Doug Baldwin signs extension for 4 years, $46 million
- Thread starter jake206
- Start date
A
Anonymous
Guest
We are truly blessed with ADB folks. Take a moment, and just let that settle in...
We have the most productive receiver in the league, at the best possible value considering cap (and as compared to the league), and under the best possible contract circumstances. Hmmm....
(*said out loud, in an East Indian accent *): "Oh, that feels verry nice!"
:mrgreen:
We have the most productive receiver in the league, at the best possible value considering cap (and as compared to the league), and under the best possible contract circumstances. Hmmm....
(*said out loud, in an East Indian accent *): "Oh, that feels verry nice!"
:mrgreen:
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
I thought Abu preferred cricket over football. So confused now.
A
Anonymous
Guest
MizzouHawkGal":1rpxgz40 said:
"Would you like some vodka with that?" Apu
hawksfansinceday1
Active member
I've omly seen one person on this thread dog him for his late season lighting it up Hans.HansGruber":phh0u399 said:
HansGruber
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 0
hawksfansinceday1":1ngwlbck said:
I was talking about reactions I've been reading on ESPN, PFT, PFF, and the like. Wasn't referring to this forum so much, although the Niner fan did echo the same thing.
MizzouHawkGal
Well-known member
Whiskey would be preferred.HoustonHawk82":1mki7arg said:
hawksfansinceday1
Active member
Ah I see. Well hopefully it'll just make him Angrier Doug and thus more committed to team success. My money is squarely on Doug, not the naysayers.HansGruber":ea6frcaq said:
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
HansGruber":3ktmzags said:
Yeah, so there's really two ways to look at it, I think.
Either all of the national media and myself are "haters," or it's actually a reasonable question. People bring it up because it's very relevant to the amount of the deal: without that stretch of games he wouldn't be making what he is.
Just to reiterate though, I think it's a fair deal, and like all fair deals there are questions. We could easily pose similar questions for other guys in the same dollar range like Allen or Hurns.
The question isn't if he'll be able to reproduce that five game stretch over time (he obviously won't, as nobody can), but rather if he can move up a level and peak somewhere in between that five game stretch and the player he was before and after that stretch.
If he drops back down to the 700-800 yard and 3-5 TD guy it's a bit of an overpay. If he ends up as the 900-1100 yards and 6-8 TD guy it's a fair deal under the new reality of the once again rising cap. If he does better than that it's a great deal for the Hawks.
RichNhansom
Active member
- Joined
- May 25, 2011
- Messages
- 4,256
- Reaction score
- 5
Popeyejones":1lza77mu said:
I think your getting to hung up on stats.
I was listening to ADB in an interview about his contract and he spelled out some key points. His production isn't just measured in stats. He is also responsible for developing rookies and holding them and himself accountable. He understands the importance of down field blocking and doing the things that help other receivers get open. He is a leader on the team and is selfless about it. Hard working, always willing to put in the extra work even if it is for the benefit of others.
I know your not trashing the contract I just think it is much less of a question mark than you suggest because he checks all the boxes that Pete wants in his players. If all you care about is stats then you will end up with teams like Detroit that puts up gaudy numbers but never accomplish anything. It makes perfect sense why Tate ended up there.
It's a different philosophy than Baalke's because Pete and John believe rewarding core players is more important than getting the cheapest deal. Not trying to trash Baalke here but there should be no question about the financial methods he has employed with his players and their contracts. Remember when the 9ers took 2 Mill from Brown for missing voluntary OTA's? At the same time Seattle was giving Browner a random bonus for no reason other than to say you over achieved last year and we recognize that.
If you want your core players to lead by example then you as a FO have to do the same and taking care of those players that encompass your philosophy is a key part of doing just that.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
^^^^ Two responses:
1) I know some posters here go ballistic whenever I say that the Seahawks are just a damn excellent football team and not the league's most just and morally righteous special snowflakes, but EVERY team prefers to reward home grown players (it's safer money cuz you've already had your hands on the guy and know how he fits in your system) just as EVERY team breaks from this when they feel like it (i.e. the Seahawks making outsiders like Graham and Harvin some of the highest paid members of the team because they had their own stars on way under-market value contracts).
