Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Chuck Powell interesting idea - trade Russell

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    But let's say the FO believes that the money tied up in RW is hindering the ability for the team to move forward... (didn't Denver just win a SB with a mediocre QB?)

    I posed this earlier:

    Houston's 1st, 3rd and 4th this year and 1st and 2nd next year, plus Brock Osweiler... for Wilson

    (this is a mere fragment of the Herschel Walker trade...)

    I do not think there is "any" scenario..


    OSweiller only makes 3.9M less per year than Russell, so how is that helping free up cap space in your hindering scenario?

    That's not even one good O-lineman......................and you just traded Russell for Osweiller, guaranteeing failure.


    3 million less on top of the 35 million the team already has? plus all those draft picks? That's "guaranteeing failure?"

    I don't understand that line of logic.

    and i just picked that out of the blue... just didn't want Kaep :)
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    But let's say the FO believes that the money tied up in RW is hindering the ability for the team to move forward... (didn't Denver just win a SB with a mediocre QB?)

    I posed this earlier:

    Houston's 1st, 3rd and 4th this year and 1st and 2nd next year, plus Brock Osweiler... for Wilson

    (this is a mere fragment of the Herschel Walker trade...)

    I do not think there is "any" scenario..


    OSweiller only makes 3.9M less per year than Russell, so how is that helping free up cap space in your hindering scenario?

    That's not even one good O-lineman......................and you just traded Russell for Osweiller, guaranteeing failure.


    It doesn't help cap much, but it does prevent the issue that "the midget can't see".

    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1474
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • who said anything about his height?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    3 million less on top of the 35 million the team already has? plus all those draft picks? That's "guaranteeing failure?"

    I don't understand that line of logic.

    and i just picked that out of the blue... just didn't want Kaep :)


    Where are you getting the on top of 35M?

    Russell's Cap hit:
    2017: 18.8M
    2018: 21.7M
    2019: 23.2M

    Osweiler's Cap hit:
    2017: 19M
    2018: 21M
    2019: 20M

    Yes the draft picks are awesome, but Osweiler's contract is every bit of a "hindrance" as Russell's for the next three years.

    Again, I ain't trading Russell for any draft pick package, because I've spent my entire fan life watching horrific QB play year in and year out. You don't trade a top 5 elite QB in his prime, no matter what the haul is, you just don't.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    3 million less on top of the 35 million the team already has? plus all those draft picks? That's "guaranteeing failure?"

    I don't understand that line of logic.

    and i just picked that out of the blue... just didn't want Kaep :)


    Where are you getting the on top of 35M?

    Russell's Cap hit:
    2017: 18.8M
    2018: 21.7M
    2019: 23.2M

    Osweiler's Cap hit:
    2017: 19M
    2018: 21M
    2019: 20M

    Yes the draft picks are awesome, but Osweiler's contract is every bit of a "hindrance" as Russell's for the next three years.

    Again, I ain't trading Russell for any draft pick package, because I've spent my entire fan life watching horrific QB play year in and year out. You don't trade a top 5 elite QB in his prime, no matter what the haul is, you just don't.


    The Seahawks have 35 million in cap space this year don't they? Of am I off?

    and again, no, you do not trade a top 5 elite QB in his prime. The question of whether Wilson is top 5 is debatable and if a cash in for his value when it may be considered at its highest.

    But again... the argument comes with so much heated assertions from some it's almost not worth having.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote: it's almost not worth having.


    Now you're talking.

    If people are even half serious in this discussion, they must be young fans who have no idea what this franchise has been through.

    Jeff Kemp
    John Friesz
    Stan Gelbaugh
    Seneca Wallace
    Dan McGwire
    Jon Kitna
    Kelly Stouffer
    Rick Mirer
    Trent Dilfer
    Charlie Frye
    Charlie Whitehurst
    Tavaris Jackson
    Matt Flynn
    Glen Foley
    Brock Huard


    I ain't going back! I can't! I won't!
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote: it's almost not worth having.


    Now you're talking.

    If people are even half serious in this discussion, they must be young fans who have no idea what this franchise has been through.

