Kiper's first Mock.

[hamannator]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

Taking WR's at the top of the draft is just as risky as taking QB's. And if they do pan out, you don't get the same bang for the buck contract wise based on being a top 10 pick.

I said what I did based more on what the Seahawks need than the probability of who ever they pick actually panning out. The Seahawks need a receiver far more than they need a QB, and Crabtree happens to fit the bill for anything you could ask for in a receiver.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by hamannator

I said what I did based more on what the Seahawks need than the probability of who ever they pick actually panning out. The Seahawks need a receiver far more than they need a QB, and Crabtree happens to fit the bill for anything you could ask for in a receiver.

Gotcha, but in that case, I think they need a lot of other positions more than they need a WR. Do they not?

What is the QB status for the Seahawks next year?

[hamannator]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

Gotcha, but in that case, I think they need a lot of other positions more than they need a WR. Do they not? What is the QB status for the Seahawks next year?

I'd have to disagree with the statment about not needing WR's. Their receivers are all either old (Bobby Engram), terribly injury prone (Deion Branch), or they just plain suck (Nate Burleson). They were down to their 4th, 5th, and 6th receivers practically all year long. The leading receiver on the team was the rookie TE John Carlson, with like 50-60 catches for somewhere around 550 yards.

And Matt Hasselbeck is gonna be back as QB.

[Checmate101]

I hope we go DT first instead of DE...Really I hope we go OL first

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by hamannator

I'd have to disagree with the statment about not needing WR's. Their receivers are all either old (Bobby Engram), terribly injury prone (Deion Branch), or they just plain suck (Nate Burleson). They were down to their 4th, 5th, and 6th receivers practically all year long. The leading receiver on the team was the rookie TE John Carlson, with like 50-60 catches for somewhere around 550 yards. And Matt Hasselbeck is gonna be back as QB.

Burleson plain sucks? He's been solid for them, and especially this year when he was the only healthy option worth mentioning. The fact that Hasselbeck was injured says more about their season than the WRs anyway bc he's won games with little talent at WR in the past.

Either way, he didn't say they didn't need a WR, he asked if they had bigger needs which I think they do. For one, they need a RB more, and the OL and DL has been going backwards since the Hawks peak days.

[WazzuRC]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Burleson plain sucks? He's been solid for them, and especially this year when he was the only healthy option worth mentioning. The fact that Hasselbeck was injured says more about their season than the WRs anyway bc he's won games with little talent at WR in the past. Either way, he didn't say they didn't need a WR, he asked if they had bigger needs which I think they do. For one, they need a RB more, and the OL and DL has been going backwards since the Hawks peak days.

Burleson missed all but one game this year because of a torn ACL...he was hardly a healthy option LOL.

I'd agree that we need a RB, but not until the later rounds of the draft. I think Julius Jones actually played pretty well for us, and didn't understand why he got less carries than Maurice Morris. Morris is most likely not coming back but I think with a start of Jones-Duckett-Weaver that's a solid core, we just need a speedier change of pace back...I'm looking into the 5th-6th round maybe.

I would love to have Crabtree. Engram is more than likely not coming back so that leaves us with Branch-Burleson as a start with recieving options like Carlson and bunch of other young guys after that. Crabtree has the potential to be special and I wouldn't mind having him line up along Branch and Burleson.

Realistically though, I think what might most benefit the Hawks would be to trade the pick down to somewhere in the early teens and pick up a DT and then follow that up with an OL/WR depending upon who's available.

Hasselbeck is still our guy for at least 1, maybe 2 years so this is the year I think we need to look at developing another guy, because I just don't think this is an ideal offense for Seneca Wallace (even though he far exceeded my expectations last year).

Also, both Julian Peterson and Leroy Hill are UFA's so we'll probably end up losing one of them. I would rather lose Peterson than Hill but that's just my opinion so we need to look at a few LB's in the draft as well.

Again, I'd love to have Crabtree but I think it'd be smart to probably trade down and get some more depth. Assuming we lose one of the LB's my draft order would probably be: DL, WR, OL, LB, QB, RB, DL.

[WazzuRC]

Quote: Originally Posted by hamannator

I'd have to disagree with the statment about not needing WR's. Their receivers are all either old (Bobby Engram), terribly injury prone (Deion Branch), or they just plain suck (Nate Burleson). They were down to their 4th, 5th, and 6th receivers practically all year long. The leading receiver on the team was the rookie TE John Carlson, with like 50-60 catches for somewhere around 550 yards. And Matt Hasselbeck is gonna be back as QB.

Correction: We were down to our 7th, 8th, and some bums off the street all year long.

And you couldn't be more wrong about Burleson.

[Lintyfresh85]

The Bills need to draft C Alex Mack out of California.

Period.