Meet Frank Clark... Our New Outside LB

[jshawaii22]

Word is on the street... out goes Bruce and in comes the new, 15 lbs slimmer verision of Frank Clark... now moved to LB. That's not what I expected, but if he's into the move it could make for a dynamic player as a 'rush' LB. Something to keep an eye on this summer.

That put the Chris Clemons' resigning more into perspective of actually playing in the DE rotation.

js

[c_hawkbob]

Seems to me about a month ago in one or other of Pete's pressers he talked about experimenting with frank at LB.

Pete's goow with defenses, I'm excited to see how this works.

[monkey]

This is (no offense) kind of old news, it's been talked about a lot elsewhere over the last two months, after Clark tweeted a pic of his weight loss.
The talk is basically that, Mike Morgan, who the Seahawks made an unusually big deal out of re-signing for a backup, was going to be looked at as the presumptive starter in the base defense on running downs, and Cassius Marsh would also be given the shot to start there as well. Clark is going to be used there on passing downs, to get after the QB.
That's the general consensus of thought anyway, we'll see how it actually work out.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I forgot about Cassius Marsh, but I shouldn't have. I'm anxious to see how he does with increased playing time.

[NorthHawk]

I saw a game in his last year in college and he looked pretty good rushing the passer from the MLB position. I would think he might be effective off the edge as an OLB.
This move takes the pressure off of getting an OLB in the draft maybe meaning another DL to replace Mebane as a focus.

[burrrton]

From Sheil Kapada:

"The Frank Clark position/weight change on the team's web site was an error, according to a Seahawks spokesperson. Clark's position had initially been changed to LB, but he is now listed as a DE, and that's where he will remain. Clark was listed at 272 pounds last year, but the site initially had him at 257 pounds earlier this week. Clark's weight might eventually be changed, but that has not officially been recorded yet."

[NorthHawk]

Well that kind of changes things a little, doesn't it?
Pete did say he wanted to try Clark at LB, so it might still be in the cards.

[HumanCockroach]

I'm fairly sure Clark posted pics of the work he was doing with that goal in mind. He also said something to the effect that he needed to be leaner to regain a little burst he felt he had lost...

[burrrton]

Yeah, I'm not saying the info is wrong (I have no idea)- just thought that was an interesting twist.

[Zorn76]

No matter how he lines up, I think he's ready for a breakout season.
The kid is focused, and had a nice rookie year.

[HumanCockroach]

I certainly get that feeling as well..


Honestly, I don't feel like with the exception of a few offensive line picks, Seattle has any type of actual "needs" at this point. There's a couple positions I would like them to draft ( OLB and DT) but really, I love that there is no glaring holes at this point allowing them to find and draft the best possible players literally anywhere ( well maybe minus k and p)

[jshawaii22]

I love this time of year. My wife laughed when she mentioned that men don't often talk about gaining / losing weight... and here we are.

I predict a wild first round of the draft coming up with at least 6 more trades and maybe more. I wish we would move up to get one of the top 4 OT's but I just can't see it this year. If anything they'll trade down out of the first round.

[monkey]

I certainly get that feeling as well..


Honestly, I don't feel like with the exception of a few offensive line picks, Seattle has any type of actual "needs" at this point. There's a couple positions I would like them to draft ( OLB and DT) but really, I love that there is no glaring holes at this point allowing them to find and draft the best possible players literally anywhere ( well maybe minus k and p)

Agreed, and now with that in mind, as well as the fact that the top two QB's will be gone at the top, our spot at #26 looks REALLY good for a team like Cleveland to trade back up and get Paxton Lynch!
LOVING our chances now to trade down and get even more lottery tickets.
This years draft is exactly what we need, since we don't have huge glaring holes. It's VERY deep at offensive and defensive lines.
I think we come out of this draft, in perfect shape to win the Super Bowl. Not kidding, I really do.
Man this year is going to be SWEET!

[NorthHawk]

I think we have glaring holes along the OL.
We really don't know how well Gilliam is going to play at LT, who is going to be the RG - Glowinski is supposed to be the starter but who knows if he will be good or another Nowak.
Mebane is gone and Hill can't stay healthy so there is another spot, and filling Irvin's role has yet to be finalized.
As well, if the plan is to get young guys on the OL and then if they become average players not re-sign them when their contract is up we have to have good players along the OL in the pipeline, so that becomes a real need. We lost 3 players on the OL if you count Bailey, so those are holes to fill and the players they get need to be able to compete for starter spots. Even if it isn't this year, they need to challenge and be able to play when someone along the OL gets hurt.