EVERY team also reworks their guy's deals when it's in their own five year plan (e.g. Russ, Lynch, Sherm, ET) just as EVERY team doesn't even when their key cogs are crazily underpaid (e.g. Michael Bennett), if they don't just tell them to kick rocks entirely (Mebane, Bryant, Clemons, Irvin, Okung, Maxwell, Miller, the rest of the O-line, etc.)
Basically because every team does all of these things, you can pick out specific examples to make any team you like "good guys" or "bad guys." It's just an exercise in narcissism.
2) For a position like WR, perhaps more so than any other offensive position, stats are important because they tend to be an accurate measure of contribution. Even for RBs pass blocking and blitz pick-up don't show up on the stats sheet, and those things are both more important and with higher variance than WR run blocking (although there's variance to that too, of course; IMO Baldwin's above average but doesn't stand out for that like Tate did when he was on the Hawks).
I say this to say that all of the fuzzy additional things Baldwin gives to the team aren't totally unimportant, but conversationally I think they're just a way to gin up deal value beyond production and make fans feel better. They're useful for fans BECAUSE they're not quantifiable, so they can be whatever fans want them to be.
Just to reiterate though, I think this is a fair deal. I'm also gonna restate what I think production expectations are and leave it at that:
Yards in the 700-800s and TDs <= 5 range == Overpay
Yards in the 900-1100s and TDs in the 6-8 range == Equal Value/fair deal
Yards 1200+ and TDs 9+ == Underpay
He's spent most of his career in the "overpay" range, but had a stretch last year way in the "underpay" range. That's what makes it an equal value/fair value deal. See also the new deals for Hurns and Allen, which go according to this same metric. He got paid a tad less but I think for the Raiders Crabtree basically falls in this same bin too.
All four of these guys are getting paid to put up (on average over the life of the deal) around 900-1100 yards and 6-8 TDs per season. Some of 'em will and some of 'em won't, but that's what the market rate is.
1) I know some posters here go ballistic whenever I say that the Seahawks are just a damn excellent football team and not the league's most just and morally righteous special snowflakes, but EVERY team prefers to reward home grown players (it's safer money cuz you've already had your hands on the guy and know how he fits in your system) just as EVERY team breaks from this when they feel like it (i.e. the Seahawks making outsiders like Graham and Harvin some of the highest paid members of the team because they had their own stars on way under-market value contracts).
EVERY team also reworks their guy's deals when it's in their own five year plan (e.g. Russ, Lynch, Sherm, ET) just as EVERY team doesn't even when their key cogs are crazily underpaid (e.g. Michael Bennett), if they don't just tell them to kick rocks entirely (Mebane, Bryant, Clemons, Irvin, Okung, Maxwell, Miller, the rest of the O-line, etc.)
Basically because every team does all of these things, you can pick out specific examples to make any team you like "good guys" or "bad guys." It's just an exercise in narcissism.
2) For a position like WR, perhaps more so than any other offensive position, stats are important because they tend to be an accurate measure of contribution. Even for RBs pass blocking and blitz pick-up don't show up on the stats sheet, and those things are both more important and with higher variance than WR run blocking (although there's variance to that too, of course; IMO Baldwin's above average but doesn't stand out for that like Tate did when he was on the Hawks).
I say this to say that all of the fuzzy additional things Baldwin gives to the team aren't totally unimportant, but conversationally I think they're just a way to gin up deal value beyond production and make fans feel better. They're useful for fans BECAUSE they're not quantifiable, so they can be whatever fans want them to be.
