What Did YOU Think of Bruce Irvin at #15?
 

So what did you think and why?

Two points that are INVALID if you claim 'bad pick.'

1) He is not undersized for the position he will play in Seattle's defensive scheme.

2) The idea that they could have gotten him later and should have traded down if he was their target is incorrect. In fact, the GM said that he had an offer on the table but declined because he thought the Jets were going to take him at No. 16.

From PFT following media/internet/fan/draftnik widespread criticism of the pick:

This is a pre-draft feature that delves into his checkered past:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--we...ot-at-nfl.html
Take from it what you will.

From GM John Schneider ("reached" similarly on James Carpenter last year - struggled in his rookie year; but track record includes Russell Okung, Earl Thomas, late-round gems Kam Chancellor, K.J. Wright, and Richard Sherman, trades for highly productive DE Chris Clemons and RB Marshawn Lynch, UDFA gem Doug Baldwin, and two impressive hauls in veteran FA, highlighted by Sidney Rice, Matt Flynn, and Jason Jones):
Keep in mind that they could have had ANY other outside pass-rusher in the entire draft at No. 15 but chose Irvin.

From Pete Carroll:
Extremely interesting from Irvin himself (I believe this quote can be spun positively OR negatively, which makes it pretty fascinating):

Lastly, keep in mind that the Seahawks had ONE positional need for the upcoming season - MLB (only if you consider Barrett Ruud an unacceptable starter, which most do).

Shane's rant says it all imo

It's a reach. Nice try Seahawks fan!

im still going with this reaction



Would of taken him in the 3rd in the last forum mock had I been awake at 5 am though

I prefer this oldie

I don't see a problem with it, regardless of whether other teams would have taken him. No one comes close to having his first step. It's strange what the draft process does too because I could have sworn people were much higher on Irvin last off-season. He's a beast. I will look forward to seeing him at home games.

A reach in comparison to draftnik's draft boards.

Shane's got this:



...and it's pretty epic.

We get it. A team wanted him there so it isn't a reach for them. From now on lets just assume every player went at the exact position they were supposed to go, because that is where they were drafted.

He was not a reach at all based on the boards of NFL personnel guys. But he was based on Mel Kiper's board. And most internet boards.

No player is a reach. Every player went exactly where they were supposed to. Lets never discuss a players positioning in the draft again.

I like Irvin. I don't like Irvin anywhere near as much as the Seahawks apparently liked him. I would take him in the 2nd easily, but I struggle with that player in the slot.

Pretty funny. And I understand the concerns.

But he doesn't understand the Seahawks defense at all. He'll play LEO and is a perfect fit. And he won't start this year. Their #1 need was at MLB. Their #2 need was at situational pass rusher/backup LEO to Chris Clemons.

Maybe when he's in on 3rd-and-7 for Red Bryant they'll run draws to his side and get burned... but it's not like this acquisition has somehow destroyed the Seahawks already stout run defense.

The more and more I think about this pick, the more and more I like it.

He's gonna be very hard to mold/develop, and it's gonna take time. I think people assume he's gonna come in and have an Aldon Smith type of impact, and that couldn't be further from the truth, IMO.

From what I see he's a talented one-dimensional speed rusher. He reminds me of Bruce Davis out of UCLA back in 2008. 23 sacks in two years as a starter, and very productive. A lot of the things they say about Irvin they said about Davis, about needing to add strength and being fast and a speed-rusher. He was drafted in the third round by Pitt, never did anything, never developed at all, and was cut after a year. He's bounced around in the league, been in five teams in 5 years (Steelers, Patriots, Broncos, San Fran, and Oakland) and has done absolutely nothing as a pro.

Irvin reminds me of him in the sense that his college production will not translate smoothly to the NFL. I know this is subjective and somewhat speculative, but that's what I see. For me, he'd be a better LB than DE, but I dunno exactly how Seattle will use him. I just know it's a very risky pick, not only because of his character, but due to the fact that he's just too big of a wild-card as a prospect. They didn't really know how to use him in college and that could also be the case in the NFL. I thought his best fit would be as a 3-4 OLB that could just blitz all day long on the outside of tackles.

He has just as much, if not more, bust potential than he has regular potential.

Haha. Shane is awesome.

OK but we can all add and subtract based on rankings.

The idea is to delve more deeply into that analysis. What made it a reach? Who specifically would have been better and why? Let's discuss his flaws as a player. Why he'll fail, etc.

Shane at least starts to do that citing film study before he gets funny.

Good post. I don't think Bruce Davis was nearly the athlete/pass rusher Irvin is, but I'll agree to disagree.

But it's not really that WVU didn't know how to use him. It was more that he didn't fit their 3-3-5. And he still had 23 sacks in two years... playing severely out of position.

Why get all serious when it's so much funner to post gifs?



Let the Shane P. Hallams of the world tell you why it was a bad pick.

Oh, I agree with the athlete/pass-rusher part. Bruce Irvin definitely would be a rich man's version of Davis.

I was making a comparison of the situation combined with the type of player (effective college speed rushers transitioning to NFL), rather than a comparison of the players themselves.

I'd like for him to work out, he'd be extremely fun to see, but as of right now it's still a big gamble and a risky pick.

Not saying he's Von Miller but....I can't imagine people liking Miller half as much if he was a run-first DE in a 30 front. Likewise, people would probably like Irvin twice as much if he was a stand up 34 rush backer like Miller was.

That's what I envisioned him as. I thought a team like NE, HOU, PIT, or BAL would be able to a.) give him time to develop and b.) allow him to stand up and work beside/behind big DE's.

Not to get off topic but I think STL may have taken just as big a risk with Brockers.

I like Irvin but I hate where he was drafted.

That's basically what his role for Seattle will be except for it'll be in a 4-3 instead of a 3-4. Little different but similar in concept.