29, which we accepted, and then we had another offer to move down to the 39th pick from Detroit, which also seem to fit our new trade-down plans.
Before we finally selected a player, we had collected three third-round picks, three fourth-round picks and a first-round pick in the 1987 draft. Walsh conducted a clinic that day, moving around the draft, but the real success came in the players we picked. At No. 39, we selected a very good defensive tackle, Larry Roberts, from Alabama. At the 56th pick to start the third round, we chose fullback Tom Rathman from Nebraska. At the 64th pick in the same round, we selected defensive back Tim McKyer from Texas-Arlington. And we closed out the third round picking a wide receiver from Delaware State named John Taylor as the 76th player in the draft. So with the third round completed, we added three starters and crossed three needs off our list.
We start off the fourth round with pick No. 96 and select defensive end Charles Haley from James Madison. Then, with pick No. 101, we took offensive tackle Steve Wallace from Auburn, and at 102, we take an injured but soon to be healthy defensive end from Miami, Kevin Fagan. Another round completed and another three starters added to our team.
In the fifth round, we were running out of quality players to select and someone in the room was pushing linebacker Pat Miller from Florida. Walsh was reluctant to select Miller because of some off-the-field information, but nevertheless, he became a 49er. Disgusted and determined, Walsh walked over to the defensive blackboard for his own review. “Michael, what about this kid Don Griffin from Middle Tennessee State,” he asked me.
“Coach,” I replied, “he’s the Ohio Valley defensive player of the year, and we have some excellent grades on his play.” Walsh then told me that he would be our next pick and to get him on the phone. Another round passes, another need solved and yet another starter for the 49ers’ championship teams.
Not all drafts solve your needs like the 1986 draft did for the 49ers, but when you understand exactly what your team needs are and constantly work toward solving them, your offseason can be a success.
Note: Until the week before the NFL Draft, I will not be posting an afternoon Tavern since I’ll be busy trying to finalize tape of the draft. If something newsworthy breaks, I’ll be sure to write, but until then I’ll be on a little afternoon sabbatical. The Diner will always be here, and starting Sunday, I’ll have a weekly notes column about what I’m hearing around the league.
Thanks for all the support and comments ... love them all.
History has proven that drafting a first round QB to develope behind another is idealistic at best. Outside of Phillip Rivers, that gambit hasn't been pulled off successfully in a while. Lucky for the Chargers, Rivers pretty much sucked for awhile. There is too much pressure from all the different forces to play the young guy, and the established guy plays under a microscope. Its like telling teenagers that abstinence is the way to go. Great idea that rarely plays out in real life.
Mike,
I'm a loyal reader. Keep up the good work.
Wow, great story about the '86 draft.
Okay...didn't think of Rodgers. Still different. Hassleback doesn't carry the iconic status that Favre did and all the free passes that come with it. Unless you are sitting on a legend, you have to figure that their is going to be immense pressure to play the new guy the second the existing guy struggles a little.
Thanks for another great column, Mike. One question - when do fan expectations enter the draft day calculations? I remember all the pressure that Philly fans brought on Andy Reid to draft Ricky Williams, and the resistance (being polite) he got when he drafted Donovan McNabb instead. Are there occasions when you need to pick a player to make a splash, even when that's not necessarily the wisest pick the team can make?
So what are your feelings about drafting for need vs. drafting the best available player? Does it just depend?
Michael - How about a column on the draft trade chart and the points used. It seems very out dated. And should not teams adjust the chart based on that years draft talent coming out and how many holes a team might have to fill?
The whole Seahawks draft depends on how Matt Hasselbeck and Walter Jones recover from their injuries. Seattle need "insurance policies" for both and probably the savvier thing to do is to pick Sanchez (I don't trust Stafford and I think that Mark could become a much better pro qb) in the first round and then an OT in the second round (this year OT class is really deep with many players ready to start from day one). How both players will handle a similar draft will determine the outcome of the Seahawks season...
Michael, in the 5th or 6th round, does tading down 20 spots really cost you anything? Is there still a pretty good chance the guy you want will still be there, or are most teams' draft charts very similar even that late in the draft?
Hawks should draft Crabtree.. trade their 2nd to the Packers for Brohm and get there future QB there.