    Jeff Kemp
    John Friesz
    Stan Gelbaugh
    Seneca Wallace
    Dan McGwire
    Jon Kitna
    Kelly Stouffer
    Rick Mirer
    Trent Dilfer
    Charlie Frye
    Charlie Whitehurst
    Tavaris Jackson
    Matt Flynn
    Glen Foley
    Brock Huard


    I ain't going back! I can't! I won't!


    What's the fun in that though? and not Matt Hasselbeck? Jim Zorn? Dave Krieg? Why did you leave them off and include QBs who never took a meaningful snap for the team?

    I mean yes, Wilson is the franchise QB. And if you are emotionally tied to him then so be it. But not sure it's fair to a hypothetical argument to say it's not worth having because your very really feelings would be hurt.. But knowing you aren't really going to trade him, is it such a difficult thing to work the scenario?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:who said anything about his height?


    Still having trouble keeping up?

    I'm not doing the work for you.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1474
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • I get all of this is hypothetical but it simply amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Clearly, some of the posters here have no idea about how the salary cap works. Wilson arguably is the one guy on the team who's untradeable at least from a cap perspective. All of the prorated signing bonus money would have to accelerate to this year's cap. A trade would subtract $ 18.8 M in cap space but it would add $ 18.6 in prorated signing bonus money with a net savings of $ 200 K.

    The argument of being able to use those resources more efficiently doesn't matter, at least not for 2017. Given the makeup of the core and the window of opportunity, it's about as stupid an idea as one can come up with.
    GO HAWKS!
    User avatar
    JTB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:20 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    oldhawkfan wrote:If they were to trade Russell Wilson, the Seahawks would become the laughing stock of the NFL.


    Houston's 1st, 3rd and 4th this year and 1st and 2nd next year, plus Brock Osweiler... for Wilson

    (this is a mere fragment of the Herschel Walker trade)



    LOL yeah we loose, and Houston becomes perennial SB contenders
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3144
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • In most cases the motivation for trading Wilson by those few who think we should, has nothing to do with helping the team, but to their factless dislike for Wilson. Lets take it one step further you trade Wilson for say Osweiler who is horrible. What FAs are going to come to a team that has no FA QB and has traded the guy that not only was instrumental in getting them to 2 Sbs and winning one, but has gotten them to the playoff every year he has been here. The only Fas you will get are the ones coming for the money, which means you will have to over pay and use your cap quicker. You know who this trade would help the most, the Rams, the Cardinals, and the rest of the NFC.

    Like I said stupidest thread of the year so far
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3144
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:who said anything about his height?


    Still having trouble keeping up?

    I'm not doing the work for you.


    So... noone did then?

    Brilliant addition
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • JTB wrote:I get all of this is hypothetical but it simply amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Clearly, some of the posters here have no idea about how the salary cap works. Wilson arguably is the one guy on the team who's untradeable at least from a cap perspective. All of the prorated signing bonus money would have to accelerate to this year's cap. A trade would subtract $ 18.8 M in cap space but it would add $ 18.6 in prorated signing bonus money with a net savings of $ 200 K.

    The argument of being able to use those resources more efficiently doesn't matter, at least not for 2017. Given the makeup of the core and the window of opportunity, it's about as stupid an idea as one can come up with.


    Again, I think alot of people are getting overly emotional about something that isn't going to happen. Maybe one poster here thinks the team actually should do it (and I think that poster might actually just be having some fun with our more angst ridden members)

    But This is about as strong as a reason as any, really. It basically closes one window in the hope of opening one (maybe even a bigger one) later down the road.

    The scenario (pulled out of thin air) was the Walker trade. Dallas was awful and took a few years before the commodities acquired in the trade paid off.

    I saw the thread potential as more of a "Moneyball" type conversation. Your logic makes much more sense then "you don't trade our best player!!!"
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Anthony! wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    oldhawkfan wrote:If they were to trade Russell Wilson, the Seahawks would become the laughing stock of the NFL.


