ESPN story: NFC West: 5 moves each team should make

[flmmkrz]

Screw number 5. Both are 30+ year old backs with a history of season-ending injuries. That's a terrible idea.

as opposed to our 2 young rbs with a history of injuries?

nobody is saying long term contract but as a stop gap if they can't land a Mixon or young talented back in the draft, better than going into of our short window seasons without a capable back, just throwing enough injury prone bodies at the position may help, gotta figure one will last lol

 

[Rob12]

Can't for the life of me understand how anyone could want Jamaal Charles here for anything but the bet minimum. 83 carries over the past two seasons due to serious injuries and we think he's going to come here and do something behind our line? Then you look at his age, and that determines it. No thanks.

 

[Rob12]

Screw number 5. Both are 30+ year old backs with a history of season-ending injuries. That's a terrible idea.

You can set your watch to the week 12 Jamaaaaaal Charles knee injury.

If we got 10-11 games of Jamaal Charles, I'd say sign him the second the Chiefs release him. But 83 carries over the past two seasons says he gets hurt way before that.

You're quite the optimist.

 

[Popeyejones]

I think people are overlooking the qualifying statement that he's only suggesting this if the market for Charles or Peterson craters.

Because they've been missing in the draft and don't have guys to give extensions to the Hawks have unexpected cap room.

If the market for these guys crater you could get them without down the road cap commitments, and in that situation the Seahawks are a really attractive option for either of these guys because there aren't many teams that could give them a good chance to finally get a ring w/out any clear running backs in place (right now it's the Hawks, Pats, and maybe Packers depending on what happens with Lacy, although they seem pretty rightly happy with Montgomery).

For 4-5 million per with no back end commitments people really wouldn't rather have ADP active on game days over Alex Collins?

I see very little downside to it, save for the opportunity cost of that money going somewhere else (although again, the Hawks are unexpectedly finding themselves with a fair amount of cap room).

 

[Uncle Si]

I think people are overlooking the qualifying statement that he's only suggesting this if the market for Charles or Peterson craters.

Because they've been missing in the draft and don't have guys to give extensions to the Hawks have unexpected cap room.

If the market for these guys crater you could get them without down the road cap commitments, and in that situation the Seahawks are a really attractive option for either of these guys because there aren't many teams that could give them a good chance to finally get a ring w/out any clear running backs in place (right now it's the Hawks, Pats, and maybe Packers depending on what happens with Lacy, although they seem pretty rightly happy with Montgomery).

For 4-5 million per with no back end commitments people really wouldn't rather have ADP active on game days over Alex Collins?

I see very little downside to it, save for the opportunity cost of that money going somewhere else (although again, the Hawks are unexpectedly finding themselves with a fair amount of cap room).

I'm not sure it's being overlooked as much as it doesn't seem worth any of the investment given neither could be successful behind the current OL.

I live in Minnesota and have watched ADP the last couple years go for about 2 yards per carry behind an OL a little better than the one Seattle has. Why bother having him here to do the same?

Change the OL and then he becomes more enticing.

 

[Popeyejones]

I live in Minnesota and have watched ADP the last couple years go for about 2 yards per carry behind an OL a little better than the one Seattle has.

Last couple years?

Last year yeah, but that was based on 37 total carries.

The year before that he led the league in rushing yards at 4.5 yards per clip. :lol:

 

[Uncle Si]

I live in Minnesota and have watched ADP the last couple years go for about 2 yards per carry behind an OL a little better than the one Seattle has.

Last couple years?

Last year yeah, but that was based on 37 total carries.

The year before that he led the league in rushing yards at 4.5 yards per clip. :lol:

Fine... one year. And it was based on 37 total carries for a reason. He wasn't going anywhere when he had the ball

 

[Popeyejones]

I live in Minnesota and have watched ADP the last couple years go for about 2 yards per carry behind an OL a little better than the one Seattle has.

Last couple years?

Last year yeah, but that was based on 37 total carries.

The year before that he led the league in rushing yards at 4.5 yards per clip. :lol:

Fine... one year. And it was based on 37 total carries for a reason. He wasn't going anywhere when he had the ball

Wait, you think he only had 37 carries last year because he was ineffective on them?

You sure it wasn't because he tore his meniscus on his 37th carry and was on I.R. for the rest of the year? :lol:

I mean, if you want to argue that even if his market craters he's not worth a minimal short-term investment because he's over 30 and coming back from a major injury that's just a disagreement in opinion which is totally fair game (of course), but that he's been ineffective across multiple years or got benched last year based on 27 touches just ain't true (they were even planning to rush him back if they were in the playoff hunt).

 

[Uncle Si]

I live in Minnesota and have watched ADP the last couple years go for about 2 yards per carry behind an OL a little better than the one Seattle has.

Last couple years?

Last year yeah, but that was based on 37 total carries.

