Source: Seattle trying to trade Michael Bennett

[Sgt. Largent]

and weren't very good.

You're just misrepresenting facts now. I'm disappointed.

Where did I write that?

And if you believe holding onto guys like Earl, Sherman and Bennett hoping they stay healthy and produce again is the way to go? We did that the last two years when these guys weren't hurt, and weren't very good.

I'm actually sure now whether you were referring to the players or the defense as a whole, now that I read the sentence structure carefully, but either way, I don't think you're going to have an easy time casting the defense as "not very good". We've been solid, at worst, since 2012 statistically. The exception was Earl's injury in 2016, and that's an injury he bounced back quite nicely from in 2017.

The offense deserves way more blame than the defense for 2017.

I meant the team as a whole, and specifically about the notion of keeping these guys around hoping they and WE recapture some sort of SB form.

Not likely.

 

[Seymour]

Rams at home 42-7 = Bad offense. :roll:

The offense had an excuse. No support from Pete with $$, Fable, and Bevell.

 

[Sac]

Ah a return to the Brian Russell days. Can't wait to consistently get beat deep again.

 

[mrt144]

Rams at home 42-7 = Bad offense. :roll:

The offense had an excuse. No support from Pete with $$, Fable, and Bevell.

What was the score in that other game they played?

You're better than this

Do you remember when I did an analysis of the drive efficiency stats and found that the offense was more divergent from their established average than the defense was from the period of 2012 to 2017? By a standard deviation in most categories captured by Football Outsiders?

The fairest way to process last season is the defense was off, but the offense was malignant.

 

[Yxes1122]

But I tend to think of things in terms of the next 3 years. What is better for Seattle in the next 3 years? In the early days John and Pete stressed the 3 year plan and not mortgaging the future for the sake of the present. We did that last year. The reason we are sitting here with a tight cap and lack of picks is because we bet on the old core to get us to the promised land. And it didn't happen.

But WHY didn't it happen? That was the question posed by my post. Especially when you consider that Earl, Sherman, Avril, Kam, and Bennett (whom I'm not as attached to, BTW) were still producing at Pro Bowl levels while they were on the field, Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner had career seasons, and those "mortgage signings" (Sheldon for Malik, Brown for Fant, Maxwell for Sherman, McDougald for Kam) were solid additions by consensus of everyone here?

When you consider the Cable factor, the injury to Chris Carson, and the bottomed benefit-cost ratio of the Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings, it becomes a lot easier to blame the season on THOSE things.

And I think a lot of people are just subconsciously refusing to attribute 2017 to those things because doing so doesn't provide a handy, comforting silver bullet to fixing the team. It was just random injury and/or bad personnel decisions. I cannot believe that people watched the historically bad running game Seattle fielded last year and yet keep jumping to blame an aging defense that was playing statistically well.

So, when you talk about not mortgaging the future, I agree with you. But we have to correctly identify what went wrong in the present in order to keep from jettisoning elements that were helping rather than harming. I hardly think that all of Earl, Sherm, Kam, Avril, and Bennett will still be Seahawks in 2018. In fact, I think only two of them will be. But I also think we're going to be finding out the hard way just how good a thing we had going, even with them struggling to stay healthy.

I agree with you on the root cause of the problems last year. But, I don't think those issues get fixed THIS season and that is what I have a problem with. I am not willing to say Chris Carson is the future of our running game, by comparison, Rawls's rookie season was far more impressive and how has he turned out? I simply didn't see enough of him before losing him to injury, an injury really similar to what happened to Rawls.

I don't think that Solari is going to come in and fix our line and who's to say we get a consistent trustworthy kicker this offseason? We don't have the cap space or draft capital to fix these problems this season without some major luck playing a factor. You simply have to account for some manner of trial and error. If we don't fix it this season, then you have wasted a year of value from Bennett and Earl. I think Seattle can right the ship in 2-3 years, but where does that put us with Earl and Bennett. Earl will be 31-2 and Bennett will be 34-5 and there is a monster extension for Earl between then and now.

So again, I am not against you on what caused the problems last year. I don't think Earl is washed up and I don't think Bennett is washed up. But where will they be in two to three years?

I think it comes down to two questions:

Do you think we fix all the things that went wrong last year, this year?

Do you think Bennett and Earl will have the same level of value in two to three years as they do now?

For me the answer is no to both and it's why I am looking to trade them.

