Mike Evans would you?

[kearly]

I would not wish to make a similarly costly trade up for Evans -- that's way too much stock in a position that doesn't coincide with our core identity. It's an ancillary piece. We've committed to Harvin and I think we have to stand on that.

This is a team that is already on the mountaintop. The challenge for this team is now to maintain quality across the board. To add talents so that we don't have to extend players who are good, but not great. This is a team built on breadth of talent. Good players everywhere and several rows deep.

Trading up really moves away from what we are as a team. It's quality built on players who don't leave us salivating with anticipation. Guys who we kind of shrug and go 'guess we'll see what he looks like in August'.

During that late season 4-game stretch when Seattle was without Rice and Harvin and facing good defenses that stopped respecting our WRs, Seattle averaged just 16 points a game on offense, and Wilson's passer rating was in the low 80s. Seattle's offense struggled to move the ball in their two home playoff games as well, relying on turnovers and big plays to reach 23 points in both games. At home.

I really don't want to be in a situation where Seattle is one injury away from being highly vulnerable on offense, especially when that lynchpin player is maybe the biggest injury risk on the team. To me, getting another weapon is not a luxury. It is a need.

As far as trading up, JS compared the Percy move to trading up last year, and he's right for doing so. So I wouldn't say it's out of character. Seattle has shown many times that they are capable of making bold moves to get a guy they think it a centerpiece player, whether that is in the draft, FA, or trade.

Percy cost a ton, the cash aspect alone is probably as big a burden as the picks were. So if Seattle traded a ton of picks for Evans and paid him $3.5 million a year on his slotted deal, it's basically like doing the Percy trade all over again. Right now this team needs Percy insurance. Doesn't have to be another player just like Percy, but it does need to be a player that scares defenses deep.

Maybe Seattle gets Brandon Coleman at #64 and there isn't any need to move up. But if you've watched Evans, you know this guy is going to be a STAR. Not "maybe a good player." The extra cost to get a very likely star at a position of dire need makes a lot of sense to me, especially since Seattle doesn't really have many needs elsewhere and usually does all their damage with late picks anyway.

 

[kearly]

Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?

I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

 

[randomation]

Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?

I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

Yeah just a random thought but yeah trading up for Evans would be amazing would just cost so much.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Hardly any of our picks last year played. If you feel he will be a star then make the move.

 

[Scottemojo]

If he can be had for Percy like compensation, do it. Russ needs a big target, and I think two of our rivals are intent on getting better at WR this draft as well.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?

I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

True but if Evans does explode, you can almost guarantee that after 3 years he will want his money.

 

[Scottemojo]

Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?

I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

True but if Evans does explode, you can almost guarantee that after 3 years he will want his money.

That is a good problem to have, right?

 

[SeahawksFanForever]

QB/OL needy teams will draft their players that they need to build around. Someone should and will fall to #32. If Christian Ponder can go in the first round then any QB can go in the first round. I wouldn't be surprised if Derrick Carr or even AJ McCarron is a first round pick.

 

[Hawkfan77]

That is a good problem to have, right?

Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

 

[Scottemojo]

That is a good problem to have, right?

Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

Well, Gordon would be asking for a new deal after this year, so there is that. With the tag option, though, we would control Evans for 5 years.

 

[Hawkfan77]

That is a good problem to have, right?

Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

Well, Gordon would be asking for a new deal after this year, so there is that. With the tag option, though, we would control Evans for 5 years.

Ha very true, you guys are right.

 

[Brahn]

That is a good problem to have, right?

Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

Well, Gordon would be asking for a new deal after this year, so there is that. With the tag option, though, we would control Evans for 5 years.

Gordon is also 1 failed test away from a 1 year vacation from the NFL.

 

[Natethegreat]

I mentioned this in another thread but I'll post it here too. I don't think its likely but it may be possible that we are open to trading Sherman with his impending contract negotiations. There is no way we just replace Sherman like we did with Browner because Sherman is a far better cover corner and an elite playmaker. However Pete and Schneider know how to spot talent and Carrol is incredible in his ability to put together a good secondary. I don't think our defense would significantly drop off should Sherman be traded and with the upcoming contracts we have on this team we might be willing to trade with a team like the Lions at 10 who has big needs at corner.
This also happens to be about the right spot to pick up Evans if we could pry their first and third from them I could see us doing it. It would give us 5 years of a cost controlled star who would pair up so extremely well with Wilson and free up the cash to keep Earl Thomas, Bennet, Wilson, and maybe even sign a guy like Jarred Allen or Greg Hardy.
I love Sherman I really do, he adds that fire and determination that defines this team. He is an elite playmaking DB but when looking at the big picture should they get the right offer I think its not out of the question.

 

[SeahawksFanForever]

Trade two times all pro (League's best at his position) so that we can get a guy who is all potential and haven't proven anything yet. I am a huge Mike Evans fan but really? Trade Sherman? wow!

 

[Natethegreat]

Trade two times all pro (League's best at his position) so that we can get a guy who is all potential and haven't proven anything yet. I am a huge Mike Evans fan but really? Trade Sherman? wow!

I hear you but look at Petes' history of putting together strong secondaries. He is able to do it with defensive philosophy and ability to spot the kind of players that work in it. This ability has not gone away. As good as Sherman is I don't know if we can afford to pay him and Thomas and Wilson and Kam and Bennet and Lynch and Percy and Miller and Maxwell. Well you get the idea.
Sherman has the kind of value to get that big package that would get us a star in Evans (for a cost controlled 5 years) and another possible player in the third maybe(hello Wilson).
I'm not saying its likely but I bet they would do it if the right offer comes along.

