Had we not made it to the superbowl?

I have a question.

Had we not made it to the superbowl would the moves we're making now be any different? Would the cuts we made not have happened? Would the few players we're losing in FA have not been lost?

I really don't think so personally, but I'm curious how you all feel.

No. I don't think so at all. Tate would have commanded $6+ million regardless if he was a Super Bowl champ or not. His regular season production is commensurate with a player who makes that much.

We re-signed Bennett for an amount that was commensurate with his regular season production. There was no "Super Bowl" inflation.

We're letting all of our replaceable pieces go (guys who plays positions where we have young depth). We're bringing back a couple key pieces where we're thin (back-up QB, run stuffing DT).

This is precisely the PC/JS formula. Super Bowl had no real impact on it on their decisionmaking from what I can tell.

For our lesser guys, yes. How many teams had role players like McDonald and Schofield sign contracts an hour into free agency like they did?

Tate is undervalued even at $6 million. For Detroit (on turf no less), that contract is going to look amazing by this time next year.

Tate's going to be a household name after 2014. Book it. Not elite like Megatron/A.J./etc., but he's going to be much more well-known to the average fan. I'm calling 1,200+ yards and 10+ TDs in his first year in Detroit.

I feel like McDonald would have got a good deal this off-season regardless. He had 5.5 sacks at DT and put out good tape. However, I do agree that the Super Bowl probably expedited his signing. Still, Seattle would have lost him either way.

Schofield's deal genuinely surprised me, but it looks like NY has reneged on it due to buyer's remorse (claiming failed physical).

I suppose I should have phrased it as the few players who really matter? Schofield really barely played. Mcdonald though I'm not surprised at all he got a contract. Do you feel it was undeserving Kearly?

The exposure for some of our backups was of benefit to them, no question.
Some, like McDonald and Tate earned their new contract. Others got somewhat
of a windfall.... (cough) Schofield.

Everybody wants a piece of the magic.

RolandDeschain":3978pauc said:

Tate's going to be a household name after 2014. Book it. Not elite like Megatron/A.J./etc., but he's going to be much more well-known to the average fan. I'm calling 1,200+ yards and 10+ TDs in his first year in Detroit.

Click to expand...

Along with no less than 5 taunting penalties...

RolandDeschain":koh3ig5y said:

Tate's going to be a household name after 2014. Book it. Not elite like Megatron/A.J./etc., but he's going to be much more well-known to the average fan. I'm calling 1,200+ yards and 10+ TDs in his first year in Detroit.

Click to expand...

I will take the under. They won't throw it around like they have been. If you want to side bet PM me.

Had we not made it to the SB, the biggest change might be Dan Quinn hired as head coach of the Browns.
The other big change is that teams would not be in full copy-cat mode of Seattle's defensive philosophy, so you can be sure the market for DE's and DB's would not have been as hot as it is today. Everybody's trying to get their version of the LOB paired with killer pass rush.
Not sure that would've made it possible to bring back Truck. Red and CC were cap casualties, so they would've been gone anyway. Biggest impact would probably have been on re-signing WTIII. I doubt he would have the attention from suitors he has now without the SB. Same for BB, but I don't think we wouldn've re-signed him anyway.
As for Tate, I think his market would've been a touch weaker. Our WR's got a ton of publicity from SB over the 'pedestrian' comment. However, I still think we would have lost him based on how JSPC prioritize their cap allocation.
Off topic, but I totally agree that Tate is going to bust out. He has way more talent than his limited opportunities and usage in Seattle have showcased. In retrospect we'll all be sick over letting him go, but it would've been status quo had he stayed.

Tate nearly hit nine hundred yards off of only 47 receptions. The Lions won't throw it so much less that Tate only gets 47 grabs on that team. He'll go over a thousand receiving yards next year barring injury. Twelve hundred yards wouldn't surprise me at all.

HoustonHawk82":kyehytpa said:

Along with no less than 5 taunting penalties...

Click to expand...

Tiny and largely irrelevant price to pay for that production.

ImTheScientist":kyehytpa said:

RolandDeschain":kyehytpa said:

Tate's going to be a household name after 2014. Book it. Not elite like Megatron/A.J./etc., but he's going to be much more well-known to the average fan. I'm calling 1,200+ yards and 10+ TDs in his first year in Detroit.

Click to expand...

I will take the under. They won't throw it around like they have been. If you want to side bet PM me.

Click to expand...

Naw, it's just a hunch I have. I'm not "throwing myself behind it", you might say.

The cuts we are seeing would have happened, Superbowl or not. The attempt to re-sign Bennett would be the same. This post really seems to be about Tate. Just seems to me that he really rather be in an offense that allows him more touches. The Seahawks role for him wasn't going to change, not yet, since I don't expect the passing game to expand in a big way for at least another season. I do think in 2 yrs you will see Wilson putting the ball up 30-35 times. But that is just my hunch.

I don't think anything differently happens this offseason, Superbowl or not.

[off-topic]
I definitely can see Tate going over 1000 yds and 10 TDs. Caldwell may want to scale down the passing game, but he better have an OC that was better than he was with Baltimore. Maybe Ray Rice had an offseason and the O-line stunk, but the Lions cannot sustain with the running game production Caldwell helped produce in Baltimore.

Eventually, unless the Lions start off hot with a toned-down offense, they have to use the part of their team where a lot of capital has been spent. Plus, Tate seems to be under the illusion that the Lions will be a pass-happy team. Either he was sleeping while the coaches were laying out how they wanted to use him or it sounds like Caldwell may not exactly mean a 50/50 running to passing offense.
[/off-topic]

I don't think it would be any different, and at most, the market would be a tiny bit softer for the end of the bench guys.

It's why it's so huge that Seattle delivered on their promise last season (and why the 9ers getting so close three years in a row w/out being able to do it is such as massive heartbreaker for all non-delusional 9ers fans).

Agree with DrDiags.

We were regarded as one of the, if the most, deep teams in the NFL. People were waiting to get some of our good up and coming rotational/role players.

Every year, it's a big deal when teams sign a guy with a ring. "Superbowl Champion" added to the roster. I'm wondering if there's something to it: maybe our guys will tell the other teams how incredible the atmosphere is and awesome it is to win it all.....create more of a hunger in that team.

It's basically a miracle that we had THAT MANY good players on our team, IMO, specifically on defense. Keeping all those guys together for more than one year was always sadly impossible.

I definitely see an effect on our backups. They are getting offers to be starters or nearly starters, and they are taking those deals.