There are a lot of ways to skin a cat as they say.  With every new Super Bowl champion, a new fad for the blueprint on how to design a team gets developed.  I'm sure big corners will now be the new one.

 

I dont think this changes the fact that we need a QB.  And that the best way to be consistently good is with a great QB.  Does anyone think the Broncos get to the Super Bowl w/o Manning?  Great QBs can mask a lot of flaws.  Remove the QBs from both teams and Seattle's roster becomes infinitely better.  And as someone above pointed out, Seattle has hit on a ton of late round picks.  Sherman was a 5th rounder.  Chancellor was like a 3rd or 4th rounder.  The MVP last night was a late rounder.  I think the guy who led them in sacks this year was an undrafted free agent.  Hitting on late picks is part an eye for talent but is also a lot of luck.

 

You could argue finding a great QB is part luck as well, but its much easier to be lucky once than lucky enough times to construct a whole team.  We still need a QB.  And we need to look early and often in the draft.

This.  And also get lucky with late round players who feel disrespected and play with a bolder on their shoulder.

---

I don't think Seattle's win is really going to alter any GMs thinking at all.  The trend toward taller corners was in full effect in last year's draft.  So it's not new to the guys that like the concept and want to play that much press coverage. 

 

Also noteworthy in the Superbowl -  Seattle consistently pressured Manning with 4 rushers.   So  - drafting players like Avril and Bennett would be just as worthy of copying.

---

I think the game shows you need play makers . For example you said Manning. Manning makes every Wr and oline better. You have Earl Thomas who makes Sherman and Kams life easier and the dline.


Those late round players only hit because of coaching and the talent around him. Take away luck there's no Ty Hilton. Take away Von miller, and there's the defense you have, one who couldn't slow down an average offense. Take away Calvin Johnson and the lions offense is not good.


There's two play makers and this draft I feel and hopefully we can get one of them

---

I think the game shows you need play makers . For example you said Manning. Manning makes every Wr and oline better. You have Earl Thomas who makes Sherman and Kams life easier and the dline.


Those late round players only hit because of coaching and the talent around him. Take away luck there's no Ty Hilton. Take away Von miller, and there's the defense you have, one who couldn't slow down an average offense. Take away Calvin Johnson and the lions offense is not good.


There's two play makers and this draft I feel and hopefully we can get one of them

Aside from Clowney, who's the other playmaker?

---

Aside from Clowney, who's the other playmaker?

Bridgewater. I was never against your qb theory. I just think Clowney is a better prospect .

---

Bridgewater. I was never against your qb theory. I just think Clowney is a better prospect .

Take a note from the Ozone:

"So, which would you rather have now, O-Zone – a great quarterback or a great defense?
John: Over a 15-year period give me the great quarterback. He’ll give you many, many opportunities to get into the postseason and get to the Super Bowl. Over a one-year or one-game period – if the defense can rush the passer and if it’s complemented by a functional offense – the great defense can get the edge"

---

I don't think Seattle's win is really going to alter any GMs thinking at all. The trend toward taller corners was in full effect in last year's draft. So it's not new to the guys that like the concept and want to play that much press coverage.


Also noteworthy in the Superbowl - Seattle consistently pressured Manning with 4 rushers. So - drafting players like Avril and Bennett would be just as worthy of copying.

Avril and Bennett were both signed as free agents.

---

Aside from Clowney, who's the other playmaker?

I am guessing Watkins....

 

Those are the two guys I have as my top talents/playmakers in this years draft. Clowney and Watkins.

---

Take a note from the Ozone:

"So, which would you rather have now, O-Zone – a great quarterback or a great defense?
John: Over a 15-year period give me the great quarterback. He’ll give you many, many opportunities to get into the postseason and get to the Super Bowl. Over a one-year or one-game period – if the defense can rush the passer and if it’s complemented by a functional offense – the great defense can get the edge"

I'm not against a qb. If we get Bridgewater, I'd be happy. If we pass on Clowney or Bridgewater for Manziel or Bortles I think it's a reach and a mistake

---

Avril and Bennett were both signed as free agents.

 

Beside the point I was trying to make - but worth noting. Good point.

---

I think some of the cover 3 single high safety stuff could make a surge in defensive playbooks. They really have come up with a solid system for funneling teams insde where they let their monsters lay down the law on the quick hit underneath stuff lots of teams are using.