    Houston's 1st, 3rd and 4th this year and 1st and 2nd next year, plus Brock Osweiler... for Wilson

    (this is a mere fragment of the Herschel Walker trade)



    LOL yeah we loose, and Houston becomes perennial SB contenders


    Well, and Dallas initially lost in the Walker trade... but a couple years later turned the picks into a dynasty
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • JTB wrote:I get all of this is hypothetical but it simply amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Clearly, some of the posters here have no idea about how the salary cap works. Wilson arguably is the one guy on the team who's untradeable at least from a cap perspective. All of the prorated signing bonus money would have to accelerate to this year's cap. A trade would subtract $ 18.8 M in cap space but it would add $ 18.6 in prorated signing bonus money with a net savings of $ 200 K.

    The argument of being able to use those resources more efficiently doesn't matter, at least not for 2017. Given the makeup of the core and the window of opportunity, it's about as stupid an idea as one can come up with.


    According to Si, logic and reason have no place in this thread......it's purely to hypothetically discuss something that won't happen, and then argue about those things that will never happen.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JTB wrote:I get all of this is hypothetical but it simply amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Clearly, some of the posters here have no idea about how the salary cap works. Wilson arguably is the one guy on the team who's untradeable at least from a cap perspective. All of the prorated signing bonus money would have to accelerate to this year's cap. A trade would subtract $ 18.8 M in cap space but it would add $ 18.6 in prorated signing bonus money with a net savings of $ 200 K.

    The argument of being able to use those resources more efficiently doesn't matter, at least not for 2017. Given the makeup of the core and the window of opportunity, it's about as stupid an idea as one can come up with.


    According to Si, logic and reason have no place in this thread......it's purely to hypothetically discuss something that won't happen, and then argue about those things that will never happen.



    Logic and reason have every place in this thread. I'm not the one acting emotional about something that won't happen, nor arguing. Many times i tried to add facts why you wouldn't do it. Much like JTB just did. It's an off-season discussion thread. Honestly, if some of you followed along you'd see I was really helping your point.

    But go ahead and list a bunch of QBs who used to play for Seattle and sucked and tell us why that's the reason you won't do it. If it upsets you that much, don't respond. Have a word with yourself first before bringing me up.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    But go ahead and list a bunch of QBs who used to play for Seattle and sucked and tell us why that's the reason you won't do it. If it upsets you that much, don't respond. Have a word with yourself first before bringing me up.



    Which me, cause there's like 47 of them all talking at once.

    I gave you 3-4 logical posts, you're the one that brought up a QB that is making barely less than Russell, therefore making a terrible hypothetical, and therefore x 2 a terrible idea. Logical? Nope, not even close. Maybe you should do your homework on your examples before posting.

    At least pick a mediocre to bad QB that's making a lot less than Russell if you're gonna use that premise.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JTB wrote:I get all of this is hypothetical but it simply amazes me that this discussion is still going on. Clearly, some of the posters here have no idea about how the salary cap works. Wilson arguably is the one guy on the team who's untradeable at least from a cap perspective. All of the prorated signing bonus money would have to accelerate to this year's cap. A trade would subtract $ 18.8 M in cap space but it would add $ 18.6 in prorated signing bonus money with a net savings of $ 200 K.

    The argument of being able to use those resources more efficiently doesn't matter, at least not for 2017. Given the makeup of the core and the window of opportunity, it's about as stupid an idea as one can come up with.


    According to Si, logic and reason have no place in this thread......it's purely to hypothetically discuss something that won't happen, and then argue about those things that will never happen.



    Logic and reason have every place in this thread. I'm not the one acting emotional about something that won't happen, nor arguing. Many times i tried to add facts why you wouldn't do it. Much like JTB just did. It's an off-season discussion thread. Honestly, if some of you followed along you'd see I was really helping your point.

    But go ahead and list a bunch of QBs who used to play for Seattle and sucked and tell us why that's the reason you won't do it. If it upsets you that much, don't respond. Have a word with yourself first before bringing me up.


    I suppose, since it's the off season, discussing the removal of your big toe has merit as an exercise in futility. I mean, what good is the big toe? They say it helps you keep balance, but I have arthritis in my big toe and can't put any weight on it at all without excruciating pain and I never fall down. It would probably hurt less if I did have it removed and the joint wouldn't move which is what causes the discomfort. You know the more I think about it I'm going to get rid of that damn thing. But the same as my QB argument, I'm not getting a new one. The one I have is worthless, why get a new one?
    Russell has some stats that aren't Superb? Ow! Love his balls anyways!

