Bruce Irvin Just Made Things Interesting

firebee · Feb 9, 2016

When he was talking hometown discount, I didn't think he was talking the kind of numbers he was talking.
“Pete and John asked me that when I met with them today. If it came to that, I would definitely come back. $3, $4 million? $3, $4, $5 million? I would definitely come back because I’m established here."
http://www.givemesport.com/693118-b...=FacebookOrganic&utm_campaign=FacebookOrganic

If I'm JS & PC, I respond to the top here here at 5 million per year on a 5 year deal, get him excited about being in Seattle and get him to forfeit any idea of entertaining offers from other teams in free agency. Throw some incentives in, so he could make 6-7 million a year if he's performing above expectations. We expected to be competing with offers of around 7-9 million a year, but if he's willing to stay at that kind of discount... I think you have to pull the trigger on him and keep him in Seattle.

HawkFan72 · Feb 9, 2016

I think he was talking about $3–5 million over the life of the deal. Like if Team A offers $30 million, he would play for the Seahawks for $25 million.

Not $3-5 million per year less.

kjreid · Feb 9, 2016

I agree somewhat, I thinking he will be offered in the 5 yr 35 million with 25 guaranteed anyway so these numbers imo will be in park with what he should get. (to be clear, this is what I think he would get on the open market also)

Fade · Feb 9, 2016

Vinny Curry got 5 yrs 47.25M. Bruce is getting paid.

gowazzu02 · Feb 9, 2016

Fade":wvy7yhth said:
Vinny Curry got 5 yrs 47.25M. Bruce is getting paid.

Bruce should go to a 3-4 team. Let him rush the passer from the olb ala justin houston. He would put up numbers in that type of system. I think he's gone. We can't tie that much money to the LB position. KPL is the heir to the spot, then im sure we'll see a young guy drafted to compete.

kf3339 · Feb 9, 2016

gowazzu02":h80t3ur5 said:
Fade":h80t3ur5 said:

Vinny Curry got 5 yrs 47.25M. Bruce is getting paid.

Click to expand...

Bruce should go to a 3-4 team. Let him rush the passer from the olb ala justin houston. He would put up numbers in that type of system. I think he's gone. We can't tie that much money to the LB position. KPL is the heir to the spot, then im sure we'll see a young guy drafted to compete.

^ This.

There is no reason to devote that type of contract to Irvin. While KPL may be able to take over the position, I suspect a high draft pick (Rd 2-3) will be the teams plan.

I also think that money would be better spent for a top flight OC or LG this off season. With Lynch retiring and his $6.5M savings you could get both positions filled just on the savings for Irvin and Lynch. That strengthens the O-Line considerably.

Sgt. Largent · Feb 9, 2016

With the possibility of no Lynch, Okung and Kam, or a combo of at least 2 of these players not being back........I could see the Hawks using that cap space giving Irvin a shockingly nice contract to keep him around.

He's still on the upward swing of his potential, and he really is a versatile player that does a lot rushing and coverage wise. Plus he fits into the "we take care of our players that we develop" mantra Pete and John are always preaching.

Now if some other team blows him away with a 8-9M a year deal like Curry? No, we're not matching that. But I could definitely see us giving him a nice 6-7M a year contract.

sutz · Feb 9, 2016

HawkFan72":damjwmc4 said:
I think he was talking about $3–5 million over the life of the deal. Like if Team A offers $30 million, he would play for the Seahawks for $25 million.

Not $3-5 million per year less.

This is what I assumed, too. He's talking maybe $1-1.5 mill/year, maybe $2 mill as a reach. Doubtful he gives up $3-5 mill/year.

vin.couve12 · Feb 9, 2016

KPL will not replace Irvin. He's not even remotely the right kind of backer for that. If anything, Wright would slide back to SLB and KPL would play Weak. Run defense would probably suffer though because Wright isn't as good at the POA. Irvin has grown into a real force defender at setting the edge.

Bring Irvin back at that price regardless (5/35 w/ maybe 20 guaranteed).

kearly · Feb 9, 2016

Whether Bruce realized it or not, I think this kind of talk will act as leverage in his favor when other teams make offers. Teams will know that they won't get Irvin with merely a 'competitive' offer, they'll have to beat Seattle's offer significantly. Which means that if Irvin does go, he's going to get some serious money.

Another way to look at it. If Irvin's value on the market isn't as good as we think it is, and Irvin is sincere about his $3-5 million discount, that would make it really easy for Seattle to keep Irvin at a dea they feel comfortable with.

Basically, I'm just hoping one of two things happen: either Irvin stays on a reasonable deal or he leaves with a boatload of money and gets Seattle a 3rd round comp pick. Irvin has positioned himself well to do one of those two things.

pehawk · Feb 9, 2016

vin.couve12":17fuukab said:
KPL will not replace Irvin. He's not even remotely the right kind of backer for that. If anything, Wright would slide back to SLB and KPL would play Weak. Run defense would probably suffer though because Wright isn't as good at the POA. Irvin has grown into a real force defender at setting the edge.

