Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Report: Hawks have inquired about LT Duane Brown

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without and how through 5 games in which he's done marginal.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • tersal wrote:
    ludakrishna wrote:I said a straight up Michael Bennett for Duane Brown trade but that went down the toilet due to Bennetts Planter Fascia injury.

    Bennet is a pure 4-3 DE Houston uns a 3-4 scheme.


    Bunk. He has lined up inside on numerous occasions on passing downs
    User avatar
    HawkerD
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 400
    Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 10:33 am
    Location: Covington WA


  • Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without and how through 5 games in which he's done marginal.

    He's not just a rental, he'll be franchise tagged for one maybe two years and then possibly sign for a few more if affordable...
    Last edited by massari on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 863
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:58 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.



    YEah and our 3rd round performance this year has been better? LOL

    As much as I'm happy that we won. it really was wasn't Sheldon winning it for as, as a young QB making some bonehead plays and a runner not controlling the ball and a punt returner forgetting how to catch a punt.

    Who's to say, that if it wasn't Sheldon, it would have been someone else.

    It's not that I don't read your comments, it's just that I don't agree with all your comments. I know.. weird.

    I do agree with the one poster however and his point was that Bennett's and Avril are hurt so it may not be the best time to trade him, but then again, maybe it is a good time since we have a bye week, we have the crappy Giants, and then the Texans who have now a concern about their OL.

    I'm just curious, why does and what makes a lot of us think that we can resign him? He's going to want a top 3 type contract. Where will that money come from? Are you willing to disgruntle the rest of your Star defenders by giving a 1 year guy the 2nd largest Seahawk contract? I don't think so, he'll be let go and McDowell will be his replacement and we'll recoup a 3rd rd draft choice. JS is not going to break the bank, you've seen it before.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.



    YEah and our 3rd round performance this year has been better? LOL

    As much as I'm happy that we won. it really was wasn't Sheldon winning it for as, as a young QB making some bonehead plays and a runner not controlling the ball and a punt returner forgetting how to catch a punt.

    Who's to say, that if it wasn't Sheldon, it would have been someone else.

    It's not that I don't read your comments, it's just that I don't agree with all your comments. I know.. weird.

    I do agree with the one poster however and his point was that Bennett's and Avril are hurt so it may not be the best time to trade him, but then again, maybe it is a good time since we have a bye week, we have the crappy Giants, and then the Texans who have now a concern about their OL.

    I'm just curious, why does and what makes a lot of us think that we can resign him? He's going to want a top 3 type contract. Where will that money come from? Are you willing to disgruntle the rest of your Star defenders by giving a 1 year guy the 2nd largest Seahawk contract? I don't think so, he'll be let go and McDowell will be his replacement and we'll recoup a 3rd rd draft choice. JS is not going to break the bank, you've seen it before.


    You're fine to disagree with my comments. It's just that you don't even consider them. Our 3rd down performance has been better this year, yes. And two turnovers in one road game vs a tough division opponent? You have to work pretty hard to find a reason to just dismiss that kind of impact on a season.

    We've got one of the toughest and most nimble QB's in the league whose offensive line has never held him back from 10 wins. If there's any team where the OL plays a less important role, it's here. Do your best to prep the position (and we have not done well), but don't kick Pro Bowlers at crucial positions to the curb to make up for it. That's like selling your only car to pay the bills.

    You don't know that Malik will ever play football again, or that he'll be what he could have been after his very severe injury.

    I do agree with the one poster however and his point was that Bennett's and Avril are hurt so it may not be the best time to trade him


    I made that point, too. We don't know when Avril will be back.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • I think it likely that much of the league has inquired about Duane Brown during his holdout.

    "Benjamin Allbright" offers no source. Just makes a speculative and unsupported assertion of a connection. LOL



    "TexansCap" appears to be the spark for this latest speculative exercise. It was triggered by an exercise of where to unload a holdout and how to improve the cap space for the Houston Texans. Here at dot net, it has found speculative traction and taken on a life of its own. LOL



    Given that this will be a slow bye week, examples of speculation may gain momentum and roar right up thru the Giants game. Just be cognizant of the potential for a great wailing over speculative deals didn't come to pass.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 6903
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm


  • Jville wrote:I think it likely that much of the league has inquired about Duane Brown during his holdout.