What an excellent read from the inside on the great Bill Walsh (RIP) doing his thing in the 1986 draft - A most enjoyable read, Mike -
I remember those trade downs, what a fun draft! This was one of the first times I can remember that type of movement (multiple trade downs) in a draft - Of course I would be remiss not to mention the 49ers lead scout during that era, another great football mind in Tony Razzano (RIP) - Would love to sometime hear a Lombardi perspective or two of the communication between Walsh-Razzano in relation to the draft and scouting players -
This read definitely portrays Bill Walsh at the height of his confidence as an NFL decision maker, after two 49ers Super Bowl wins - A special time in NFL history for sure...1986 was no doubt a very good year :)
Great stuff Mike!
I love reading of your past experiences in the NFL. You sure have worked with a lot of very talented people.
Love you Bro......
Would the opening quote mean that I could have demonstrated my intelligence this morning by not wasting my time to dress appropriately for work? Just curious...
Mike:
Awesome insight into football for us laymen. Thanks much.
as a 49er-lifer, I really enjoy and appreciate the stories you share with us of your time with Bill...I really miss this guy...
@Drew T. -
Carson Palmer is another example of a big name guy who sat for a while before getting the keys to the offense. Jay Cutler also sat for the first 11 games of his rookie season behind Jake the Snake. Brady Quinn and Matt Lienart also have sat years now and although it would be stupid to suggest that they have produced at the same level as Palmer/Cutler/Rivers, they both still have a chance.
Over the last 10 years, it is really a mixed bag of results in terms of the success of staring 1st round QB's in thier rookie year.
Failures: Alex(SF) & Akili(CIN) Smith, Carr(HOU), Couch(CLE), Harrignton(DET), Leaf(SD), C. McNown(CHI).
vs.
Successes: Manning Bro's, McNabb, Culpepper, Vick, Roethlisberger, Ryan.
Mike,
Loved reading about the '86 draft and Rathman. It's not that I got emotional thinking about growing up with the Niners, it's just really dusty in here and something got in my eye...
Silky:
I didn't state it well, but I was addressing the fallacy that teams with decent QBs can pick a first round QB and let them develop behind the existing QB for a couple of years. Its increasingly rare that teams can pull that off. In the case of Cutler in Denver, for example, Jake Plummer played poorly the ensuing season, and I doubt it was coincidental to the pressure of holding Cutler off. Cutler would go on to throw gaming dooming picks against Seattle and San Francisco, and Denver missed the playoffs. Cutler himself said that the Broncos probably would have won both of those pivitol games with Plummer at QB.
If the 'Hawks draft Stafford or Sanchez, and either rookie shows a pulse in preseason, you've got an instant QB contraversy. Hasselbeck will have less margin for error, and each loss will be exacerbated by a media frenzie to sustain attention grabbing headlines. In the best case scenario its a distraction. In the worst case, it ends up that the vet is tossed aside and the rookie is thrown to the wolves anyway.
I believe in the concept entirely, its just hard to apply in the real world.
The Seahawks will prepare for the future but while Hasselbeck can play at a high level, the team will be in good shape as well. I really think Seattle's season last year was an anomaly and they'll contend for the NFC West title once again. Nice insights on the draft. Bill Walsh appears to have been the master of keeping a positive attitude and excelling!
The team who has done the best job of trading back like Walsh did is New England.
They've consistently added picks like that in this century.
Another team that has moved in both directions drafting, and with different people calling shots at those times, is Atlanta.
Another thing to consider in Walsh's time was that his system was not entirely a league brand. Now everyone runs elements of the WCO, so some players you want may get taken by other teams with the same system in mind.
Mike you are probably right, but one good thing for Matt is Knapp will run the ball. When Knapp was OC, his teams were always in the top ten in rush attempts. This includes being number one in Atl all three years. They might be better off taking one or two west coast QBs later like Harrell.
Eric Green - Knapp's ATL offenses were top 10 in rush attempts because Vick would check a single receiver, and then take off with the ball. It wasn't due to any emphasis Knapp put on rushing. Vick had 100+ attempts in each of those seasons, roughly 20% of all rush attempts.
WCO requires a QB who can make quick reads and is accurate with his passes. It does not require a cannon arm, although that's certainly a plus. Should Stafford fall to their draft position, the Seahawks would be foolish to take him, because I doubt he can succeed in a WCO. Most WCO qbs who've had success have fallen to later draft rounds because their skillset + size does not necessarily mesh with what is considered optimal for a conventional offensive-system quarterback, i.e. Garcia, Montana, Hasselbeck, Ken Anderson. Pending they can't get Sanchez, who appears to be a better fit for them, the Seahawks would be wise to look to later rounds for a QB to develop behind Hasselbeck. As it is now, should he miss a couple games next year, a rookie QB learning their offense would probably do no better than Wallace filling in.
whoooooo!