 

You are forced by the outside CBs and single high safety to either risk short plays to the inside or attempt deeps passes to the sidelines underneath the deep coverage and over the short coverage nearly every play. You will not be attempting deep passes down the middle if you value the life of your TEs/WRs , wont be throwing short passes to the sidelines without eventually seeing a pic-6 in the game , and you wont be using read option unless you want a dead QB.

 

Its either deep sideline or short in the middle and to offset that they got 6'3 CBs to guard the edges and a beast SS to take away the inside stuff. Teams will definitely try to follow this model in the coming years especially if Seattle continues to find success.

---

We'd better not focus on defense this draft, the reason we've been bad over the years is offense.. we had like the 6th ranked defense in 2011 along with the league leading rusher, that combination does not work unless you also have a QB that can at least be average. 

---

I don't think the Seahawks Way will affect any other team's strategy. While Seattle had a lot of success with undrafted free agents, late-round picks, and traded players, it would be stupid to assume anyone else can go to the playoffs that way. They are the exception, not the rule. General managers know that.

---

The Hawks limited a future HoF QB and the highest scoring receiving corps in the NFL to 1 TOUCHDOWN after breaking TD records all season. After this Super Bowl I expect the NFL draft to see some heavy defensive drafting. Defense will win out in the end.

---

I think some of the cover 3 single high safety stuff could make a surge in defensive playbooks. They really have come up with a solid system for funneling teams insde where they let their monsters lay down the law on the quick hit underneath stuff lots of teams are using.


You are forced by the outside CBs and single high safety to either risk short plays to the inside or attempt deeps passes to the sidelines underneath the deep coverage and over the short coverage nearly every play. You will not be attempting deep passes down the middle if you value the life of your TEs/WRs , wont be throwing short passes to the sidelines without eventually seeing a pic-6 in the game , and you wont be using read option unless you want a dead QB.


Its either deep sideline or short in the middle and to offset that they got 6'3 CBs to guard the edges and a beast SS to take away the inside stuff. Teams will definitely try to follow this model in the coming years especially if Seattle continues to find success.

Good point. It's good to have a year head-start on the other teams

---

I was thinking this last night while watching the most one sided Superbowl in recent memory.What effect, if any, do you think the Seattle win will have on the draft? Will teams try and copy the Seattle blueprint and so the defensive players and mobile quarterbacks becoming more sought after?

 

With Clowney, Barr, Mack and Manziel all being preliminarily drafted high anyway the one sided nature of the Superbowl might push those players up higher. 

 

As is often said, defence wins championships (which is one of the reasons the Patriots have come up short the last few years even with Brady dragging them to the Championship games and Superbowl) and in the last few years the side with the better defence seems to have won the Superbowl. Seattle, Carolina and San Fran all performing well in the playoffs (interestingly the NFC had 4 of the top 5 defensive teams). Has this changed the way you think we should be rebuilding? Should we focus primarily on defence and make do with a game manager QB until we get the defence sorted?

 

Has your opinion of the evolution of the QB position changed with the success of Wilson, Kaepernick and Newton. Are you more open to taking a risk on Manziel due to this who had better college figures than those 3. Personally for me, I would gamble on Manziel if Clowney is gone and trade up to get Ford in the late first. Bridgewater is a good talent, there is no doubt, and is the safest QB option in the draft. How high is his ceiling though, and is the mobile quarterback the new direction the league is heading in, or just a fad. Be interesting to know people's opinions

I would be more open to take Manziel now after watching the game. The new style quarterbacks are changing the way the game is played. They must be more mobile.....and be able to extend the play when the rush arrives. Also, pass rushers and good press corners are essential. WRs are more valuable than in the old days. I would be jacked if we got Clowney or Watson. They will make an impact and we need impact players in a big way if we are to improve.

---

Watson is the sleeper pick?  Is he friends with Leon Sandcastle?

---

I would be more open to take Manziel now after watching the game. The new style quarterbacks are changing the way the game is played. They must be more mobile.....and be able to extend the play when the rush arrives. Also, pass rushers and good press corners are essential. WRs are more valuable than in the old days. I would be jacked if we got Clowney or Watson. They will make an impact and we need impact players in a big way if we are to improve.

I'm pretty sure I've asked you this before... Who is Watson?

---

It might. The cool thing is that by that happening, players such as QBs could end up sliding a bit, possibly putting the Jags in a position to draft them at a slot that they ordinarily wouldn't have been in.

 

Had Manning tore it up and the Broncos won, the QBs would have risen even further, because everyone wants to copy that winning formula.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Johnny Manziel thinks Seattle's win "kicked the door wide open" for short mobile quarterbacks.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...-wide-open

---