    "Benjamin Allbright" offers no source. Just makes a speculative and unsupported assertion of a connection. LOL



    "TexansCap" appears to be the spark for this latest speculative exercise. It was triggered by an exercise of where to unload a holdout and how to improve the cap space for the Houston Texans. Here at dot net, it has found speculative traction and taken on a life of its own. LOL



    Given that this will be a slow bye week, examples of speculation may gain momentum and roar right up thru the Giants game. Just be cognizant of the potential for a great wailing over speculative deals didn't come to pass.


    Or it could be true. Everything is speculation until it is finalized. I don't think the guy would be blowing smoke just to blow it. Besides there are multiple reports on this.

    Get it done Hawks.
    User avatar
    NFSeahawks628
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3812
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:33 pm
    Location: Born: Tacoma, WA Current Location: Tally, Seminole Country (Road Hawk)


  • Yeah, your right, I don't consider them and here's why. My belief has been and will be that our offense on the field in so many different ways helps our Defense just about more than any singular defensive player. Our offense off the field however puts so much pressure on our D, and I think it was bubbling over a few weeks ago. So what ever argument and however good it is for the defense, I just won't accept. We need a good LT to solidly our OL, to maintain time and possession. We need a good OL to wear down opposing teams defenses much like we used to do when we were absolutely dominating them.. We are so close to this, but yet so far. It's a sacrifice I know, but in the end, I believe we'll be better for it.

    BTW, the beauty of Sheldon Richardson being a FA next year is that, we can still sign him.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:Yeah, your right, I don't consider them and here's why. My belief has been and will be that our offense on the field in so many different ways helps our Defense just about more than any singular defensive player.


    That problem doesn't manifest itself nearly as much in the second half. The problem is Pete's conservative play-calling of the first half, which constricts Wilson's options and places a much bigger burden on his line. Rees Odhiambo looks at least serviceable in the second half once Wilson is free to let it fly. That's a pattern that's stretched back all the way to 2012.

    The Rams game was an exception, but...division game.

    Also, getting rid of our only productive tall target isn't going to help the offense.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15632
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:Yeah, your right, I don't consider them and here's why. My belief has been and will be that our offense on the field in so many different ways helps our Defense just about more than any singular defensive player.


    That problem doesn't manifest itself nearly as much in the second half. The problem is Pete's conservative play-calling of the first half, which constricts Wilson's options and places a much bigger burden on his line. Rees Odhiambo looks at least serviceable in the second half once Wilson is free to let it fly. That's a pattern that's stretched back all the way to 2012.

    The Rams game was an exception, but...division game.

    Also, getting rid of our only productive tall target isn't going to help the offense.



    I"m not sure why, but when Russ started, his first year, it was.. well were keeping the reigns on Russ and everyone clamored for.. let him be..It went into the 2nd year as the same thing, and yet here it is in his 5th year and now Pete's conservative play calling has me thinking he's still in his 1st year.

    I do remember a couple of years ago, after we purged got rid of Carpentar and Ben G we started slow and it was said, only a matter of time.. and sure enough, we started to dominate teams and then came Tampa, we got schooled. Turns out as far as I can tell, we dominated some very piss poor teams and when we came up against a rising team, we reverted back to the conservative play calling ways so to speak. So I don't know, it's been frustrating to watch this team with so much going for it, just under achieving.. Why is that? My only thought right now is, it's gotta be the line. It's the reason we win ugly, cause we have so much talent elsewhere that the talent alone over comes our line weakness. You remember the Tampa game right? I think after that game, it was the first time there was some doubt that crept across us. Sure we are good enough for a winning record, too get into the playoff's, but that's about as far as we go right now. Good teams won't give us the breaks like the Rams did.

    My thought is we keep the eligible Tackle in, keep Graham at WR spot and play a somewhat GB style of hurry up offense, get the players to the line fast, keep the D off balance and that way perhaps behind this questionable line, we can get some rhythm going.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Looks like Brown may have some motivation to make this work sooner rather than later.