    SC
    User avatar
    StoneCold
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2522
    Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:29 am


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:who said anything about his height?


    Still having trouble keeping up?

    I'm not doing the work for you.


    So... noone did then?

    Brilliant addition


    Boy you just want to start in with everyone today huh?

    Yes, the midget was referred to more than once. Please read through the entire thread, read EVERY word, do not skim, do not assume, and just take your time to gather in the meaning of the post. :snack:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1474
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    But go ahead and list a bunch of QBs who used to play for Seattle and sucked and tell us why that's the reason you won't do it. If it upsets you that much, don't respond. Have a word with yourself first before bringing me up.



    Which me, cause there's like 47 of them all talking at once.

    I gave you 3-4 logical posts, you're the one that brought up a QB that is making barely less than Russell, therefore making a terrible hypothetical, and therefore x 2 a terrible idea. Logical? Nope, not even close. Maybe you should do your homework on your examples before posting.

    At least pick a mediocre to bad QB that's making a lot less than Russell if you're gonna use that premise.


    You've almost caught on. You should read more of the thread I think and see if it finally comes to you.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:who said anything about his height?


    Still having trouble keeping up?

    I'm not doing the work for you.


    So... noone did then?

    Brilliant addition


    Boy you just want to start in with everyone today huh?

    Yes, the midget was referred to more than once. Please read through the entire thread, read EVERY word, do not skim, do not assume, and just take your time to gather in the meaning of the post. :snack:


    Did I refer to the midget?

    If you read the thread, every post, including mine, and then responded to mine, you might catch on.

    I'll leave you to it. Let me know how it works out.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • The goal of every front office is to find a franchise qb... it would be incredibly stupid to let such a young and talented qb with no issues go for cap reasons when he isnt even hurting the team in that sense.. beyond that if we did get rid of wilson in lala land.. what makes you think watson is better than boykin? That kid may have a future better than tyrod taylor.

    Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
    redhawk253
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:43 pm


  • Also.. refer to the chargers letting brees walk........

    Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
    redhawk253
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:43 pm


  • redhawk253 wrote:Also.. refer to the chargers letting brees walk........

    Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


    they let him walk after he got a major injury to his throwing shoulder. Not the same thing
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3144
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3654
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.


    If your dislike of Wilson was not so well know. Some might buy this. That said some one will try and if they fail they will he Cleveland for the next 10 plus years. Me while those that didn't as history has shown will be perennial playoff contenders and even win an SB or 2. The risk is not worth it which is why no one will do it
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3144
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • How is this thread still going on. :lol:
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11075
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:How is this thread still going on. :lol:

    Tcal trying to convince everyone that he knows what the hell he's talking about, and not many doofus takers buyin'.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5925
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back.


    Like who is coming in and winning besides Wilson. Like Luck, RG3, Kapernick, who else? Dak had a good year his first year but so did all those just mentioned. So QB's who get padi big never win the big one. I guess Brady, Manning, and Big Ben never won one after they got paid. Don't let things like facts get in the way of your argument.
    User avatar
    Year of The Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 923
    Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:18 am



  • I'd get rid of some of our older "core" on D before i'd move russell.

    Here's an interesting thought to consider. In PC/JS first two off seasons, they were able to draft 6 fantastic all pro level starters (ET, Kam, Sherm, Bobby, KJ, Irvin). Since then (4 years), they've only come up with 2 (Shead, Clark).

    There's your issue, not russ.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1916
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • lukerguy wrote:I'd get rid of some of our older "core" on D before i'd move russell.

    Here's an interesting thought to consider. In PC/JS first two off seasons, they were able to draft 6 fantastic all pro level starters (ET, Kam, Sherm, Bobby, KJ, Irvin). Since then (4 years), they've only come up with 2 (Shead, Clark).

    There's your issue, not russ.


    Bingo. Of bigger concern, Thomas, Chancellor, and Bennett missed a combined 14 games last season (5 each for ET and Bennett and 4 for Kam) and exposed the widening gap between starter and backup.