I haven't mentioned Center. Is Lewis the answer and/or is Sokoli really Center material? Who's the backup LT - Britt? All we know at this point is we were weak up the middle last year and that has to be corrected before TC ends if we want to have an Offense that can consistently win us (or at least not lose) games again this year.

[HumanCockroach]

Not knowing how someone will perform, isn't the same as a glaring hole, is it? I certainly don't feel like that.

And yes the Seahawks allowed three players to leave, are you professing to know how the three lineman they drafted last season will play prior to seeing them play? Sorry, I just don't believe Seattle had zero plan, if they felt they at no cost could afford the loss of those players, they would still be wearing Seattle blue this season.

Replacing players is a YEARLY task, and one this FO has excelled at. As I said there are positions I want them to draft, but at this point there is no position they HAVE to draft ( not even O-line as they currently have 5 players that are second or third year players as well as several others to fill those spots) I know they WILL draft offensive/defensive lineman, and more than likely an athletic OLB as well as a corner and possibly a RB, that doesn't make any of those areas glaring holes in the roster......

They could literally right now, skip the draft entirely, and still compete for a playoff spot, possibly even a SB appearance, that by definition removes any specific dire need that HAS to be addressed. They can pick and choose, the players and positions they want, thanks to their incredible success drafting the last 6 years...

[NorthHawk]

Not knowing how someone will perform, isn't the same as a glaring hole, is it? I certainly don't feel like that.

I think it's pretty close, at least something that needs to be seriously addressed because if they can't play at the NFL level in those positions it'll be a similar result as early last year.

Pete has said that the concern was that last year there wasn't enough competition along the OL.
We then lose 2 starters in FA. You can only surmise that it is a big need or hole, if you will. There is no other conclusion you can come to.

We gambled last year with Nowak at Center and Britt moving to LG and look how that turned out. Now we are gambling at LT, RG, RT, maybe LG too depending on how they shuffle the line.
It means we need to address those areas with quality players who can push for a starting role early. Luckily this draft is deep in OL, but it looks like the better quality ends soon after
round 3.

[c_hawkbob]

Agree with North. You always have someone on your depth chart listed as a starter, not knowing how that someone will perform is pretty much exactly what a "hole" in your lineup is.

The definition of "glaring" I'll leave to you.

[HumanCockroach]

You know how any listed starter will perform prior to the season ? That means every rookie ever drafted or signed in the history of the sport that is listed as a starter creates a "hole" in your roster? Seems odd to draft anyone then???

[HumanCockroach]

I think it's pretty close, at least something that needs to be seriously addressed because if they can't play at the NFL level in those positions it'll be a similar result as early last year.

The issue I have with statements like this is there's a whole lot of assuming going on. Assuming a drafted player this year will be an improvement is an enormous assumption ( how many top picks, much less later picks in the first, second or third round come on and perform at an NFL starter level?). The coaches know even LESS about how a drafted player will perform versus one already on the roster and in the system. It also assumes no improvement from the players already drafted and signed on the roster who have a full year or two of playing, practicing and learning in this system with these coaches, another enormous assumption.

Calling something a hole that you have no knowledge of seems an significant assumption to me, one I'll never feel comfortable with.

I don't for a second believe the coaches or FO didn't have some sort of plan on place to address the loss of the players they allowed ( yes chose) to leave. That simply doesn't adhere to what I've seen from them since they have been here.

Using that same assumption process, Wilson, Thomas, Kam, Wagner, Okung, and on and on ALL created holes when they were named starters, I don't believe in that.

[c_hawkbob]

You know how any listed starter will perform prior to the season ? That means every rookie ever drafted or signed in the history of the sport that is listed as a starter creates a "hole" in your roster? Seems odd to draft anyone then???

Nonsense.

[HumanCockroach]

How is that question nonsense. Your statement said that not knowing how someone is going to perform creates a hole. I asked an honest question. Unless you are claiming to know how any pick will perform prior to them doing so by your words and definition every pick creates a hole.

It seems like you are far to attached to an abstract number in this situation to me. The history is full of high picks that are rubbish and late picks that are HOF players, is it really such a stretch to believe a mid round pick or a converted TE in college could perform at an acceptable level? Especially since there are currently many doing so on NFL rosters? Why?

[c_hawkbob]

those are not honest questions, those are pick a fight questions. Same old thing, argue against things not said.

[HumanCockroach]

not knowing how that someone will perform is pretty much exactly what a "hole" in your lineup is.

Did I misunderstand this statement?

[savvyman]

For the up-coming draft, he Seahawk's FO have identified:

The Best Athletes available
The Players with the Most Grit

They have the players ranked on this criteria listed in order. They will pick whoever is at the top of their list regardless of position for each round of the draft..