Just to reiterate though, I think this is a fair deal. I'm also gonna restate what I think production expectations are and leave it at that:
Yards in the 700-800s and TDs <= 5 range == Overpay
Yards in the 900-1100s and TDs in the 6-8 range == Equal Value/fair deal
Yards 1200+ and TDs 9+ == Underpay
He's spent most of his career in the "overpay" range, but had a stretch last year way in the "underpay" range. That's what makes it an equal value/fair value deal. See also the new deals for Hurns and Allen, which go according to this same metric. He got paid a tad less but I think for the Raiders Crabtree basically falls in this same bin too.
All four of these guys are getting paid to put up (on average over the life of the deal) around 900-1100 yards and 6-8 TDs per season. Some of 'em will and some of 'em won't, but that's what the market rate is.
HansGruber
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 0
Popeyejones":lal0wetp said:
Or, you just don't watch many Seahawks games, and you don't have an understanding of what Baldwin brings to the team. So, you rely on statistics, and when those statistics are actually good, you simply write them off as being a "good stretch of games". Which, by the way, makes ZERO sense. Do you think coaches are sitting around saying, "Ya know what, Baldwin? You've had a great stretch of games, but see we need you to perform at a slightly lesser level over a longer period of time next season." Ridiculous, huh? Yep.
Popeyejones":lal0wetp said:
Newsflash - without a stretch of games of high performance, no well-paid player in the NFL would make what they make. Your point makes ZERO sense again. It's like saying, "Well, if Tom Brady hadn't won all those SuperBowls, he wouldn't be as hyped as he is." What's your point?
You are literally making the argument that if you take away Baldwin's production, he doesn't get paid. No way, really? You mean if he didn't have any catches or touchdowns, he wouldn't get paid like a guy who tied for the most touchdowns in the NFL last season? Oh boy, that is a mind-blower.
Popeyejones":lal0wetp said:
Again, you're trying to use a positive statistics spike to make the claim that Baldwin was performing poorly before that spike. Anyone who's watched Baldwin play knows the guy is out there producing all the time, coming through in huge moments, and one of the toughest and most durable receivers in the NFL. He's always been that way. Some of us knew the Seahawks would let Tate walk because Baldwin was already this way a few seasons ago. Of course, you'd actually have to watch the Seahawks week in and week out to know that. Which you clearly don't.
Popeyejones":lal0wetp said:
It's a great deal for the Hawks no matter what happens. They just showed a room full of undrafted free agent rookies that if they work hard enough and establish themselves as good starters, they're going to get paid. In fact, they've sent that message to every guy in the NFL trying to make a name for himself.
So while armchair GMs sit around arguing fantasy stats, the Seahawks are continuing to run their team in a championship dynasy-building fashion. Do I care what fans of opposing teams think about their methods? Absolutely not.
I've watched the Seahawks make a number of moves, take risks, and reward guys who've stepped up, and I've watched them play in consecutive Superbowls as a result. The opinions of opposing fans means less than nothing to me. I absolutely LOVE what this management team has done, I love what Paul Allen has done for us, and I LOVE watching my Seahawks go out there every Sunday and beat the snot out of other teams. And I love that guys like Russell Wilson and Doug Baldwin, guys who have been doubted and questioned their whole careers, are the ones handing out the smackdowns. It makes the whole thing all that much sweeter.
hawksfansinceday1
Active member
Popeye:
Since you state that stats are important for WR, why are you ignoring the fact that the stat table in this thread shows him as one of the best WRs in the NFL based on opportunities (targets) yet you rank his eventual contract value (overpay, fair deal, underpay) based on season stats? You mention several times that he blew up in the second half of last season yet what you leave out in referencing that is the fact that before that the Seahawks were obviously a run first and run some more type of team, proven by his (low number of) targets in the table. As for the national media/pundits that's nothing more than what I call the "Fantasy Football Syndrome". When it comes to Baldwin, they've looked at overall stats rather than opportunities (targets) and concluded he might be overpaid. I think you're smarter than that myself, at least I would hope so.