Bring Irvin back at that price regardless (5/35 w/ maybe 20 guaranteed).

Great post...totally agree. Irvin is pretty underrated around here. Goes with his role on the defense.

TwistedHusky · Feb 9, 2016

We just learned an important lesson, one that we choosing to ignore here.

1 - Great defenses tend to beat great offenses in the SB (Pats vs Giants, Seattle vs Denver, Denver vs Panthers)

(Ok I know, the Panthers offense sucked but I think the trend is established)

Key to a great defense in a league that is now predicated upon the effectiveness of the QB? You have to stop the opposing QB.

It should also be noted that of the defensive players available, LBs are probably undervalued at this point vs DEs, Corners and DTs. So if we can lock up a LB that rushes the QB? What is an average DT going to ask at market rate?

Irvin is everything you want in a LB that is a pass rush threat, at what seems like it could possibly be an effective rate.

Dollars still have to be spent keeping the defense strong.

After multiple lessons that the best opportunity to win a SB comes from a strong defense (including a whole bunch of Patriots SBs, remember them beating the Greatest Show on Turf?), our move forward would be to jettison a strong defensive player making our defense weaker?

How is that improving any shot at getting to SB much less winning another one?

kearly · Feb 9, 2016

vin.couve12":9l8eo1oc said:
KPL will not replace Irvin. He's not even remotely the right kind of backer for that. If anything, Wright would slide back to SLB and KPL would play Weak. Run defense would probably suffer though because Wright isn't as good at the POA. Irvin has grown into a real force defender at setting the edge.

Yup. KPL is a roster bubble guy at this point. He's undersized and seems constantly outmatched. The scout who drafted him compared him to Navarro Bowman, which is a bit like comparing Kelly Jennings to Richard Sherman. Obviously KPL did not develop in the NFL as the scout thought he might. If Irvin is gone, I think Seattle will draft a SAM LB early.

Wright has taken his game to a new level playing at WILL so I'm not exactly anxious to move him out of there, but FWIW I thought he played outstanding on the line at setting the edge back when he was at SAM.

Popeyejones · Feb 9, 2016

If he's willing to take 3-5 million per year LESS than a market deal Seahawks fans should hold annual parade for him.

I find it really incredibly hard to believe that's what he meant, but it would be an AWESOME, AWESOME story if it were true.

Tical21 · Feb 9, 2016

I just don't get the freaking Vinny Curry thing. He's got something on somebody.

I'm not wholeheartedly against paying Irvin, kind of. I get why they would. Frank Clark minimizes that a bit, I would think, but I get it. My real argument is that at some point you have to infuse a little young, hungry, cheap talent. You can't just keep paying everybody, can you? We all know I think the sky is falling in terms of our cap situation going forward, and I just see SAM in our system as a perfect place to hide a possibly lesser player. There are some times, especially against play-action, where our SAM has to make really quick decisions, and be capable of getting from outside the tackle to the flat really quickly. Bruce does that exceedingly well. Also sets the edge well. We really don't ask him to do much else on 1st and 2nd down. For what we ask him to do, assuming Clark can play DE on 3rd downs, I think you can get 90% of Bruce Irvin for 1/10th of the price, which I believe is the type of hard decision you need to make every once in a while.

gowazzu02 · Feb 9, 2016

TwistedHusky":2nw36en3 said:
We just learned an important lesson, one that we choosing to ignore here.

1 - Great defenses tend to beat great offenses in the SB (Pats vs Giants, Seattle vs Denver, Denver vs Panthers)

(Ok I know, the Panthers offense sucked but I think the trend is established)

Key to a great defense in a league that is now predicated upon the effectiveness of the QB? You have to stop the opposing QB.

It should also be noted that of the defensive players available, LBs are probably undervalued at this point vs DEs, Corners and DTs. So if we can lock up a LB that rushes the QB? What is an average DT going to ask at market rate?

Irvin is everything you want in a LB that is a pass rush threat, at what seems like it could possibly be an effective rate.

Dollars still have to be spent keeping the defense strong.

After multiple lessons that the best opportunity to win a SB comes from a strong defense (including a whole bunch of Patriots SBs, remember them beating the Greatest Show on Turf?), our move forward would be to jettison a strong defensive player making our defense weaker?

How is that improving any shot at getting to SB much less winning another one?

Very true on all things. But Linebackers are the most easily replaceable defensive position. We already backed up the brinks truck to sign Wagner and Wright. I just dont think its in the cards to throw more money at the lb position. Especially when you consider the fact that 3 of 4 secondary spots are paid, as well as two rush ends, we need to replace or bring back mebane and ruben.

just a dollars and cents problem at this point.

bjornanderson21 · Feb 9, 2016

Sgt. Largent":hdvcbr3k said:
With the possibility of no Lynch, Okung and Kam, or a combo of at least 2 of these players not being back........I could see the Hawks using that cap space giving Irvin a shockingly nice contract to keep him around.

