How good are the guys we lost?

I know it stings to lose some fan favorites, but, objectively how good are the guys that have left?

Here are ESPN's grades...

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/freeagen ... 14&type=-1

Golden Tate: B+
Breno Giacomini: C+
Red Bryant: C+
Chris Clemons: C+
Clinton McDonald: C+
O'Brien Schoefield: C+
Walter Thurmond: C+ (not technically gone yet, but likely)
Sidney Rice: C-
Brandon Browner: D (seems a bit of a harsh grade if it is on talent alone)
Chris Maragos: D (although maybe not fair as that is his ranking as a S & I'm not sure factors in his ST value)


Not wanting to bag on guys who played a roll in the Hawks SB win, but thought this provided a little perspective. Primarily we've lost C+ talent.

Golden Tate: B+
Breno Giacomini: B+ I think he plays with most attitute.
Red Bryant: C+ This is fair, he didnt' play that much in the SB and only about 40% during regular season.
Chris Clemons: C+ Feel like this dude has been a non factor this season.
Clinton McDonald: B, towards teh end of the season he made lots of plays.
O'Brien Schoefield: C+? really? Id give him a D, 7 tackles is terrible.
Walter Thurmond: B+
Sidney Rice: C- Fair enough, but i woudl say Browner is a better corner than rice is as a reciever so Browner woudl get atleast a C.
Brandon Browner: D (seems a bit of a harsh grade if it is on talent alone)

This is what I've been saying. Yes we lost some guys from the top of our Free agent list, but if you look at the list of guys on the Seahawks as a WHOLE, none of them is near the top.

Bennett was the highest one, and we kept him.

The stars and the core are all still here.

Let's say most NFL-level players rank between 5-9 on a 10-point scale. Good starters and quality depth probably rank between 6-7. Superstars ranks between 8-9. There are 6s and 7s everywhere in the draft but VERY FEW 8s and 9s.

We've basically lost nothing but 6s. You could argue Tate is a low 7, but that's really the top-end of what we've lost.

I think sometimes fans put too much stock in our players. We just won the SB, so of course we love our players.

But from the football side of things, all the guys we lost are just guys, and can be replaced............and WILL be replaced. Bennett was the MOST important guy to keep, by a mile, and we kept him.

I love Breno, I love Clem, and I love Golden. But they are replaceable. You don't overpay for players just because they're OUR players. That's not how to keep this train rolling.

It has always been about more than talent with the players. According to experts, there are only a couple blue-chippers on the team anyway. I would hold off on dismissing out of hand the quality brought to the team by these guys.

Are there better players in-house to replace them, not sure. But the issue is that there really wasn't much choice. Try hanging on a year longer, even though that doesn't guarantee a repeat of a championship or make tough/smart decisions so that you have a sustainable model as your core matures and costs rise to maintain them.

I love Tate and I think hes awesome but even I wouldn't give him a B+ I think a B straight up is fair. I mean maybe the + if you consider his YAC production, I remember seeing that on ESPN and disagreeing with it, maybe inflated due to Super Bowl.

The list of players is sorted by highest grade to lowest.

Did you see the top of the list?

Michael Bennett: A



As many have said, the Seahawks are keeping those that are nigh-irreplacable

Those grades seem about right, though Tate would be a B-( he's a low two or high #3 WR) and Browner a C in my book. Most of the guys can be replaced, and I bet we will see that start happening in the next week and through the draft.