Here's my opinion of why that is: because you're a Frisco fan and you often post this type of thing to chip away at the Seahawks' success when you can find a reason to do so. It's just like you referencing Wilson not being as good in the playoffs as in the regular season. Really? Duh. Very few QBs are. In the NFCCG Russell threw 4 picks vs. GB (2 on Kearse in most people's opinions by the way) yet the great Aaron Rodgers didn't exactly light it up (in the neighborhood of 165 yds. passing IIRC) that day either. Manning stunk against the Hawks in XLVIII and in fact often was poor to average in the playoffs. Palmer was crap in the playoffs last year like every other year he's been in them. Newton was crap against Denver in the Super Bowl. Fact is, defenses in the playoffs are the best and a lot of QB play suffers as a result, not just Russell Wilson's.
There are people here that see you as reasonable and fair minded including mods and that's their prerogative. But my opinion is different when it comes to discussions involving Seattle as a team or its individual players. I think you and Marv both approach posting here as an opportunity to try to knock our team and our posts down a notch whenever possible. I have no idea whether it's conscious or subconscious but it's pretty obvious to me and I'm not alone. But as Niner fans I suppose it's understandable. Certainly NINEster is more direct at his digs of the Hawks and guys like lvnginhwktown were even more strident.
I enjoy your posts, Marv's and NINEsters on the NFL Forum when something not Seahawks related is being discussed, but it's gotten to the point that I'm starting to just not read you guys' posts on anything Hawks related. And if you want to accuse me of having rose colored glasses and not wanting to hear anything negative about the Hawks, that would only prove you haven't read my posts over the years.
You wanted a response from me so you got one. It's likely the last one you'll get for the reasons outlined. I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it.
Since you state that stats are important for WR, why are you ignoring the fact that the stat table in this thread shows him as one of the best WRs in the NFL based on opportunities (targets) yet you rank his eventual contract value (overpay, fair deal, underpay) based on season stats? You mention several times that he blew up in the second half of last season yet what you leave out in referencing that is the fact that before that the Seahawks were obviously a run first and run some more type of team, proven by his (low number of) targets in the table. As for the national media/pundits that's nothing more than what I call the "Fantasy Football Syndrome". When it comes to Baldwin, they've looked at overall stats rather than opportunities (targets) and concluded he might be overpaid. I think you're smarter than that myself, at least I would hope so.
Here's my opinion of why that is: because you're a Frisco fan and you often post this type of thing to chip away at the Seahawks' success when you can find a reason to do so. It's just like you referencing Wilson not being as good in the playoffs as in the regular season. Really? Duh. Very few QBs are. In the NFCCG Russell threw 4 picks vs. GB (2 on Kearse in most people's opinions by the way) yet the great Aaron Rodgers didn't exactly light it up (in the neighborhood of 165 yds. passing IIRC) that day either. Manning stunk against the Hawks in XLVIII and in fact often was poor to average in the playoffs. Palmer was crap in the playoffs last year like every other year he's been in them. Newton was crap against Denver in the Super Bowl. Fact is, defenses in the playoffs are the best and a lot of QB play suffers as a result, not just Russell Wilson's.
There are people here that see you as reasonable and fair minded including mods and that's their prerogative. But my opinion is different when it comes to discussions involving Seattle as a team or its individual players. I think you and Marv both approach posting here as an opportunity to try to knock our team and our posts down a notch whenever possible. I have no idea whether it's conscious or subconscious but it's pretty obvious to me and I'm not alone. But as Niner fans I suppose it's understandable. Certainly NINEster is more direct at his digs of the Hawks and guys like lvnginhwktown were even more strident.
I enjoy your posts, Marv's and NINEsters on the NFL Forum when something not Seahawks related is being discussed, but it's gotten to the point that I'm starting to just not read you guys' posts on anything Hawks related. And if you want to accuse me of having rose colored glasses and not wanting to hear anything negative about the Hawks, that would only prove you haven't read my posts over the years.