 

[sdog1981]

We better hope the whole Jordan thing pans out if we take this route.

Sure he has been productive in flashes but he also had guys like Bennett in there taking some of the attention of the blockers, and he hasn't been playing 80% of the snaps either.

Yes, he has. This is a non-debatable fact.


84% 2017

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... counts.htm


Only played 11 games in 2016 still had 52% on the snaps

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... counts.htm


81% 2015

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... counts.htm

84% 2014

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... counts.htm

 

[TwistedHusky]

Sdog,

Bennett had 80% of the snaps. (With foot problems too!)

Dion Jordan did not.

While Jordan looks like he can be a great addition, adding 4x the amount of snaps might reasonably impact productivity. You can play with your hair on fire if you do not have to worry about conserving energy to keep from tiring. Suddenly being expected to produce for the entire game might change that.

Clark got used more and he went through stretches when he disappeared for games.

Getting a guy that looks pretty good for a few shots per game to be consistently productive like Bennett is a big difference.

Even in 'bad' games for Bennett you still see him making plays every game, despite the few offsides that lead to a 5 yard penalty. (Which seriously, 1st and 5 - just jump again and move the damn sticks back to 1st & 10. Giving up 10 yards is worth it considering the option of giving a team 3 cracks at getting 5 yards, which they likely will do. All trying to play out the downs and make the stops does is put more miles on your defense, and use us stamina you need for later in the game)

 

[Jville]

There is no Seahawk that would benefit more from a change of venue than Michael Bennett. Extending drives with 1st and ten outcomes from reoccuring infractions wears on a team when it becomes a year to year habit and trait. It simply does not set an except-able example for young developing lineman. Penalty reduction is a stated high priority for this year's campaign.

Michael Bennett and Cliff Avril are the only two note worthy veteran holdovers from the pre-Clint Hurtt era. The addition of assistant Jethro Franklin completes a coaching turn over for the defensive line. New coaches have their own way of doing things and player preferences.

Although the March 14th decision has yet to be made, I've already turned the page ..... anticipating a healthy fully rehabbed Dion "last chance" Jordan and a crew of hungry prospects competing in the upcoming training camp rotation.

Yesterday is gone ...... time for a reset ....... bring on part two of the Pete Carroll John Schneider era.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

But I tend to think of things in terms of the next 3 years. What is better for Seattle in the next 3 years? In the early days John and Pete stressed the 3 year plan and not mortgaging the future for the sake of the present. We did that last year. The reason we are sitting here with a tight cap and lack of picks is because we bet on the old core to get us to the promised land. And it didn't happen.

But WHY didn't it happen? That was the question posed by my post. Especially when you consider that Earl, Sherman, Avril, Kam, and Bennett (whom I'm not as attached to, BTW) were still producing at Pro Bowl levels while they were on the field, Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner had career seasons, and those "mortgage signings" (Sheldon for Malik, Brown for Fant, Maxwell for Sherman, McDougald for Kam) were solid additions by consensus of everyone here?

When you consider the Cable factor, the injury to Chris Carson, and the bottomed benefit-cost ratio of the Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings, it becomes a lot easier to blame the season on THOSE things.

And I think a lot of people are just subconsciously refusing to attribute 2017 to those things because doing so doesn't provide a handy, comforting silver bullet to fixing the team. It was just random injury and/or bad personnel decisions. I cannot believe that people watched the historically bad running game Seattle fielded last year and yet keep jumping to blame an aging defense that was playing statistically well.

So, when you talk about not mortgaging the future, I agree with you. But we have to correctly identify what went wrong in the present in order to keep from jettisoning elements that were helping rather than harming. I hardly think that all of Earl, Sherm, Kam, Avril, and Bennett will still be Seahawks in 2018. In fact, I think only two of them will be. But I also think we're going to be finding out the hard way just how good a thing we had going, even with them struggling to stay healthy.

I agree with you on the root cause of the problems last year. But, I don't think those issues get fixed THIS season and that is what I have a problem with. I am not willing to say Chris Carson is the future of our running game, by comparison, Rawls's rookie season was far more impressive and how has he turned out? I simply didn't see enough of him before losing him to injury, an injury really similar to what happened to Rawls.

