Sep 8, 2012; San Diego, CA, USA; San Diego State Aztecs defensive back Eric Pinkins (27) and defensive back Darius Guillory (30) celebrate after bringing Army Black Knights defensive back Kyler Martin (not pictured) down on the six yard line on a kickoff during the first quarter at Qualcomm Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports

NFL Analyst Bucky Brooks Gives Seahawks Draft a 'C' for Lack of Sizzle

Here we go again, another ridiculous NFL analyst on is giving the Seattle Seahawks draft picks and Pete Carroll more ammunition to pack their guns with, this time Bucky Brooks is the best thing that’s happened to the Hawks’ ego lately.

I’m telling you that sly smile just can’t help but to creep across my face when these guys start talking. Despite general B+ grades throughout the community, Brooks throws a ‘C’ at the Hawks overall draft picks, one of only six teams in that category. Let’s take a look at what his reasoning was.

SEATTLE SEAHAWKS: Since the beginning of the Pete Carroll/John Schneider era, the Seahawks‘ draft classes have routinely earned initial low marks — and yet, their roster is regarded as one of the best in the NFL. Thus, observers should really reserve judgment until the team’s plan for each prospect is revealed. Looking at this year’s collection of rookie talent, I see a number of height-weight-speed athletes with ultra-competitive personalities. Receiver Paul Richardson (Round 2) is a blazer with exceptional straight-line speed and burst. He’s an unpolished route runner, but his ability to get past the defense on vertical routes could make him a legitimate home-run threat in the Seahawks‘ offense. Richardson and fourth-round selection Kevin Norwood give Seattle a pair of young pass catchers with tremendous potential. Fourth-round pick Cassius Marsh is an underrated pass rusher with the size and length to create problems off the edge. Overall, the Seahawks‘ class lacks sizzle, but Carroll and Co. will surely find a way to develop these new additions into key contributors down the road. GRADE: C

So…. emoticon :/

My absolute favorite part of that he doesn’t have a single critical thing to say about the picks and points out exactly why maybe, perhaps, he should re-evaluate his measuring stick for these picks when it comes to Seattle. He does in fact tell himself to reserve judgement, but like spitting into a 60 mph wind knowing you’ll be wiping it off your face, he does it anyway.

Honestly, there’s not much to “reveal” at this point Mr. Brooks. Personally I thought all of the Seahawks’ picks were cut-and-dried, filling specific roles and needs on this team, as well as forward-thinking pickups for guys that will desire large contracts in the near future via free agency (like for example getting Malcolm Smith‘s replacement in Kevin Pierre-Louis in the 4th round). This may actually be the least controversial draft the Hawks have put together under Pete and John.

I believe your “lack of sizzle” comes down to the fact that Paul Richardson wasn’t taken in the first round. Had he been taken at 32, I bet this grade woulda been higher for the “sizzle factor” you so desperately desire. Also, if you watch the tape, Richardson was one of the better route runners in all of college football, thus the separation factor in spite of his thinner frame and his 80-plus catches despite being on one of the worst teams in college football.

Not that Bucky is one of my favorites or anything. I dislike his articles on a regular basis, but this made me smile extra big folks. Obviously this draft was beyond solid for what the Seahawks’ needs were (I always thought this was more important when grading a teams’ draft accomplishments) and should never find itself falling below a B to the most critical degree.

Next Seahawks Game View full schedule »
Thursday, Sep 44 Sep5:30Green Bay PackersBuy Tickets
Dick's Sporting Goods presents "Hell Week":

Tags: Bucky Brooks NFL Draft Grades Seattle Seahawks

  • Rowza

    Wow, you sound like a douche.

    • AllCoug’dUp (Joshua Davis)

      Would I be fair in assuming that you agree with Bucky?

  • HD

    It’s funny listening to guys like Kiper and Bucky grade the draft poorly then spend most of the article telling how Seattle develops players…and tries to minimize their critique…As Kiper puts it…

    “There simply isn’t a better player development program in the NFL right now than Seattle’s,” Kiper wrote. “The players the Seahawks draft — the players I’ve spent many hours evaluating and making calls on — are often players that evolve, improve and become something new after Seattle drafts them.”