You wanted a response from me so you got one. It's likely the last one you'll get for the reasons outlined. I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
HansGruber":2e5mh0c3 said:
I've watched every Seahawks game over the past five years, including pre-season games, as I've also done for the 9ers and Cardinals (and in some years the Rams; then I usually rotate one other team for which to watch every game).
If Baldwin had performed at the rate of that stretch across the whole season he'd be making MUCH more money. on his in his new contract, as he should. If Baldwin didn't have that five game stretch he'd be making a fair amount of less money on his contract, as he should.
None of this strikes me as complicated.
Popeyejones":2e5mh0c3 said:
I agree that every player has variance in production across games. My point is that Baldwin had atypically high variance in his production across a five or six game stretch as compared to the rest of his season (and, well, TBF, career).
Devonta Freeman is another good example outsized variance across two bins of games last year; as a player he's probably somewhere in between those two bins . IIRC didn't Brady have a high variance stretch to start the season two years ago before returning back to his mean?
Again, I don't understand what you're so worked up about.
HansGruber":2e5mh0c3 said:
I absolutely am not. I've said quite plainly and repeatedly that he's basically getting paid as if he'll perform somewhere in between his first half of last year and his second half of last year.
It really seems like you're just making stuff up so that you can get yourself worked up.
[note: I snipped off the last few paragraphs of the post as it was too ranty to really respond to. Needless to say, we disagree that it's a great deal for the Hawks regardless of how Baldwin plays, which you claime in there.]
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
hawksfansinceday1":2v2pmee1 said:
Very little of this has anything to do with the topic of Baldwin or his contract, but I will say this:
If you seriously believe that me repeatedly saying that I think Baldwin's deal is a good and fair market value one for both sides is a subtle and underhanded way to "chip away at the Seahawks' success" I seriously don't know what to tell you. It's just too weird of a claim to substantively respond to. Would it be less suspicious if I thought the Hawks robbed him or something? Or would it be less suspicious if I thought they were generously taking care of their own and gave him too much? I have no idea. This is so bizarre.
As for the topic and per-catch stats, two things:
1) players' worth (in dollars) to teams is dependent on their usage. When you look at that table Baldwin Per / X stats are one of two things that stand out. The other thing that stands out is that he has significantly less targets and receptions than practically everyone else on the list. Just as Tate is worth more to the Lions than the Seahawks (they use him more) and Eric Reid is worth more to the 9ers than he would be to the Seahawks (they use him more; he'd be a backup on the Hawks because he's not in the same class as ET or Kam), Baldwin's Per / X stats have to be taken in the context of usage. TOne ccorrect way to read that graph IMO is that Baldwin could be worth more to another team than the Hawks (a la Tate was), but they didn't want to lose him (contra Tate). Another way to read it is that PC is bluffing and they plan to open up the offense more, and will be giving higher volume to Baldwin. My preferred reading is they're paying him as if he'll perform better than his first half but not as good as his second half of last season (which strikes me as fair, and IMO makes the most sense --> for guys like Allen or Crabtree you're hoping they don't get injured; for guys like Hurns you're hoping his production stays high even if you're not playing air-it-out catch-up for three quarters of every game).
2) The other thing worth noting is that Per / X stats generally get closer to the mean as X increases. It doesn't matter if Per / X is super high or super low; if you increase X you'll almost always get closer to the mean. When you see players statistically really jump out on a Per / X basis the first thing to do is to look to how X compares to others on the list. Put another way, when Baldwin has an 80% catch rate the two things to think are "he's pretty good" AND "I bet he has a lot less targets than other #1 WRs. Same story in reverse for a guy like Mike Davis on 9ers, who averaged 1.7 YPC ( :lol
last year. You see that and you need to think two things: "He's pretty bad" AND "I bet he didn't have a lot of attempts" (he had 35). Save for generational talents (e.g. JJ Watt and batted passes) these types of anomalous per / X performances always trend back to the mean as you increase X (i.e. a situational pass rusher is going to average more sacks or hurries per pass attempt then after you make him an everydown player; that guy averaging 20 YPR is gonna see his YPR drop if you throw it to him more than 50 times per year, and so on).
Efficiency vs. Production is complicated and NFL GMs tend to find the balance most of the time. Fans tend to completely overvalue production. It's an oversimplification to say players necessarily have more value with higher usage as not all yards are equal in the NFL. Baldwin's catch rate as a third down receiver is a large component of his value to the Hawks and cannot be directly compared to a guy like Brown who is a high YAC home run hitter (and also very worth his contract). It's the same family of error as when analysts look at YPC efficiency from a third down back and argue for more touches.
Does WalterFootball count as people? When it's clear that somebody doesn't know what they are talking about in regards to things you know well it's worth being skeptical about their opinions on the other stuff too.ShermanIsland":34z61ofv said:
HansGruber
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 0
Popeyejones":2e96bxqq said:
I'm not a bit worked up. In fact, I couldn't care less.
You are literally trying to use a stretch of good games against Baldwin, and also making the argument that he wasn't really all that important to the Seahawks offense before last season's "stretch of good games". What's even funnier is that you try to reduce that "stretch" to "5 or 6" good games, which costs you all credibility, if you had any to begin with.
You expect me to believe that you watch all the Seahawks games, when you've made the argument that Baldwin wasn't that productive or important to the Seahawks' offense before the last half of last season? And yes, you just made that argument. Comparing to Davonte Freeman? Pffffft.
I'm done feeding the troll. Keep making up garbled nonsense if you want. I'm out.
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
AgentDib":137d9f04 said:
...and also the same family of error as when people look to things like catch rate without factoring in total number of targets (as it's high variance on smaller N, and guys who get used more also have the disadvantage of defenses trying to stop them more). Like the 3rd down RB it's also the same story for a 3rd down chain mover in a functioning offense whose receptions are disproportionately coming (compared to all other receivers) on third and mid or short situations. If that guy doesn't have a high catch rate he's a bum (which still doesn't mean that he doesn't have to be insanely talented to be bringing in 70% of his targets, let a lone 80%).
More generally I think you and I are kinda pitching to opposite sides of the same plate a little bit, which doesn't mean I don't agree with you on your side of the plate.
I 100% do, and really good post, IMO. :2thumbs:
Popeyejones
Active member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,525
- Reaction score
- 0
HansGruber":3hvug0h1 said:
Across 5 games last year Baldwin had 11 TDs.
Across a season that projects to 35 receiving TDs in a year.
Outside of that 5 game stretch projected across a year he had 4 TDs (3 in 11 = 4.3 in 16), which is right in line with his career average before last year of 4 TDs per year (3.75).
If you don't think he had a five game stretch of ridiculously awesome play I don't know what to tell you. To be honest, I think denying it, if anything, unfairly revokes the credit he deserves for it.
HansGruber
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2012
- Messages
- 2,740
- Reaction score
- 0
Popeyejones":17wvprf5 said:
And when did I deny he had a great last half of the season? I never did, actually. I was laughing at your use of that stretch to argue that he was not important to the offense before that stretch, when he has been our most consistent and durable (and arguably most clutch) receiver since he started here.
Seattle uses a run-first smash-mouth offense, and Wilson makes a point of spreading the ball around. Baldwin got great stats in the last half of the season because Rawls, Lynch, and Graham were injured, and they had no choice but to throw to Baldwin. So Wilson did, and not only did Baldwin step up, he became the best receiver in the NFL. Opposing teams knew we were going to throw him the ball, and he was STILL making those plays. Do you wish to argue that?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the truth is simple:
You can only judge a player by what they do with opportunities. Baldwin took those opportunities and became the best receiver in the game with them. But he has always been great. That's why fans and the team love him so much. The dude is filled with passion and intensely competitive, is consistent, durable and always clutch. He has always stepped up when given the opportunity. That's why he is a great receiver and that's why this is a great deal for the Seahawks.