    If Brown doesn’t play before the eighth game of the season, his rights roll back to the next year and he doesn’t get credited with a season toward free agency. Davis Hsu says John Schneider has been interested in Brown for a long time, but given all the sides to the situation this rumor getting out seems awfully like bluster to create movement in a stalemate.


    https://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/10/9/16450622/reports-seahawks-work-out-tackle-brandon-albert-discuss-duane-brown-trade-with-texans

    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • I'm sure Cable can make him below average fairly quickly.
    User avatar
    Leee-roy
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 47
    Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:04 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.


    Add to this the fact that our interceptions have steadily gone down. Much of this is due to lack of interior pressure.

    We also don't know what's going on with McDowell, who was supposed to be our answer to this issue after the draft. McDowell was slated to be a 3 tech and 5 tech DE. RIchardson can play everything from 3 tech, DE, and has played the 1 T (nose tackle) for the Jets and did it at a high level. He's more versatile than any DL we have right now, including Bennett. If we can afford him, we do it.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7372
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • One of my friends knows his dad. He played football with him at Hermitage in Richmond, VA he said the hawks have been calling his agent non stop I kid u not!
    The office of Thomas and Chancellor specializing in Defense.
    User avatar
    thegreeninyoureye
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 734
    Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 pm


  • Hawks46 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.


    Add to this the fact that our interceptions have steadily gone down. Much of this is due to lack of interior pressure.

    We also don't know what's going on with McDowell, who was supposed to be our answer to this issue after the draft. McDowell was slated to be a 3 tech and 5 tech DE. RIchardson can play everything from 3 tech, DE, and has played the 1 T (nose tackle) for the Jets and did it at a high level. He's more versatile than any DL we have right now, including Bennett. If we can afford him, we do it.


    Agreed. Signing Richardson long-term is a must IMO. It allows them to move on from Bennett if they want and plug McDowell into that role (so long as he is capable of playing). Richardson and Reed inside on early downs with Avril/Clark on one side rotationally and McDowell on the other. Passing downs you have Avril & Clark on the ends with Richardson & McDowell inside. Bennett has a $4 million dollar roster bonus next year, so if McDowell is able to play late in the season and shows the talent level the front office expected when selecting him, I think they will be actively shopping him to recoup some of the value they lost with the 2nd round pick they gave up for Richardson.

    As to the topic of this thread, I love having Jimmy Graham on this team; His talent is evident. With that said, he's extremely under-utilized and even though we'd turn the TE position into a bit of a weakness, it won't be horrible. Using that money towards protecting Wilson has been necessary for too long. Even if Brown ends up being average, he offers more to the offensive success than JG does given the circumstances. If Brown wants a hefty pay raise from what he is set to earn, then I'd lean towards Branden Albert instead and holding onto JG so that we receive a compensatory pick in the future.
    User avatar
    Pie Romania
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 269
    Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 pm
    Location: Washington State


  • I think for me it boils down to this:

    We need a historically good defense to do anything. With Bev and cable running this offense, it will never be great, even with a stellar line. It can get better, and last game I saw Bevell doing a few of the things we have been screaming about for sometime. There is just no proof at all that Cable is able to do his job at a high level anywhere he has been. Bevell the same.

    We won a superbowl by spending money on the D and having a quarterback that can make something happen out of nothing. We all can agree Jimmy has been totally left out of our offensive strategy.

    Sheldon and shaq are a start to the next gen defense. We need to keep them for the long run if we want to be relevant.
    A shiny piece of candy at left tackle wont increase our productivity on that side of the ball, but I would entertain a Jimmy trade for it.
    User avatar
    johnnyfever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 770
    Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 3:38 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • johnnyfever wrote:I think for me it boils down to this:

    We need a historically good defense to do anything. With Bev and cable running this offense, it will never be great, even with a stellar line. It can get better, and last game I saw Bevell doing a few of the things we have been screaming about for sometime. There is just no proof at all that Cable is able to do his job at a high level anywhere he has been. Bevell the same.

    We won a superbowl by spending money on the D and having a quarterback that can make something happen out of nothing. We all can agree Jimmy has been totally left out of our offensive strategy.

    Sheldon and shaq are a start to the next gen defense. We need to keep them for the long run if we want to be relevant.
    A shiny piece of candy at left tackle wont increase our productivity on that side of the ball, but I would entertain a Jimmy trade for it.