I don't think that Solari is going to come in and fix our line and who's to say we get a consistent trustworthy kicker this offseason? We don't have the cap space or draft capital to fix these problems this season without some major luck playing a factor. You simply have to account for some manner of trial and error. If we don't fix it this season, then you have wasted a year of value from Bennett and Earl. I think Seattle can right the ship in 2-3 years, but where does that put us with Earl and Bennett. Earl will be 31-2 and Bennett will be 34-5 and there is a monster extension for Earl between then and now.

So again, I am not against you on what caused the problems last year. I don't think Earl is washed up and I don't think Bennett is washed up. But where will they be in two to three years?

I think it comes down to two questions:

Do you think we fix all the things that went wrong last year, this year?

Do you think Bennett and Earl will have the same level of value in two to three years as they do now?

For me the answer is no to both and it's why I am looking to trade them.

Interesting posts...thanks. I could agree with these 2 posts of yours.

 

[sdog1981]

The question boils down to this. Can a Dlinmen play into their 30's on a limited snap count. I say yes. I don't see the replacements on the team. If they cut him next season they save even more. Trading him for a 6th or 7th rounder is not a value move.

 

[adeltaY]

I'm not against trading him for the right reason and for the right price, but what is this infighting or locker room drama that's being thrown around? I've seen nothing to suggest that there have been any locker room problems. The people that seem to have the most problems with him are certain Seahawks fans. Can the locker room claims be clarified with any legitimacy?

Great point! How can any of the fans accurately gauge how much of a distraction anything really is for the players? We aren't in the locker room. For all we know the protest stuff doesn't faze them much beyond the demonstration. Doug is pretty vocal about social issues as well and I don't see anyone throwing shade at him. There haven't even been leaks stating that Mike B is a locker room issue like a BMarsh or TO.

 

[Seymour]

Bennett the player is a good bargain for his production and wage. If they are actively and aggressively shopping him, they have their own reasons they want to clean house and get rid of him. Obviously distraction and off field would be one logical explanation with likely other reasons as well.

 

[hawknation2018]

Ownership, front office, and coaching staff all support Michael Bennett.

There is no evidence that they are trying to unload him. Of course, they will entertain trade offers for a Pro Bowl defensive linemen with three years of manageable salary left on his deal. Buy low, sell high. Less talented defensive linemen are getting $15+ million per year; that makes him an attractive trade piece as he enters the twilight years of his career. Like with Richard Sherman last off-season, the asking price will be HIGH.

 

[Mistashoesta]

Falcons among others potentially interested in trading for Bennett

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/970842879244619777?s=20

 

[hawknation2018]

Falcons among others potentially interested in trading for Bennett

https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/970842879244619777?s=20

They want it done fast, i.e. if they don't get something like 2nd-round-pick value before the draft, then they will stop entertaining trade offers and will move to damage conrol, like they did with Richard Sherman a year ago.

 

[vin.couve12]

Some here still very much want him to be gone for a specific reason. Provide evidence of locker room problems, lest you paint a picture.

I'll give the nutjobs another kicker though.

He missed 5 games in 2016 with a knee injury at age 30. He played all of last year with plantar fasciitis at age 31. He's now 32.

 

[hawknation2018]

Another way to look at it is they see Sheldon Richardson (27 years old) as a younger alternative to Bennett. If they can get a trade done soon for Bennett, then perhaps they think they can simultaneously re-sign Richardson before the March 14 free agency period begins. IMO, they would not risk trading Bennett unless they felt they had a working deal in place with Richardson.

Richardson at $12 million per year + draft pick compensation > 32-year-old Michael Bennett at $8 million in additional salary per year??? That's the question.

Personally, I would be surprised to see Richardson agree to a deal before he hits free agency.

 

[vin.couve12]

Richardson is nor never will be half the player that Bennett is or was. Richardson is too slow and lacks explosiveness of any kind for 5 tech while also being too small and not stout enough for 3 tech.

Jordan
Reed
Naz
Clarke
Richardson

Richardson is the non-starter of those 5 and to be a situational pass rusher, you first have to be good at it.

Hopefully Richardson eats up some other teams' cap space and gets us a comp next year. That would be the best case.

 

[massari]

If Bennett is traded, am I reading it right that the team to acquire him would only be on the hook for a $1.65M cap hit for 2018 and a $6M cap hit for 2019?

https://overthecap.com/player/michael-bennett/359

 

[vin.couve12]

If Bennett is traded, am I reading it right that the team to acquire him would only be on the hook for a $1.65M cap hit for 2018 and a $6M cap hit for 2019?

DUUUUUUUUUUDE! Details details details. Git some!