Rat":1gm15trx said:Sgt. Largent":1gm15trx said:Rat":1gm15trx said:I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this, but do what you have to do to keep P-Rich around. He's a big time playmaker who has really been coming into his own. I think he has been much better this year than his stats would lead most to believe.
I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this.
2. It's good for him too. Take the raise and short term deal, prove that you can stay healthy and produce, and in 2-3 years break the bank.
That's a no brainer if he'll take it.
Sgt. Largent":1tepyi42 said:Rat":1tepyi42 said:I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this, but do what you have to do to keep P-Rich around. He's a big time playmaker who has really been coming into his own. I think he has been much better this year than his stats would lead most to believe.
I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this.
2. It's good for him too. Take the raise and short term deal, prove that you can stay healthy and produce, and in 2-3 years break the bank.
Sgt. Largent":3m9k056b said:I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this..
Jeremy517":t1oc8v3a said:Sgt. Largent":t1oc8v3a said:I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this..
I think you are severely underestimating how much cap space there is out there among the other teams. The 49ers and Browns, for example, will both have over $100 million in cap space, and both teams need WRs to go with their new QBs (Garoppolo in SF and the #1 overall pick in Cleveland).
Two or three million per year won't get it done.
Sgt. Largent":ldkjno8s said:Jeremy517":ldkjno8s said:Sgt. Largent":ldkjno8s said:I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this..
I think you are severely underestimating how much cap space there is out there among the other teams. The 49ers and Browns, for example, will both have over $100 million in cap space, and both teams need WRs to go with their new QBs (Garoppolo in SF and the #1 overall pick in Cleveland).
Two or three million per year won't get it done.
That doesn't mean those teams want to spend their cap space on a 40-50 catch 5-6 TD's a year oft injured skinny fast WR.
Richardson has a bigger upside than Kearse ever did, but Kearse was always healthy and a better blocker. So I'll stick with the comparison.
Of course it's POSSIBLE that another team will offer him more, but I think you're overestimating his FA value. He's a good but not great 3rd WR on most teams. That's 2-3M a year territory.
Subzero717":17hikwyt said:He's going to make more than 2-3 for sure. 40-50 catches here could be 70-80 in a lot of other cities. I think a better comparison is Tate.
Agree with this. with the exception you have to add Earl to the mixWenhawk":2u8kd9r5 said:1. Brown needs to be kept.
2. Jimmy can be Franchise Tagged.
3. If we can keep S.Richardson we should move on from Avril
I'd like to see Paul brought back on a 1 year deal to see if he can continue to say healthy and play at this level
I think if he makes it through relatively unhurt, this is a severe undervaluation. And if his market is anywhere near that sluggish, it makes zero sense for him to take a low number on anything other than a one-year deal.Sgt. Largent":13d769lz said:Jeremy517":13d769lz said:Sgt. Largent":13d769lz said:I said this last week, I think we can sign Richardson for a Kearse type deal. 2-3 years at 2-3M a year.
1. I don't think anyone would give him more than that on the open market. He's slight, and has an injury/production history that would make any team shy away from guaranteeing him more than this..
I think you are severely underestimating how much cap space there is out there among the other teams. The 49ers and Browns, for example, will both have over $100 million in cap space, and both teams need WRs to go with their new QBs (Garoppolo in SF and the #1 overall pick in Cleveland).
Two or three million per year won't get it done.
That doesn't mean those teams want to spend their cap space on a 40-50 catch 5-6 TD's a year oft injured skinny fast WR.
Richardson has a bigger upside than Kearse ever did, but Kearse was always healthy and a better blocker. So I'll stick with the comparison.
Of course it's POSSIBLE that another team will offer him more, but I think you're overestimating his FA value. He's a good but not great 3rd WR on most teams. That's 2-3M a year territory.
Sgt. Largent":2f5ybces said:Subzero717":2f5ybces said:He's going to make more than 2-3 for sure. 40-50 catches here could be 70-80 in a lot of other cities. I think a better comparison is Tate.
I'd agree with you if he was as durable as Tate. But he's not. P-Rich also can't return kicks or block even half as well as Tate does, he's one of the best blocking WR's in the entire league.
You might be right, but I don't think so. We shall see.
Not a chance.scrummymustard":3fm7rbhb said:Wenhawk":3fm7rbhb said:1. Brown needs to be kept.
2. Jimmy can be Franchise Tagged.
3. If we can keep S.Richardson we should move on from Avril
I'd like to see Paul brought back on a 1 year deal to see if he can continue to say healthy and play at this level
Graham can be franchised for $15+ million, unlikely.
scrummymustard":68srg0j4 said:Wenhawk":68srg0j4 said:1. Brown needs to be kept.
2. Jimmy can be Franchise Tagged.
3. If we can keep S.Richardson we should move on from Avril
I'd like to see Paul brought back on a 1 year deal to see if he can continue to say healthy and play at this level
Graham can be franchised for $15+ million, unlikely.
This!Veilside":ylsncijb said:We tend to focus on the biggest impact players no matter the position. Overall, we pay talent, and that is what I see us continuing to do.
Order of impact:
Earl Thomas
Duane Brown
Sheldon Richardson (FA)
Jimmy Graham (FA)
Bradley McDougal (FA)
Tyler Lockett
Paul Richardson (FA)
Luke Jockel (FA)
Luke Willson (FA)
Of these I could see us prioritizing McDougal over Graham and Jockel over Richardson.
Wenhawk":1m96x46l said:scrummymustard":1m96x46l said:Wenhawk":1m96x46l said:1. Brown needs to be kept.
2. Jimmy can be Franchise Tagged.
3. If we can keep S.Richardson we should move on from Avril
I'd like to see Paul brought back on a 1 year deal to see if he can continue to say healthy and play at this level
Graham can be franchised for $15+ million, unlikely.
$10 Mil 2017* + 20% raise** = $12 million
*http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/jimmy-graham-6603/
**https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/2/14/14584232/how-does-the-nfl-franchise-tag-work-players-paid
joeseahawks":1w2ukpmx said:If we sign Duane Brown, why do we need to pay any receivers? Seriously ... If you give Russell an extra second, he can find any receiver on this earth ... Sign Brown and let go of Jimmy, Paul ... we can always sign Kearse back?