MizzouHawkGal":z0stl0ny said:
Attyla the Hawk":z0stl0ny said:
5m for an OG of Mathis' quality is downright stealing.
It's worth the addition money wise. And while there were no takers for his 5.5m/6m contract for 2015/16 -- we have to account for the asking price in terms of picks too.
That contract was also 2 years and I'm not familiar with how the terms were structured. So that could have been an extra disincentive to make a move.
Honestly, I tend to think the Eagles situation is a bit toxic for many players. I wouldn't necessarily peg his moves based on greed. He could just as easily just want out of the organization. Kelly definitely wants his guys and appears to make the work environment pretty hostile to those that aren't his guys. Mathis could be the latest in a long line of players from the old regime that suffers from that petty bias.
Mathis is a quality talent. He'd be a significant upgrade in 2015 versus every player we have on this roster that would be asked to play LG. Honestly, he's probably our best OL the day he signs. So 5m is a pretty paltry spend for that kind of short term commitment. Scheme fit and quality are a neat match in this case.
Not a chance in hell we sign him unless.....
1. Wilson and his agent stop playing games and start getting realistic.
2. We actually give a damn about the OL and try something above dumpster diving for Blackbeard's treasure.
3. Get rid of Tom Cable.
Which do you figure happens first? I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious.
Out of order:
3. Mathis would be a pretty prototypical Cable player. Although maybe not as it pertains to the LG position. Mathis is an All pro (currently) zone blocking LG. From a scheme fit, he's about as perfect of a free agent one could hope to get on the open market.
It's worth noting, that when we were short on OL depth one of the first guys we added was Robert Gallery. Obviously he and Cable had a history. His skill set doesn't/didn't come close to that of Mathis. Currently, I'd see our OL depth as similar although not as dire as 2011. We have a severe shortage of experienced OL options. And while we have Bailey at LG, we have to assume that Okung will not be healthy for some stretch of this season. Bailey was the alpha option last year as his back up.
Mathis, would at the very least, allow our 3-4 rookies develop at a more acceptable pace. While actually improving the starting 5 instead of being merely a placeholder as Gallery was.
2. No question on this one. Although I don't see it as we don't give a damn. I see it as Seattle making the conscious decision to keep the roster spend very lean in this group, so as to allocate that cap space for other positions. Our DB/LB/DL spend is huge as of now. Our RB spend is probably two to up to five times what other teams spend. These aren't bad contracts. Just that you can't 'give a damn' spend wise with all of our positions. Somewhere teams have to accept spending less money. For Seattle, that's the OL.
1. I'm not sure Wilson's contract really is likely to impact our ability to make this kind of move. There are plenty of ways to spread spending around. There is also the reality that a lot of dead money on this year's books won't be there in 2016. Cap increase and loss of big dead money hit means plenty of available cash next year if the team wanted to lighten the cap hit blow on extensions this year in order to accomodate adding Mathis.
Ultimately, I would say it's unlikely we add Mathis, for the fact that we're trying to keep costs down in the OL department. But his is a uniquely good fit for Seattle in all ways other than age and cost. His play is still at the highest level in the league. For a position group that at least in 2015 is going to go through some rough patches due to inexperience. He could be well worth the price to hedge against a backslide of quality particularly in the middle of a championship run.