    We also had a very adequate offensive line that kept opposing defenses on the field and opposing offenses off the field.

    It's not going to matter how great your defense is, if it's on the field all day, it's going to get gassed and you add to that, the playoff and Superbowl will be more than 16 games away from the start of the season.. you watch, they will be totally gassed by then if something doesn't happen.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • Pie Romania wrote:
    Hawks46 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:It's like this
    You have two houses, You can only have 22 bottles of booze.
    In one house you have 11 premium whiskies
    in the 2nd house, you don't have any.
    Now would you miss one bottle from the 1st house if you can take it to your 2nd house
    Now you have two homes with premium whisky.

    I just don't get the worry about losing one rent a D player that we never had before and who we did fine without


    Has a lot to do with the fact that we DIDN'T do fine without him. Not as fine as we could have. I've pointed that out to you a few times now and, as far as I can tell, you just have your fingers in your ears. Despite our top DVOA ranking last year, our 3rd down performance was spotty, we weren't getting interior pass rush, and people on this board were constantly squawking about it. Rightfully so.

    Sheldon just won an important division game for us. Two turnovers. That's not a small accomplishment, and his age suggests that he can keep on doing it for a while. With Bennett and Avril getting long in the tooth, it's not hard to see him as a solid replacement.

    For the folks who are insisting that we're stuck in the so-called "10-6 Rut" and need a player to "push us over the edge" again, Sheldon could be exactly that type of piece.


    Add to this the fact that our interceptions have steadily gone down. Much of this is due to lack of interior pressure.

    We also don't know what's going on with McDowell, who was supposed to be our answer to this issue after the draft. McDowell was slated to be a 3 tech and 5 tech DE. RIchardson can play everything from 3 tech, DE, and has played the 1 T (nose tackle) for the Jets and did it at a high level. He's more versatile than any DL we have right now, including Bennett. If we can afford him, we do it.


    Agreed. Signing Richardson long-term is a must IMO. It allows them to move on from Bennett if they want and plug McDowell into that role (so long as he is capable of playing). Richardson and Reed inside on early downs with Avril/Clark on one side rotationally and McDowell on the other. Passing downs you have Avril & Clark on the ends with Richardson & McDowell inside. Bennett has a $4 million dollar roster bonus next year, so if McDowell is able to play late in the season and shows the talent level the front office expected when selecting him, I think they will be actively shopping him to recoup some of the value they lost with the 2nd round pick they gave up for Richardson.

    As to the topic of this thread, I love having Jimmy Graham on this team; His talent is evident. With that said, he's extremely under-utilized and even though we'd turn the TE position into a bit of a weakness, it won't be horrible. Using that money towards protecting Wilson has been necessary for too long. Even if Brown ends up being average, he offers more to the offensive success than JG does given the circumstances. If Brown wants a hefty pay raise from what he is set to earn, then I'd lean towards Branden Albert instead and holding onto JG so that we receive a compensatory pick in the future.



    Avril is done. He won't be back next season.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5841
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Bobblehead wrote:
    johnnyfever wrote:I think for me it boils down to this:

    We need a historically good defense to do anything. With Bev and cable running this offense, it will never be great, even with a stellar line. It can get better, and last game I saw Bevell doing a few of the things we have been screaming about for sometime. There is just no proof at all that Cable is able to do his job at a high level anywhere he has been. Bevell the same.

    We won a superbowl by spending money on the D and having a quarterback that can make something happen out of nothing. We all can agree Jimmy has been totally left out of our offensive strategy.

    Sheldon and shaq are a start to the next gen defense. We need to keep them for the long run if we want to be relevant.
    A shiny piece of candy at left tackle wont increase our productivity on that side of the ball, but I would entertain a Jimmy trade for it.




    We also had a very adequate offensive line that kept opposing defenses on the field and opposing offenses off the field.

    It's not going to matter how great your defense is, if it's on the field all day, it's going to get gassed and you add to that, the playoff and Superbowl will be more than 16 games away from the start of the season.. you watch, they will be totally gassed by then if something doesn't happen.



    We had a very adequate line?

    Interesting take. That wasn't the narrative back then....
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1948
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • Hawkpower wrote:
    Bobblehead wrote:
    johnnyfever wrote:I think for me it boils down to this:

    We need a historically good defense to do anything. With Bev and cable running this offense, it will never be great, even with a stellar line. It can get better, and last game I saw Bevell doing a few of the things we have been screaming about for sometime. There is just no proof at all that Cable is able to do his job at a high level anywhere he has been. Bevell the same.

    We won a superbowl by spending money on the D and having a quarterback that can make something happen out of nothing. We all can agree Jimmy has been totally left out of our offensive strategy.

    Sheldon and shaq are a start to the next gen defense. We need to keep them for the long run if we want to be relevant.
    A shiny piece of candy at left tackle wont increase our productivity on that side of the ball, but I would entertain a Jimmy trade for it.




    We also had a very adequate offensive line that kept opposing defenses on the field and opposing offenses off the field.

    It's not going to matter how great your defense is, if it's on the field all day, it's going to get gassed and you add to that, the playoff and Superbowl will be more than 16 games away from the start of the season.. you watch, they will be totally gassed by then if something doesn't happen.



    We had a very adequate line?

    Interesting take. That wasn't the narrative back then....



    With Okung, the RT tackle, Gino.. Unger, Carp and who ever was our other guard, it was a lot better than what we have now and obviously, they were serviceable.
    User avatar
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1860
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:52 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:There wasn't a single person on here saying our offense was good enough before Jimmy, nor our defense was good enough before Sheldon. These are Pro Bowl players who are being undervalued because people want to find trade bait for a left tackle. I agree with the need for a left tackle. I don't believe it outweights Sheldon's position (it doesn't; they're both crucial), and I don't believe trading away our most productive tall target will help protect Wilson from coverage sacks (it won't).

    Also, there's practically nothing to this rumor at the moment. It's a Denver-based talking head doing speculation on Twitter. It might happen, but the guy isn't claiming any sources.

    Seriously...with Malik's status up in the air, Avril and Bennett aging, and Houston having just lost a top-caliber player at DT, how could people be undervaluing Sheldon now? These mental gymnastics don't work.


    They ARE NOT turning around and trading Richardson away after acquiring him. That idea is absurd. If this trade goes down, it'll be LANE and a draft pick or it won't happen. Bennett isn't going anywhere and my money says neither is Graham. Hawks will make a push to extend Richardson this year and if they can't get something done, they'll take their high comp pick and hope that McDowell can come back strong.
    FormerEvil
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 158
    Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:56 pm


  • :lol: We're not trading Sheldon Richardson for Duane Brown. Stop trying to make this a thing.

    Only player I could see moving for Brown would be Graham and that's just because the salaries add up. Even then, very highly doubtful that happens.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11150
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Seafan wrote:
    Avril is done. He won't be back next season.


    And here I thought that would be up to Cliff and the team to decide.

    You may be right, but assuming his career is over before we really know the extent of the problem is a bit disrespectful to a player that has done nothing but be a class act and huge contributor to our title.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote::lol: We're not trading Sheldon Richardson for Duane Brown. Stop trying to make this a thing.

    Only player I could see moving for Brown would be Graham and that's just because the salaries add up. Even then, very highly doubtful that happens.



    Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If we get this done, it'll be a lesser player like Lane and draft pick(s)...............AND trying to come to some sort of long term deal with Brown.

    This is why this is has been going on for months, and a longshot. A lot of pieces have to fall into place.

    I'm also super nervous about giving up bigtime assets for a player that held out. How many times have we seen a guy hold out, come back mid year, and then get hurt because he hasn't been playing? That's a far more likely scenario than players coming in mid year and playing well.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12029
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Got a feeling we're shipping out Graham, and that Graham has known this. First time they actually used him as a receiver last week, got him a TD.. cap hit for both are roughly the same, not sure how I feel about it. Would rather see lane go, but 2018 wise this might be a better trade. More Darboh?
    User avatar
    SNDavidson
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1521
    Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:22 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote::lol: We're not trading Sheldon Richardson for Duane Brown. Stop trying to make this a thing.

    Only player I could see moving for Brown would be Graham and that's just because the salaries add up. Even then, very highly doubtful that happens.



    Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If we get this done, it'll be a lesser player like Lane and draft pick(s)...............AND trying to come to some sort of long term deal with Brown.