He's still on the upward swing of his potential, and he really is a versatile player that does a lot rushing and coverage wise. Plus he fits into the "we take care of our players that we develop" mantra Pete and John are always preaching.

Now if some other team blows him away with a 8-9M a year deal like Curry? No, we're not matching that. But I could definitely see us giving him a nice 6-7M a year contract.

That's not going to work, and it is part of the reason why the Seahawks aren't as talented as they were a couple years ago.

Losing quality players and using that money just to keep someone you ALREADY HAD makes the team worse.

The Hawks need to be ADDING players who are CHEAP, and that means drafting like they used to. By saving all that money and adding talent from the draft they can keep the MOST IMPORTANT players (which Irvin is not).

The salary cap PUNISHES teams who refuse to replace veterans with younger guys. You just end up getting worse each year because you have LESS TALENT because you keep paying more money to the guys you already had while losing some of the talent you used to have.

Irvin is the #1 candidate for replacing via draft.

TheLegendOfBoom · Feb 9, 2016

I think Bruce actually does want to be here but it's all a money game.

Some players sign deals with other teams and think the grass is greener but things happen, management change, they end up getting cut from the new regime.

The Seahawks are pretty much established with their front office and that might make a player believe they might be there for a long time.

Bruce, can sign with another team, get paid for a little bit, and then that coaches leaves (i.e. chip kelly and demarco Murray) and then as a player, you might be thinking, am I guarantee to be here after a new coaching staff?

If the money is about the same, I'm thinking Bruce will stay.

bjornanderson21 · Feb 9, 2016

TwistedHusky":3616j5sm said:
We just learned an important lesson, one that we choosing to ignore here.

1 - Great defenses tend to beat great offenses in the SB (Pats vs Giants, Seattle vs Denver, Denver vs Panthers)

(Ok I know, the Panthers offense sucked but I think the trend is established)

Key to a great defense in a league that is now predicated upon the effectiveness of the QB? You have to stop the opposing QB.

It should also be noted that of the defensive players available, LBs are probably undervalued at this point vs DEs, Corners and DTs. So if we can lock up a LB that rushes the QB? What is an average DT going to ask at market rate?

Irvin is everything you want in a LB that is a pass rush threat, at what seems like it could possibly be an effective rate.

Dollars still have to be spent keeping the defense strong.

After multiple lessons that the best opportunity to win a SB comes from a strong defense (including a whole bunch of Patriots SBs, remember them beating the Greatest Show on Turf?), our move forward would be to jettison a strong defensive player making our defense weaker?

How is that improving any shot at getting to SB much less winning another one?

The Hawks have had MUCH MUCH MUCH more success drafting defense than offense. The hawks have a much better chance of finding a good replacement for Irvin than they do okung or even sweezey (who is replacement level).

Defense wins championships, but last year's defense was not championship level and our offense clearly needs help on OL.

Keeping Irvin will make our offense worse, and it won't make our defense any better than it was last year. Zero steps forward, two steps back.

Signing quality veteran offensive lineman and replacing Irvin with a good rookie LB would be 2 steps forward and 1 step back.

Sgt. Largent · Feb 9, 2016

bjornanderson21":m9offxii said:
Sgt. Largent":m9offxii said:

With the possibility of no Lynch, Okung and Kam, or a combo of at least 2 of these players not being back........I could see the Hawks using that cap space giving Irvin a shockingly nice contract to keep him around.

He's still on the upward swing of his potential, and he really is a versatile player that does a lot rushing and coverage wise. Plus he fits into the "we take care of our players that we develop" mantra Pete and John are always preaching.

Now if some other team blows him away with a 8-9M a year deal like Curry? No, we're not matching that. But I could definitely see us giving him a nice 6-7M a year contract.

Click to expand...

That's not going to work, and it is part of the reason why the Seahawks aren't as talented as they were a couple years ago.

Losing quality players and using that money just to keep someone you ALREADY HAD makes the team worse.

The Hawks need to be ADDING players who are CHEAP, and that means drafting like they used to. By saving all that money and adding talent from the draft they can keep the MOST IMPORTANT players (which Irvin is not).

The salary cap PUNISHES teams who refuse to replace veterans with younger guys. You just end up getting worse each year because you have LESS TALENT because you keep paying more money to the guys you already had while losing some of the talent you used to have.

Irvin is the #1 candidate for replacing via draft.

It's both. You have to keep your good players for leadership and continuity, as well as draft well and add FA talent on the cheap.

And we have after a couple down years. We should be getting huge contributions next year from guys like Rawls, Lockett, Shead, Hill, KPL, Marsh, Clark, etc.

If you don't at least keep the core guys, then you're in a rebuilding 2-3 window like we were in 2011 and 2012. Is Irvin a core guy? It's debatable........but just saying I wouldn't be surprised if Pete and John think he is. His versatility and depth he adds to an already thin rotation on the line would be tough to let go and/or replace in FA. EVERYONE'S looking for guys like Irvin.

Bruce Irvin Just Made Things Interesting

New member

Active member

Member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads