Bruce Irvin

Glasgow Seahawk · Feb 27, 2018

Likely to be a cap casualty in Oakland. He's been saying a lot of good things about the hawks and Ken Norton Jr lately.

If the price is right I think he would be ideal LB/Pass rush depth. Thoughts?

http://www.espn.com/blog/oakland-raider ... casualties

Sports Hernia · Feb 27, 2018

Glasgow Seahawk":x0u9hsa1 said:
Likely to be a cap casualty in Oakland. He's been saying a lot of good things about the hawks and Ken Norton Jr lately.

If the price is right I think he would be ideal LB/Pass rush depth. Thoughts?

http://www.espn.com/blog/oakland-raider ... casualties

For the right price I’d take him back and hope he has gotten better at finishing plays.

AKNFidel · Feb 27, 2018

Bruce Irvin... maybe at this right price (which would be league minimum) His motor only runs certain downs and he’s kind of a knucklehead with foot in mouth disease. Never became a “Professional” athlete.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

hawxfreak · Feb 27, 2018

I remember Raible saying a time or two , Bruce no ........ but he was still good enough that we could use a guy like him right about now
Claytons saying it's likely gonna take five or six maybe even 8 a year to keep him but I bet we could get him for five as a third down pass rush guy

original poster · Feb 27, 2018

No thanks.

I want this team to get younger on defense, not sign an ageing vet.

SoulfishHawk · Feb 28, 2018

Unless it's a low number, no thanks. I always saw him as a very overrated/inconsistent player really. That being said, if he's will to take a lower number to be back here in Seattle, it's worth a look.

nanomoz · Feb 28, 2018

It'd be great, but I think at this stage his best value will be to a true 34 defense as an OLB pass rusher.

Hasselbeck · Feb 28, 2018

original poster":2wj7fx9y said:
No thanks.

I want this team to get younger on defense, not sign an ageing vet.

Agree in a sense, however with the amount of draft picks we have.. and the holes on this roster .. they will have to add a few vets to round up the roster. Bruce wouldn't be a bad vet to add, but as others have said, he'd have to come cheap. Don't really see that coming with a lot of teams needing to spend money this FA period.

Sgt. Largent · Feb 28, 2018

McKenzie says today that Irvin isn't going anywhere.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -anywhere/

IMO almost 10M a year is a lot to pay for 8 sacks and a guy who is every bit as inconsistent as he was here.

2_0_6 · Feb 28, 2018

Hes staying, and was on Twitter today asking people to send him Mo Wilkerson's handle.

Him along with Mack, and Mo..... Good lord.

SoulfishHawk · Mar 1, 2018

Their D sucked, yet again. I'll worry when I actually see real Defense in Oakland.

DJrmb · Mar 1, 2018

Here's an interesting idea.

First as a Seattle fan would you want to trade Michael Bennett for Bruce Irvin straight up?

Second is that a realistic trade for both teams? I feel like Seattle would be taking on a lot more of Irvin's cap hit than Oakland would Bennett's. So maybe the numbers just don't work. However I think the players are a perfect swap for the teams...

Bruce Irvin

Glasgow Seahawk

Well-known member

Sports Hernia

Well-known member

AKNFidel

New member

hawxfreak

New member

original poster

New member

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member

nanomoz

Well-known member

Hasselbeck

New member

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member

2_0_6

New member

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member

DJrmb

Well-known member

Similar threads

Latest posts