    This is why this is has been going on for months, and a longshot. A lot of pieces have to fall into place.

    I'm also super nervous about giving up bigtime assets for a player that held out. How many times have we seen a guy hold out, come back mid year, and then get hurt because he hasn't been playing? That's a far more likely scenario than players coming in mid year and playing well.


    I'm just super nervous any time we do a trade because we always seem to overpay and get far less from said player than we hoped for.

    Even Sheldon Richardson, as great as he was on Sunday, has been relatively quiet for a good portion of the season. Would have rather kicked the tires on Branden Albert because all that costs is some cap space.
    February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized
    User avatar
    Hasselbeck
    * NET Sage *
     
    Posts: 11150
    Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm


  • Hasselbeck wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Hasselbeck wrote::lol: We're not trading Sheldon Richardson for Duane Brown. Stop trying to make this a thing.

    Only player I could see moving for Brown would be Graham and that's just because the salaries add up. Even then, very highly doubtful that happens.



    Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If we get this done, it'll be a lesser player like Lane and draft pick(s)...............AND trying to come to some sort of long term deal with Brown.

    This is why this is has been going on for months, and a longshot. A lot of pieces have to fall into place.

    I'm also super nervous about giving up bigtime assets for a player that held out. How many times have we seen a guy hold out, come back mid year, and then get hurt because he hasn't been playing? That's a far more likely scenario than players coming in mid year and playing well.


    I'm just super nervous any time we do a trade because we always seem to overpay and get far less from said player than we hoped for.

    Even Sheldon Richardson, as great as he was on Sunday, has been relatively quiet for a good portion of the season. Would have rather kicked the tires on Branden Albert because all that costs is some cap space.


    For this season at least, we get a top 5-7 DT for 1/2 price, and should get a 3rd rounder even if we let him go. Tough to argue that was a bad move. Signing him to a huge deal could be though if the oline is not made priority.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If they can't end up re-signing Graham, they'd likely get a 3rd round comp pick out of it to go along with having Graham the rest of this season. But the Seahawks could offer Graham+3rd, so two 3rd rounders+extra cap room if Graham ends up leaving. Not bad for a 32 year old holding out.
    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 863
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:58 am


  • Bobblehead wrote:

    Who's to say, that if it wasn't Sheldon, it would have been someone else..


    "Who's to say"?....Dude, it WASN'T "Someone Else", it was Sheldon who made more than just ONE great play.
    You're trying to devalue his 'Get After It, to prop up your 'What If's'. :lol:
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6114
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • massari wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If they can't end up re-signing Graham, they'd likely get a 3rd round comp pick out of it to go along with having Graham the rest of this season. But the Seahawks could offer Graham+3rd, so two 3rd rounders+extra cap room if Graham ends up leaving. Not bad for a 32 year old holding out.


    This is confusing to me

    Is this about Duane at all? He is the one holding out - he has 2 years left on his contract so he is NOT a FA next year

    Yeah we should get comp pick for Graham, yeah we should get it for Sheldon but there won't be one for Duane
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6557
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • You guys aren't listening.

    We don't have to trade Richardson or Graham for Brown.

    We can re-structure contracts (converting salaries in to bonuses) to get it done. It's not that hard.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 822
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • I would trade Jimmy for him, and cut Odhiambo. I don't care if Odhiambo offered to play for free, he's worse than useless.
    Fire Tom Cable
    User avatar
    xgeoff
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1204
    Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:45 pm


  • Could somebody make a Tom Cable Follies video? Highlights like Ifedi blocking from behind, jumping up in the air while blocking, lineman walking around before whistle is blown, carpenter tackling a guy because he was confused....

    LT. Let's get one.
    Shaq Griffin: 2017 Adopt a Rookie (injury substitution)
    User avatar
    Atradees
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3187
    Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:22 pm
    Location: South of Heaven


  • xgeoff wrote:I would trade Jimmy for him, and cut Odhiambo. I don't care if Odhiambo offered to play for free, he's worse than useless.


    It's Odhi-OH-NO! Before you can finish his name your QB is getting hit.
    SeahawksEast
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 84
    Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:44 pm


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:But not to a team we play next home game.


