How are we so Cap strapped?

[bjornanderson21]

The problem we're going to run into, is that we have drafted like garbage. Lane is up, we've drafted some CB's, who is going to replace him? Nobody. Bruce Irvin is going to leave, who is going to replace him? Nobody. We have to re-sign Rubin because Jordan Hill, Jesse Williams and whoever else we have drafted all suck. We had to go pay a TE 9 million because Luke Willson sucks. Who is going to play X-receiver this year? We haven't developed anything above an almost average player on the O-Line. We got lucky and got Rawls, otherwise we'd be in big trouble there because the guys we drafted suck. Paying all of your players works if you develop good, cheap players behind them, and we are really struggling with that process, and it just might leave some holes that we can't magically cover up.

Agreed

 

[bjornanderson21]

Cap space is not the be all and end all.

Having a bit cap space and a mediocre team is bad.

Having a bit of cap space but being one of the most talented teams in the league is a different story.

Furthermore, we have lots of smart contracts and though our realized cap space is low, we do not have an albatross deals that we can't get out of and so when looking at cap commitments over several years - we are actually just league average.

As for just drafting better - it is a bit of a disingenuous argument. The guys who are costing the most amount of money are guys that we wouldn't replace through the draft.

We won't just draft a new Wilson, Sherman or Thomas every year. In fact, are biggest cap commitments are tied up in guys you simply wouldn't replace through the draft.

The draft is more about having players who complement those core guys and keep us competitive every year. In other words, cap room is not a sign of drafting well but consistent success is. As I said at the beginning, being a Super Bowl contender is what it is all about and you don't stay on top very long unless you have a group of core players who are elite. Furthermore, you don't keep those players around long unless you pay them so we should only start stressing about cap space when we aren't Super Bowl favourites.

Except that replacing those guys SHOULD be a goal.

There is no rule that says the Seahawks MUST keep all these guys on the team to stay really good.

If the Hawks drafted a CB who isn't as good as sherman, but is really good....you look at trading Sherman.

If the Hawks drafted a really good FS or SS, you look at trading Earl or Kam.

If the Hawks drafted a good LT you easily let Okung leave in FA without even making an offer.


Because of the salary cap, your goal should NOT be to keep everyone, it should be to find as many quality players in the draft SO YOU CAN REPLACE EXPENSIVE VETERANS.

Draft, draft, draft

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

Except that replacing those guys SHOULD be a goal.

There is no rule that says the Seahawks MUST keep all these guys on the team to stay really good.

If the Hawks drafted a CB who isn't as good as sherman, but is really good....you look at trading Sherman.

If the Hawks drafted a really good FS or SS, you look at trading Earl or Kam.

If the Hawks drafted a good LT you easily let Okung leave in FA without even making an offer.


Because of the salary cap, your goal should NOT be to keep everyone, it should be to find as many quality players in the draft SO YOU CAN REPLACE EXPENSIVE VETERANS.

Draft, draft, draft

Except there are many issues with this approach as this isn't Madden.

There aren't many Shermans to go around and not many corners - even with the greatest development - are going to be that successful. There are maybe 5 elite shut down corners in the league. Same with Earl Thomas, there are probably fewer safeties who can play the cover-3 scheme like him. So when when playing a defensive scheme highly dependent on these positions for success - you can't just plug a replacement level player in and hope he plays well. Look how many RCBs we have gone through - do you think finding a player like Sherman is that easy? So no I don't think replacing those guys when they are performing at Hall of Fame levels should be the goal for more cap space. By your logic, the Pats should have replaced Tom Brady because he was costing too much money. It is borderline silly.

In addition, constantly shuffling around a defense means you are starting over every couple of years which limits the complexity you could get into. There is a reason the greatest defenses of all time have been anchored by Hall of Fame players - like Singletary, Lewis etc. Same is generally true for offense.

Even if you want to develop another Sherman, it would mean giving significant playing time to another player when Sherman is still on the roster - which simply isn't going to happen.

But you also missed my other point is that - we have lots of flexibility to cut many of the vets on the team who aren't performing at high levels - in fact I mentioned we are 15th in the league in cap flexibility. Trouble is for people who want more cap space, most of the veterans with big contracts are playing well - so there is no reason to cut them so gain that cap space.

Overall, the point still stands - the point of cap space is to field a team capable of winning a Super Bowl - which we currently have. Gaining more cap space by sacrificing highly talented players is silly as there are no awards at the end of the season for most cap space.

 

[bigskydoc]

That, and it also had to do with the transition of scouting authority from Carroll to Schneider after the 2012 draft...

So there was an adjustment period in 2013 and 2014. However, the 2015 draft is already a success and over time could turn into a grand slam...

I've never wished so much to be wrong. Hoping that 2013 and 2014 are the aberrations, not 2015.

Even so, one cannot discount the contribution of McLoughan when he has a track record of taking multiple teams from NFL basement dwellers to Super Bowl contenders.

One thing he has never done, though, is maintained a Super Bowl caliber team, and guided them to post-Super Bowl success. I think that task is actually harder than building a team, essentially, from scratch.

-bsd

 

[Popeyejones]

That, and it also had to do with the transition of scouting authority from Carroll to Schneider after the 2012 draft...

So there was an adjustment period in 2013 and 2014. However, the 2015 draft is already a success and over time could turn into a grand slam...

I've never wished so much to be wrong. Hoping that 2013 and 2014 are the aberrations, not 2015.

Even so, one cannot discount the contribution of McLoughan when he has a track record of taking multiple teams from NFL basement dwellers to Super Bowl contenders.

One thing he has never done, though, is maintained a Super Bowl caliber team, and guided them to post-Super Bowl success. I think that task is actually harder than building a team, essentially, from scratch.

-bsd

IMO the clouds really part once you accept that with 32 teams all competing for the same thing the draft is mostly random chance.

It's fun to attribute luck to acts of genius, but in the long run it just never seems to pan out.

The hagiography of McLoughan is an example of this too, IMO.

McLoughan was the 49ers GM for two drafts total, of which out of 13 picks only one ended up being worth a damn, and that was Michael Crabtree who went top 10. McLoughan's 2008 draft was as bad as Baalke's 2012 draft (1: Kentwan Balmer, 2: Chilo Rachal, 3: Reggie Smith, 4: Cody Wallace, 6: Josh Morgan, 7: Larry Grant). His only other draft as GM, the 2009 draft, was almost entirely misses too (1: Crabtree (top 10 pick), 3: Glenn Coffee, 5: Scott McKillop, 5: Nate Davis, 6: Bear Pascoe, 7: Curtis Taylor, 7: Ricky Jean-Francois).