    As crazy as it sounds, I think this should largely be a defensive oriented draft.
    GO HAWKS!
    User avatar
    JTB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:20 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • JTB wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:I'd get rid of some of our older "core" on D before i'd move russell.

    Here's an interesting thought to consider. In PC/JS first two off seasons, they were able to draft 6 fantastic all pro level starters (ET, Kam, Sherm, Bobby, KJ, Irvin). Since then (4 years), they've only come up with 2 (Shead, Clark).

    There's your issue, not russ.


    Bingo. Of bigger concern, Thomas, Chancellor, and Bennett missed a combined 14 games last season (5 each for ET and Bennett and 4 for Kam) and exposed the widening gap between starter and backup.

    As crazy as it sounds, I think this should largely be a defensive oriented draft.


    Yeah, QBs are like a fine wine RE: age. DBs are the opposite. 30 years doesn't treat them traditionally well.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1916
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.


    Outside of Seattle, what team would be in the position to trade their starting QB and face of the franchise while he is in his prime?

    Packers maybe? Panthers? Colts? That might be it. And I can see only the Colts entertaining that idea because of Lucks injuries and how far they seem from a Super Bowl. . That's why the scenarios seem so implausible, no matter how many fake draft picks you throw at it.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


  • lukerguy wrote:I'd get rid of some of our older "core" on D before i'd move russell.

    Here's an interesting thought to consider. In PC/JS first two off seasons, they were able to draft 6 fantastic all pro level starters (ET, Kam, Sherm, Bobby, KJ, Irvin). Since then (4 years), they've only come up with 2 (Shead, Clark).

    There's your issue, not russ.


    Yep, and hate to keep bringing up the Patriot's, but that's what they figured out a long time ago.

    Pay your offensive stars because that's not the side of the ball that requires more intangibles like hunger, physicality, effort and a nasty streak............which is very hard to maintain that edge with veterans who got paid that no longer have that edge like they did in their first 2-3 years.

    Our defense is comprised of roughly 75% of all the players that made it one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game in 2013, yet they're only playing to about 60-70% of that level now. Why?

    If I'm Pete and John I maybe give it one more year, but if I keep seeing the blowups, in fighting and nonsense, I trade or cut someone important to make an example.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Our defense is comprised of roughly 75% of all the players that made it one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game in 2013, yet they're only playing to about 60-70% of that level now. Why?


    Because when you have a bank full of cash, and a fridge full of caviar and lobster, it is difficult to pretend like you are hungry all the time. Just ask Earl who was considering retirement at age 27 and in his prime.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1474
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Our defense is comprised of roughly 75% of all the players that made it one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game in 2013, yet they're only playing to about 60-70% of that level now. Why?


    Because when you have a bank full of cash, and a fridge full of caviar and lobster, it is difficult to pretend like you are hungry all the time. Just ask Earl who was considering retirement at age 27 and in his prime.


    That's my point, why are we dedicating 60-70% of our cap space to the defense when they're not playing to that level justifying it?

    I know we all love guys like Earl, Kam, Sherm, KJ, Cliff, Mikey B and Sherm........but maybe our philosophy should change and we should start shifting that cap space to the offense side and let a couple of these guys go.

    If it means having a top 2-3 offense and reloading the defense with the next wave of young hungry nasty trying to prove something players, then that sounds like a more viable long term philosophy than hoping your defensive players regain their form and having the offense suffer.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 11258
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Our defense is comprised of roughly 75% of all the players that made it one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game in 2013, yet they're only playing to about 60-70% of that level now. Why?


    Because when you have a bank full of cash, and a fridge full of caviar and lobster, it is difficult to pretend like you are hungry all the time. Just ask Earl who was considering retirement at age 27 and in his prime.


    That's my point, why are we dedicating 60-70% of our cap space to the defense when they're not playing to that level justifying it?

    I know we all love guys like Earl, Kam, Sherm, KJ, Cliff, Mikey B and Sherm........but maybe our philosophy should change and we should start shifting that cap space to the offense side and let a couple of these guys go.