    It will be fun, albeit bittersweet, to watch Jimmy go off against Houston. He will be motivated to show his potential new team what he can do, and his new team will be careful not to hurt their next superstar just before they trade for him, so they will be told to not attack his knees, and so won't, unless they forget in the heat of the battle.

    It drives me crazy that we did not use him intelligently, but instead forced him to be an inline blocker when he is a great receiver.

    Consider him out wide playing wide receiver, with Luke Willson and Vanett playing double tight ends. Let Jimmy do downfield and block defensive backs, run through them, and catch balls above their heads.

    He will be lethal in Houston as someone else already said.
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1181
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


  • Missing_Clink wrote:Jimmy is the obvious player to move to make a trade for Brown happen. Trading Jimmy frees up the necessary cap space, and you are getting value out of player now hat you are virtually certain to lose in free agency in the offseason. It would be a fantastic trade for the Hawks.


    It is almost a sure thing after the Houston game because it is win-win for both.

    We get their LT who is sitting out, and they get our potential superstar wide receiver who Bevell is holding out of production, and thus is thus de facto sitting out, through no fault of his.

    It won't happen before the Houston game because then Graham could exact revenge on us thinking "I'll show you guys.".
    Netskier
    netskier
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1181
    Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:18 pm


  • Trade Bennett or Lane or both do not touch Richardson or Jimmy. I love Bennett but he is getting older and we have enough other players who jump offsides.
    Last edited by randomation on Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
    randomation
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1105
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


  • netskier wrote:
    Missing_Clink wrote:Jimmy is the obvious player to move to make a trade for Brown happen. Trading Jimmy frees up the necessary cap space, and you are getting value out of player now hat you are virtually certain to lose in free agency in the offseason. It would be a fantastic trade for the Hawks.


    It is almost a sure thing after the Houston game because it is win-win for both.

    We get their LT who is sitting out, and they get our potential superstar wide receiver who Bevell is holding out of production, and thus is thus de facto sitting out, through no fault of his.

    It won't happen before the Houston game because then Graham could exact revenge on us thinking "I'll show you guys.".


    Hmmm. Forgot we played them. The trade deadline is just 2 days after that game. and on top of that, as I posted above, if he doesn't play by week 8 (oddly enough our game with Houston is that week), then he loses credit for playing this year and loses 1 year towards his free agency rights. He sure doesn't want that to happen, so IMO if it doesn't happen before, it is unlikely it will happen.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2521
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Salary cap is the hangup. It likely will go all the way to the deadline.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5841
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • gotta think Houston is out of contention, being 2-3 and losing two of their best defensive players for the season. Sure, having Brown could help with the development of their young QB, but they're going to want some draft picks to re-stock their defense.

    We can make the cap work. It's a matter of if they can satisfy Houston's price tag and get Brown to sign an extension.
    A-Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 822
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:11 pm


  • Houston is in serious contention. They are a strong team.

    Re-working the contract is the part about getting the contract under the cap.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5841
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Didn't Bill O'Brien help develop Gronk and Hernandez? If I am Jimmy Graham, I am begging for this trade to happen. It would give me a chance to be relevant again.
    Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!
    GO 'HAWKS!!
    User avatar
    WmHBonney
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 932
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm


  • mikeak wrote:
    massari wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Graham is doubtful, because he's a UFA. So why would Houston trade an asset like Brown knowing Graham is gone at the end of the year, or at the least forcing you to use your franchise tag to keep him, and would you want to keep him?

    If they can't end up re-signing Graham, they'd likely get a 3rd round comp pick out of it to go along with having Graham the rest of this season. But the Seahawks could offer Graham+3rd, so two 3rd rounders+extra cap room if Graham ends up leaving. Not bad for a 32 year old holding out.


    This is confusing to me

    Is this about Duane at all? He is the one holding out - he has 2 years left on his contract so he is NOT a FA next year

    Yeah we should get comp pick for Graham, yeah we should get it for Sheldon but there won't be one for Duane

    Yeah sorry. It was a hypothetical scenario where the Texans would get Graham+3rd for Brown and was just answering the question of why Houston would want Graham if he's a FA after the season. My answer is because they'd likely get two 3rd rounders+cap room out of it for a 32 year old holding out, which is pretty good.
    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 863
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:58 am


Previous


It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 5:42 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information