    The Seahawks draft with a team concept in mind…long tern consistency and quality…rather than short term flash…they also look for players who fit the puzzle piece in their scheme….I think one of the reasons Seattle has continued to show depth in their program (2012 we really started to notice it) is that they don’t bank so much on superstars…but rather role players…that are easier to find backups to fill in for in their scheme…for the most part…we’ve seen this in the secondary, both lines, LB, Receivers and RB…they draft and develop player for continuity and future replacement with the cap limitations in mind…that’s how they will continue to be in the playoff hunt..(2 years in a row now)…Seattle develops their superstars or core group as PC / JS call it….and pay them…but the bulk of their lineup is ever changing to meet the cap or team improvement with new faces that they think will do a better job…”Always Compete”….This is such a “common sense” approach…that people (and a the NFL) seemed to be mystified about Seattle’s philosophy…But you know the old saying…”Commons sense…is not so common anymore”!….Here’s my projection for Seattle’s 2015 draft…probably another C grade from the experts…with long term benefits for the Seahawks.

    • AllCoug’dUp (Joshua Davis)

      Very well put. Teams are beginning to learn this though. You can take the rest of the NFC West for example and it’s also going to be prevalent in Jacksonville now.

      • Paddy

        To an extent other teams will try, but in order to pull it off they need to employ the right FO and scouts along with solid developing coaches. The Rams have had 10 top 15 picks since 2006, but still can’t seem to challenge for the playoffs. It’s not that they haven’t tried to bring in exceptional talent. It’s just they haven’t succeeded or haven’t been able to develop correctly. Perhaps that will change as Fisher gets more time, but we shall see. I also can’t help but think Arizona has some good talent in their staff as well. Should be interesting.

  • RegisHawk

    Kiper wrote. “The players the Seahawks draft — the players I’ve spent many hours evaluating and making calls on — are often players that evolve, improve and become something new after Seattle drafts them.”

    He almost, but not quite, gets it, as most of the rest of the league (and so-called experts) do.

    The Seahawks are not merely relying on the player they draft. They place more emphasis on their coaches’ ability to bring out these results from the players they draft. This is why they have so many low-round hits. Somewhere along the line, it became fashionable to consider the draftee as a stand-alone product – he will (or won’t) live up to the hype the media has created about him or he will surprise everyone who didn’t t hink to hype him up at all; this line of thinking then became the rule by which we assess an entire draft (and then hand out grades). PC & Co are once again showing that a different pattern of thinking will bring success.

    • Paddy

      That’s Kiper’s way of trying to protect his ego rather than admit that perhaps he isn’t an elite talent evaluator in every aspect. It’s essentially covering his tracks, so he can say he’s an awesome evaluator while also covering everything in saying that the Seahawks develop those not so great players into stars. That way, no matter what, he is right. The first couple drafts under PC/JS, he blasted them and looked like a fool later, so now he’s taking the cautious approach in gently saying he doesn’t like the picks (he’ll boast if he’s right and they don’t work out), but also saying that the Seahawks are a great team at getting the most out of players (can also boast if that comes to fruition). It’s a win/win for Kiper lol.

      I do like Kiper. He has good points and gives general good ideas about players. I can also tell he tries to answer tough questions and give good analysis. I just don’t always take his word on things to heart.

  • Paddy

    It’s funny to see a few brave souls still giving the Seahawks poor grades. I was laughing while watching the draft because I could tell Kiper and the other folks hated the picks, but they simply gave them good grades just for the fact they’ve been burned by giving F grades the previous few years (technicality grades lol). Wasn’t the Wilson pick graded pretty harsh? It’s a joke to grade a draft class until 2-3 years down the road. You just never know who is going to develop and who isn’t. I just can’t help but notice how teams like Cleveland and other bottom dweller teams consistently get A/B grades simply because they pick up flashy players with top 10 picks every year, but still can’t get to the playoffs with those A/B grades. That’s just another point to back this all up. What matters more, getting high grades by Kiper and the other analysts or getting C, D, and F grades and winning SB’s?