    If it means having a top 2-3 offense and reloading the defense with the next wave of young hungry nasty trying to prove something players, then that sounds like a more viable long term philosophy than hoping your defensive players regain their form and having the offense suffer.


    I actually believe that their (PC/JS) plan is to add significant reinforcements to the defensive side of the ball with that in mind for 2018/2019 decisions. If you look at contracts for the core defensive players in question, Kam is a free agent after 2017 and Thomas, Sherman, Avril, Wright, and Clark are unrestricted FA's after 2018.
    GO HAWKS!
    User avatar
    JTB
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 4:20 am
    Location: Covington, WA


  • Uncle Si wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.


    Outside of Seattle, what team would be in the position to trade their starting QB and face of the franchise while he is in his prime?

    Packers maybe? Panthers? Colts? That might be it. And I can see only the Colts entertaining that idea because of Lucks injuries and how far they seem from a Super Bowl. . That's why the scenarios seem so implausible, no matter how many fake draft picks you throw at it.

    That's a good question. Do you think Carolina would consider two top-5 picks? Probably not, but they'd probably talk about it before dismissing it. Cousins probably doesn't qualify as being good enough. A lot of the guys, like Ben or Eli, are too old to make a good comparison with.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3654
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Tical21 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.


    Outside of Seattle, what team would be in the position to trade their starting QB and face of the franchise while he is in his prime?

    Packers maybe? Panthers? Colts? That might be it. And I can see only the Colts entertaining that idea because of Lucks injuries and how far they seem from a Super Bowl. . That's why the scenarios seem so implausible, no matter how many fake draft picks you throw at it.

    That's a good question. Do you think Carolina would consider two top-5 picks? Probably not, but they'd probably talk about it before dismissing it. Cousins probably doesn't qualify as being good enough. A lot of the guys, like Ben or Eli, are too old to make a good comparison with.


    Okay first get out of dream land you are not getting 2 top 5 picks for anyone. Second comparing with Carlina is also wrong since Cam can't even complete 60% of his passes. As has been stated no one in their right mind or who knows anything about Football trades a Franchise, elite, proven Qb who is not even in their prime yet. The fact is if you did not hate Wilson so much and he was almost anyone else neither would you.
    User avatar
    Anthony!
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3144
    Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:51 pm
    Location: Kent, wa


  • Let me get this straight. The Thimble......THE THIMBLE gets axed from Monopoly since 1935 and nobody cares?
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34838
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:Let me get this straight. The Thimble......THE THIMBLE gets axed from Monopoly since 1935 and nobody cares?


    Sew what?
    Who fires people investigating them? Guilty people.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3001
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Let me get this straight. The Thimble......THE THIMBLE gets axed from Monopoly since 1935 and nobody cares?


    Sew what?


    Exactly.

    How can a thumb, or even RW get protection without a thimble. What a disgrace.
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 34838
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm


  • I can't believe this post is 6 pages long.

    Franchise QBs do not grow on trees, and we are so fortunate to have one.

    Look at the Rams with the high picks they have had, and they still can't make the playoffs.

    If we wanted to cut some salary, and bring in some new blood, then it should be done on the D side of the team.

    Some of them have definitely lost their hunger, and hungry, fresh talented blood is what this team needs.
    "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
    User avatar
    Ace_Rimmer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 620
    Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:59 am
    Location: Vancouver, BC


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Our defense is comprised of roughly 75% of all the players that made it one of the greatest defenses in the history of the game in 2013, yet they're only playing to about 60-70% of that level now. Why?


    Because when you have a bank full of cash, and a fridge full of caviar and lobster, it is difficult to pretend like you are hungry all the time. Just ask Earl who was considering retirement at age 27 and in his prime.


    That's my point, why are we dedicating 60-70% of our cap space to the defense when they're not playing to that level justifying it?

    I know we all love guys like Earl, Kam, Sherm, KJ, Cliff, Mikey B and Sherm........but maybe our philosophy should change and we should start shifting that cap space to the offense side and let a couple of these guys go.

    If it means having a top 2-3 offense and reloading the defense with the next wave of young hungry nasty trying to prove something players, then that sounds like a more viable long term philosophy than hoping your defensive players regain their form and having the offense suffer.