The year before that he led the league in rushing yards at 4.5 yards per clip. :lol:

Fine... one year. And it was based on 37 total carries for a reason. He wasn't going anywhere when he had the ball

Wait, you think he only had 37 carries last year because he was ineffective on them?

You sure it wasn't because he tore his meniscus on his 37th carry and was on I.R. for the rest of the year? :lol:

The same torn meniscus injury that does not require surgery and with it has 3-4 week return time? The one that had him set to return in early December (IR with designation to return) but was not placed on the roster by the coach the last two weeks after a dismal 6 carry, 22 yard (his highest output of the season) upon an early return? And this was after gaining 51 yards on 30 carries to start the season.

I do not doubt that his story with the Vikings is highly under reported nationally. I am sure it was because of his performance and many, many issues off the field as well as being ineffective on it.

 

[Seymour]

Screw number 5. Both are 30+ year old backs with a history of season-ending injuries. That's a terrible idea.

as opposed to our 2 young rbs with a history of injuries?

Yes. We blow way less cap room with the first contract players, so same result for less $$ and more strength elsewhere. Charles has played like 13 games in 2 years. Next.......

 

[chris98251]

Save the money on RB's and draft one, there is a pretty deep pool, use the rest of the money if your going to spend on Tackles, RT you could get one for easily 3 to 4 million and a left 6 maybe, that would fix the running game better then any RB addition in Free Agency. It would also help the passing game.

 

[sdog1981]

Screw number 5. Both are 30+ year old backs with a history of season-ending injuries. That's a terrible idea.

You can set your watch to the week 12 Jamaaaaaal Charles knee injury.

If we got 10-11 games of Jamaal Charles, I'd say sign him the second the Chiefs release him. But 83 carries over the past two seasons says he gets hurt way before that.

You're quite the optimist.

What can I say, you got me.

 

[Largent80]

If TB throws 13 + to Campbell the Hawks can forget getting him.

The draft is loaded with RB talent, snag one of them.

We need DB in the worst way, dude didn't even mention it in the article.

He also said Rawls "struggled mightily". Hardly, he was injured most of the year.

 

[chris98251]

If TB throws 13 + to Campbell the Hawks can forget getting him.

The draft is loaded with RB talent, snag one of them.

We need DB in the worst way, dude didn't even mention it in the article.

He also said Rawls "struggled mightily". Hardly, he was injured most of the year.

Why ESPN articles are worthless, 9 times out of 10 they just scrape other story lines to put stuff together. They are not the leader in anything but Pomp these days.

 

[Popeyejones]

The draft is loaded with RB talent, snag one of them.

The Hawks already spent 3 of their 10 picks on RBs last year, though. I'm not too sure that spending more draft capital on that position given the depth problems the Hawks have developed is the smart move -- with the Hawks unexpected cap room it's why I think that if an established vet has a soft market Barnwell's right that the Hawks should think about swooping in (promising the chance of a ring and an offense that has been very friendly to the RB position in exchange for money these guys don't need anymore).

We need DB in the worst way, dude didn't even mention it in the article.

Agreed. I'd put that above an RB too.

He also said Rawls "struggled mightily". Hardly, he was injured most of the year.

True he was injured most of the year (an additional concern with him), but he also averaged 3.2 ypc in the games he did play. For a team as good as the Seahawks who leaned so heavily on their ground game during this run, I think it's reasonable to say that the 5th most important thing to do this off-season is to think about shoring up the RB position.

I think the sentence "There's still plenty of promise, but Rawls might end up as a better fit in a situational role" (or if not situational, splitting time) is a fairly reasonable one.

 

[Largent80]

^^^^^^^ The reason I said to get an RB was the simple fact that Prosise spent almost the entire year hurt as well as Rawls.

Prosise was also injured in college. I don't trust him to stay healthy. It is a position of importance to Seattle obviously so fresh bodies is required. Spending a 3rd round pick isn't that big of a deal especially since the Hawks have 2 and maybe another one for losing Irvin.

 

[Uncle Si]

I think most agree an RB is essential to moving forward. Question was whether two aging RBs with some injury history was the better way to address that need

 

[Popeyejones]

I think most agree an RB is essential to moving forward.

Yep.

For me (as a matter of opinion, of course) it's like this:

(1) If you don't think Rawls, Prosise, and Collins are a viable 1/2/3 moving forward you invest more draft capital in the position.

(2) If you want to hedge your bets on the viability of Rawls, Prosise, Collins while trying to make sure that RB isn't a liability over the next year or two you add a veteran to that mix.

 

[Uncle Si]

Should option 2 be it, What other vet RBs might be out there outside Charles or ADP?

 

[Largent80]

NO to the add a veteran.

We lucked out getting Lynch. He was on the outs in Buff. And we gave up a 4th to get him.

This offense needs a suitable replacement. It's like...OK, we have Rawls and Prosise, but do we really?

I don't feel secure, and I'm pretty sure this run first team doesn't either.

There isn't a vet available that fits the bill so let's draft one in a good year to do it.