Joe T.
You might want to reread the stats and Knapp's history.
YPG att
2008 10 10
2007 6 4
2006 1 16 1 28
2005 1 11 3 19
2004 1 19 5 27
2003 5 6
2002 6 5
2001 2 2
The second number is without Vick's numbers added. Of course, they can't be looked at in a vacuum. Being a Falcon's fan, I am well aware of what Vick added to the running game and took away from the passing game. His biggest problem was he thought he was a WCO QB when he was probably better off in any other offense.
Again looking at the numbers of Knapp's teams that he has been the OC, he has always been in the top ten in rushing attempts and yards. IN that same time frame, Seattle looks like this.
2008 19 22
2007 20 17
2006 14 10
2005 3 7
2004 8 13
2003 10 13
2002 20 17
Look at 2001 to 2003 when Knapp had Garcia. As Mike says about the past predicting the future, Knapp will run the ball more than Seattle has in the past.
AS for your second comment, I agree. They might be better off grabbing White and Harrell later on. If White doesn't pan as a QB, then at least you have the option to move him to another position.
I think it would be great to have stories on how draft boards are developed, why they might differ from team to team, why the real draft differs so much from most of the mocks, do teams practice the draft and estimate who others might pick - and where, etc. Draft values also interesting.
Eric - I think you make a fair point with the stats but we can't ignore the context. In SF, Jeff Garcia accounted for roughly 14% of rushing attempts. In ATL, Vick accounted for 20%. The only stop in which QB "rushes" accounted for less than 10% has been in OAK. Rushing attempts remained high. I would argue that this is attributed to the absence of anything resembling a wide receiver on that team during his tenure, along with less-then-great QB play, forcing a reliance on the ground game.
At the same time, we have to consider pass attempts vs. rush attempts. In SF, Knapp's offense was +50% (approx) in favor of the pass. In ATL, it was heavily a running offense, if you look at the raw attempt #s. Take out Vick's rushes, and you have an offense that's more pass-happy than his SF teams.
So with the exception of OAK, Knapp's offenses have relied on a QB who can be a component of the rushing attack. Hasselbeck doesn't compare to Vick or Garcia in mobility. Unless they take a back in the draft, SEA doesn't have a formidable ground game on paper. But what they do have (or did prior to injuries last year) were lots of receivers. Knapp, like most coordinators, is really just making the best of the personnel he has. Unless they detonate the roster, I don't expect him to come out with an offense that puts up comparable rushing totals to his previous teams.
The thing about that 86 draft is only two teams did really well. They went on to be the two most consistent good teams --the 49s and the Giants were the other . They had also had alot of picks but through earlier trades. They believed in staying put and using their picks without trading down. The similiarity is in how well they picked .Eric Dorsey-- not all he was supposed to be but a starter --Mark Collins pr bowl cb--Pepper johnson-pro bowl(i think) lb--erik howard excellent nt--greg lasker db--john washington nt.
By the way , a guy named Brent jones was picked --by pittsburgh in the 5th . These teams had systems and philosophies in place and peoplr at the top who stuck together and implemented those philosophies. The redskins were that type of organization at that time also.
The Chargers sitting Rivers and letting him learn before throwing him to the wolfes is remincent of what the Bengals did with Carson Palmer. Both QBs turned out to be very productive players maybe sitting Stafford and letting him learn behind a pro like Hassel is just what he needs to be a Quailty Pro
Seattle should try to trade down . I think one of the tackles will be there . Curry should go to KC . But even so , there are several offensive tackles in this draft & why choose a qb with the 4th pick that will be groomed for a year or two . So many first round qb's haven't panned out. I like were Seattle is positioned . They should get some interest in that pick & really IMO need to stockpile . Their defense is getting pretty old as well .
| powered by TheSeats.com |
No one knows the future, but one...
Unconventional thinking, plus...
Questions and thoughts about the...
Super Bowl thoughts: Freeney,...
Is Browns GM serious about Tebow?...
Apr 07, 2009
10:13 AM
Taking a quarterback (Stafford), makes sense for the hawks here. i still believe that hasselbeck can lead this team for the next few years and im praying stafford falls to #4 but detroit should scoop him up. it kinda reminds me of when green bay selected rodgers. i am not sold on sanchez. Seattle is in a position to do alot of things here