WindCityHawk":y4rdroc2 said:
I'm surprised to see so many people hating on this deal, I love it. An incentive-laden, one-year "prove it" deal for a former top pick looking for redemption. At the very least, we'll get his best swing. Pure upside, I love it.
I'd say response is mostly positive with some mixed. Although what I'm finding is that those criticizing the move tend to be of the 'OL fairy' camp. Other than someone stating that they would have rather paid the long term guaranteed deal for Whitworth -- I've not seen anyone make a case for a deal they would have preferred. They just want greatness at a bargain price and aren't happy if they don't get it. It takes a serious divorce from reality to even profess that kind of deal.
It's an overall bad OL UFA group. To go with a bad OL draft class. With a league that is starving for OL talent. It's like trading Kam AND Earl for an Okung.
Tical21":y4rdroc2 said:
That just seems like so much money for a really bad player. And if it does pay off and he plays well, then what? I think the Lang deal is the one that makes this whole thing happen. Signing Lang and Joeckel is addressing your biggest need in a pretty big way. In that case, let the best 5 win. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if we just signed the most expensive backup tackle in the league.
It is a lot of money for a bad player. That's the landscape for 2017. And it's not exactly Seattle's fault we're in this shape. Because we weren't in a position to avoid it. That's unfortunately the price we incur by always making deep runs into the playoffs. All of the SB participants since we started our playoff runs in 2012 are afflicted with the same dearth of OL talent.
I do like Lang. Although I think the only reason to really add him would be to move Ifedi. Something they've said they won't do, but something I fully expected them to do this season even in minicamp last year.