[kalibane]

Glad to hear this was a mistake. This didn't make sense to me. He seemed perfectly suited as a DE that was good against the run and could be disruptive against the pass. I didn't see the upside of moving him to LB.

[NorthHawk]

For the up-coming draft, he Seahawk's FO have identified:

The Best Athletes available
The Players with the Most Grit

They have the players ranked on this criteria listed in order. They will pick whoever is at the top of their list regardless of position for each round of the draft..

That doesn't reflect their history at the top of the draft (about the first 3 rounds depending on the depth of the draft). The latter rounds show as the probable philosophy.

2011
1st James Carpenter, RT need
3rd John Moffitt, G need

2012
1st Bruce Irvin, DE/Rush End need
2nd Bobby Wagner, MLB need
3rd Russell Wilson, QB need

2013
2nd Christine Michael, RB NOT a need
3rd Jordan Hill, DT need

2014
2nd Paul Richardson, WR need
2nd Justin Britt, RT need

2015
2nd Frank Clark, DE Not a need
3rd Tyler Lockett, KR/WR need

So of the 11 picks in the top 3 rounds since 2011 (I didn't include 2010 as the whole team was a need) 9 were at positions of need. That's almost 82% of the time.
You can argue that these guys were for the most part great athletes (Carpenter maybe was the exception), but need was a significant factor in their selection.
The selection of Britt was discussed by Schneider and he said they had to take him then because there was a big dropoff in talent at that position after him. That statement defines they drafted for need in that case. Last year they said they were looking for a Punt and Kick returner and moved up for Lockett - drafted for need.

All teams do this to some extent and within their decision matrix need is a big factor, but not the only factor
Some, but not all of the other qualities that we look for is competitiveness, love for the game, and past success. All of which factor in to some unknown to us degree.

I've heard comments from former GMs like Polian that they would target a number of players and hope to get 3 or maybe 4 of them. It looks like we do something similar at the top of the draft and I would expect this to continue. However, if someone unexpectedly drops that they think might be a rare talent, then they probably wouldn't hesitate to select him and in 3 of the 5 drafts we have moved out of the 1st round so we aren't welded to making 1st round picks. It makes sense from a Cap perspective if the talent - or one of the players we are targeting is there in the 2nd to pay 2nd round money instead of 1st round money.

[HumanCockroach]

I think a lot of this stuff is subjective. Truthfully I do. What people feel is a "need" it's based solely on their opinion, not some hard line truth or something. On that list, there are several I would say at the time were NOT a "need" that you have listed as one. When Irvin was drafted Seattle had three stud defensive ends on the roster. When Wilson was drafted. Seattle had just signed a QB to a lucrative contract and had the starter from the year prior also there. There are several at the time I would claim were not a "need" fairly stringently yet you feel they were.

Nothing wrong with either position, for instance if Seattle drafted a corner with their first pick, would it be a "need"? I would say no, you might as well, however most analysts say it IS one, who's right? Truth is it doesn't matter, because none of us know what or how the Seattle FO or coach views these selections or the quality of players already on the roster. I don't doubt that they also plan for two or three years down the road in every draft.It is impossible to. We aren't smarter than them, do not grasp their plan or style or desires completely. It's impossible to accurately assess. The only thing we as a whole can do, is say what we "think" about it.

My percentage on those 11 picks would fall somewhere in the 40% range on need. There's obviously a vast difference I view between need and luxury than you do.

[NorthHawk]

The statements by Schneider about Britt and Lockett clearly show need is a big factor in their decisions.
With Lockett they said they were looking for a punt and kick returner and were surprised when Lockett was there at the top of the 3rd so they moved up to get him. That is drafting for need.

We also know that Avril for instance has maintained he only wants to play 10 years. This is his 10th year and coincidentally the end of his contract.
The FO knows this and probably more about Avril's intentions. In this case, I would expect them to prepare for his departure meaning the years prior to the final year of his contract DE becomes a need. The selection of Clark and probably someone this year might be in preparation for Avril leaving, but pass rushers are always a need.
I would also presume that they have ideas about who they intend to offer contracts to of those who are nearing the end of existing deals and if they expect them to fit under the Cap.
They then have to prepare to have to fill that or those positions, which become needs.

Need is not the only criteria of course, but it is a big factor in the targeting of players when preparing for the draft.

[HumanCockroach]

You mean like drafting three offensive lineman and grooming them for a year? LOL just messing with you. I guess my point remains, ultimately it's what you feel is a need, I don't feel they were. I can live with that. So long as they aren't passing on great players to draft a mediocre talent because it's a "need" I don't care if they are or aren't.

Can you understand why I said the Seahawks don't draft for "need" now? I don't view a majority of those picks as "needs" at the time, while you did. ( which would be why you were claiming the opposite). Like I said subjective.