 

[Hawkfan77]

Trade two times all pro (League's best at his position) so that we can get a guy who is all potential and haven't proven anything yet. I am a huge Mike Evans fan but really? Trade Sherman? wow!

I hear you but look at Petes' history of putting together strong secondaries. He is able to do it with defensive philosophy and ability to spot the kind of players that work in it. This ability has not gone away. As good as Sherman is I don't know if we can afford to pay him and Thomas and Wilson and Kam and Bennet and Lynch and Percy and Miller and Maxwell. Well you get the idea.
Sherman has the kind of value to get that big package that would get us a star in Evans (for a cost controlled 5 years) and another possible player in the third maybe(hello Wilson).
I'm not saying its likely but I bet they would do it if the right offer comes along.

I get what you're saying. It's not as far fetched as some want to make it seem. Heck Revis just got traded last off season.

But what PC and JS have said is that they will identify the core of this team, and they will keep that core together. We can't and won't pay everyone, but we will pay to keep the core group of players that really make this go. I believe Sherm is part of that core.

 

[formido]

I would not wish to make a similarly costly trade up for Evans -- that's way too much stock in a position that doesn't coincide with our core identity. It's an ancillary piece. We've committed to Harvin and I think we have to stand on that.

This is a team that is already on the mountaintop. The challenge for this team is now to maintain quality across the board. To add talents so that we don't have to extend players who are good, but not great. This is a team built on breadth of talent. Good players everywhere and several rows deep.

Trading up really moves away from what we are as a team. It's quality built on players who don't leave us salivating with anticipation. Guys who we kind of shrug and go 'guess we'll see what he looks like in August'.

During that late season 4-game stretch when Seattle was without Rice and Harvin and facing good defenses that stopped respecting our WRs, Seattle averaged just 16 points a game on offense, and Wilson's passer rating was in the low 80s. Seattle's offense struggled to move the ball in their two home playoff games as well, relying on turnovers and big plays to reach 23 points in both games. At home.

I really don't want to be in a situation where Seattle is one injury away from being highly vulnerable on offense, especially when that lynchpin player is maybe the biggest injury risk on the team. To me, getting another weapon is not a luxury. It is a need.

As far as trading up, JS compared the Percy move to trading up last year, and he's right for doing so. So I wouldn't say it's out of character. Seattle has shown many times that they are capable of making bold moves to get a guy they think it a centerpiece player, whether that is in the draft, FA, or trade.

Percy cost a ton, the cash aspect alone is probably as big a burden as the picks were. So if Seattle traded a ton of picks for Evans and paid him $3.5 million a year on his slotted deal, it's basically like doing the Percy trade all over again. Right now this team needs Percy insurance. Doesn't have to be another player just like Percy, but it does need to be a player that scares defenses deep.

Maybe Seattle gets Brandon Coleman at #64 and there isn't any need to move up. But if you've watched Evans, you know this guy is going to be a STAR. Not "maybe a good player." The extra cost to get a very likely star at a position of dire need makes a lot of sense to me, especially since Seattle doesn't really have many needs elsewhere and usually does all their damage with late picks anyway.

Sign me up. Can you imagine this offense with Evans, Harvin, and Wilson? That would cover up a lot of offensive line shortcomings (and, hey, maybe Bailey and Bowie are the answers). This mature team doesn't need as many draft picks as it used to, and the staff is the best in the NFL at finding gold late, in UDFA, value FA, the CFL, and off the street. Assuming they'd still do the Harvin trade if they had to do it again, and I bet they would, why not move up for Evans? When the move is there, you make it.

 

[Natethegreat]

Trade two times all pro (League's best at his position) so that we can get a guy who is all potential and haven't proven anything yet. I am a huge Mike Evans fan but really? Trade Sherman? wow!

I hear you but look at Petes' history of putting together strong secondaries. He is able to do it with defensive philosophy and ability to spot the kind of players that work in it. This ability has not gone away. As good as Sherman is I don't know if we can afford to pay him and Thomas and Wilson and Kam and Bennet and Lynch and Percy and Miller and Maxwell. Well you get the idea.
Sherman has the kind of value to get that big package that would get us a star in Evans (for a cost controlled 5 years) and another possible player in the third maybe(hello Wilson).
I'm not saying its likely but I bet they would do it if the right offer comes along.

I get what you're saying. It's not as far fetched as some want to make it seem. Heck Revis just got traded last off season.

But what PC and JS have said is that they will identify the core of this team, and they will keep that core together. We can't and won't pay everyone, but we will pay to keep the core group of players that really make this go. I believe Sherm is part of that core.

That is the one reason I think it is unlikely and I have absolutely no problem hanging on to a guy like Sherman even though he is going to cost a ton. I guess it would depend on how much he wants from the Seahawks. If its 12 mill per year or over I bet they might consider it though.

 

[randomation]

So what would it seriously take to move up and take evans this years one next years one are a give but would it take a third one or would one possible 2 2s be enough?

 

[onanygivensunday]

That is a good problem to have, right?

Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

Well, Gordon would be asking for a new deal after this year, so there is that. With the tag option, though, we would control Evans for 5 years.

Make that 6 years.

My understanding is 1st round draft choices are signed to a 5-year contract with the team holding the option on the 5th year.

Adding in the franchise tag possibility gets you to 6 years.