    And I would agree. I think each player has to be closely looked at and serious thought given to not re signing "all the stars" to 2nd contracts. I was watching the Bennett deal wondering how Pete would handle this. Looks like he's going to keep dumping $$ into what once was.
    Funny, an article about Smith leaving totally confirms what we are both pointing out here.

    When asked about what the Seahawks need to do to win another Super Bowl, Smith said the players need to regain their hunger. He acknowledged that could be difficult for a team that has won and possesses so many players who have been paid and achieved superstar status.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1474
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Seymour wrote:
    And I would agree. I think each player has to be closely looked at and serious thought given to not re signing "all the stars" to 2nd contracts. I was watching the Bennett deal wondering how Pete would handle this. Looks like he's going to keep dumping $$ into what once was.
    Funny, an article about Smith leaving totally confirms what we are both pointing out here.

    When asked about what the Seahawks need to do to win another Super Bowl, Smith said the players need to regain their hunger. He acknowledged that could be difficult for a team that has won and possesses so many players who have been paid and achieved superstar status.



    Mike Holmgren on Brock and Salk talked about when he first got to Seattle he wanted a young offense and a veteran defense. He stated on air that he would reverse it. Look at the patriots, the players that have stated the longest are Olinemen and the QB. After 2007 Belichick's defense would get younger every year after that. Offenses are choreographed precision attacks the Pete Carroll cover 3 is a read and react defense, stay deep and the deepest and wide as the widest and knock the hell out of everything in front of you.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1028
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


  • Largent80 wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Let me get this straight. The Thimble......THE THIMBLE gets axed from Monopoly since 1935 and nobody cares?


    Sew what?


    Exactly.

    How can a thumb, or even RW get protection without a thimble. What a disgrace.

    Come on. Like you knew anyone who ever picked the thimble. If you had enough players to use the thimble, somebody would be like nah and grab a quarter or something.
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3654
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Anthony! wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Tical21 wrote:Look, young qbs are coming in more and more ready to play and win. Couple that with the fact that so many qbs win big, get paid big, and then their team can't get back, and eventually someone is going to bet on their ability to find and judge talent and go for it. I mean, can you imagine if we got a dope qb making nothing, and added 2-3 more pro bowlers and had two extra top-5 picks? With this current roster? It's a huge risk, but so is paying your qb. And it could pay off huuuuge. Somebody is gonna do it at some point, with qb salaries nowadays. Some innovative front office.


    Outside of Seattle, what team would be in the position to trade their starting QB and face of the franchise while he is in his prime?

    Packers maybe? Panthers? Colts? That might be it. And I can see only the Colts entertaining that idea because of Lucks injuries and how far they seem from a Super Bowl. . That's why the scenarios seem so implausible, no matter how many fake draft picks you throw at it.

    That's a good question. Do you think Carolina would consider two top-5 picks? Probably not, but they'd probably talk about it before dismissing it. Cousins probably doesn't qualify as being good enough. A lot of the guys, like Ben or Eli, are too old to make a good comparison with.


    Okay first get out of dream land you are not getting 2 top 5 picks for anyone. Second comparing with Carlina is also wrong since Cam can't even complete 60% of his passes. As has been stated no one in their right mind or who knows anything about Football trades a Franchise, elite, proven Qb who is not even in their prime yet. The fact is if you did not hate Wilson so much and he was almost anyone else neither would you.

    So, lemme get this straight, the guy that won the MVP of the entire league 13 months ago is not comparable to who?
    I'm fly
    I should be in the sky with birds
    User avatar
    Tical21
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3654
    Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:37 pm


  • Largent80 wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Largent80 wrote:Let me get this straight. The Thimble......THE THIMBLE gets axed from Monopoly since 1935 and nobody cares?


    Sew what?


    Exactly.

    How can a thumb, or even RW get protection without a thimble. What a disgrace.


    Since the thimble is now an FA....sign it for the Seahawk OL. It would be an upgrade to the pile of crap on display last couple of seasons. At least the thimble performs its primary job to protect admirably.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6323
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • Is Wilson the only untradable asset on the team then?
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 11966
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 4:18 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online