If we can get Baker on a vet minimum...

[Welshers]

Would you guys be in favor of it? I am hearing more and more talk of this being a possibility. It's reaching the point where the Browns may cut be forced to cut him. They were saying on the radio this means he won't have any incentive to sign anything but a vet minimum because the Browns will have to pay the rest of his salary no matter what.

Maybe this is the long game. Force the Browns to cut him and sign him for dirt cheap for a year. With Mayfield the team could be competitive.

 

[haroldseattle]

Better to avoid the drama that would come with Mayfield.

 

[WarHawks]

Why? He's a mediocre qb. I just don't see the point.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm good.

I don't think we have the roster yet to compete, so I'd rather see what we have in Lock before drafting the next Hawk QB next year.

You sign Mayfield, even to a vet minimum, then you're already casting off Lock as irrelevant.....and you probably still won't win enough games to get into the playoffs.

We know Mayfield's ceiling, he's already reached it. We don't know Lock's ceiling. So if we're still a year away from seriously competing for the playoffs again? I'd rather see what we have in Lock then a one year band-aid in Mayfield.

 

[rjdriver]

Why? He's a mediocre qb. I just don't see the point.

Because he would come with a mediocre salary I suppose. That vast majority of franchises field teams with mediocre QB's and hardly any pay vet minimum.

Not saying I support the move, I just understand the rationale behind it.

 

[ElvisInBlue]

I'm good.

I don't think we have the roster yet to compete, so I'd rather see what we have in Lock before drafting the next Hawk QB next year.

You sign Mayfield, even to a vet minimum, then you're already casting off Lock as irrelevant.....and you probably still won't win enough games to get into the playoffs.

We know Mayfield's ceiling, he's already reached it. We don't know Lock's ceiling. So if we're still a year away from seriously competing for the playoffs again? I'd rather see what we have in Lock then a one year band-aid in Mayfield.

Baker had every opportunity in Cleveland with a stacked team and accomplished little besides a semi humorous arc of insurance commercials.

 

[Spohawks]

Hard Yes! I haven't seen one play of his nor do I know his stats. However passing on a possible improvement to the starter or back up position is just a bad idea.

Vet minimum? That would be some value!

 

[toffee]

Will Baker bring the Hawks deep into the playoff? NO, Cleveland have tried, and tried hard, with that we have seen what Baker could or couldn't do.

Will Lock bring the Hawks deep into the playoff? Probably not, but we shall see. If he couldn't, we have 2 first and 2 second round picks plus cap to get a franchise QB next year

I rather rock with Lock.

 

[Cyrus12]

How many times is this subject going to be brought up??? MYfield is nowhere near any long term or even short term solution. Lick is the short term...zero reason to bring in a guy who doesn't offer anything more.

 

[Nunya]

Would you guys be in favor of it? I am hearing more and more talk of this being a possibility. It's reaching the point where the Browns may cut be forced to cut him. They were saying on the radio this means he won't have any incentive to sign anything but a vet minimum because the Browns will have to pay the rest of his salary no matter what.

Maybe this is the long game. Force the Browns to cut him and sign him for dirt cheap for a year. With Mayfield the team could be competitive.

I'm curious as to how you believe the Seahawks can force the Browns to cut BM.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Baker had every opportunity in Cleveland with a stacked team and accomplished little besides a semi humorous arc of insurance commercials.

Bingo.

I mean, is Mayfield probably the best QB if we're talking Geno, Lock and him? Probably, yes.

But you made Lock part of the Bronco package for a reason, and I assume that reason is you like his potential and want to see where that goes before committing to another QB via free agency or the draft.

So no reason to deviate from that for an overrated QB in Baker, who btw will come in here angry because he didn't get a new deal in Cleveland, or elsewhere.

No thanks.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The Browns had a much better roster and coach, and they couldn't advance much with Baker. The Browns even had good receivers at one point.

Not sure what giving Baker lesser quality on both will accomplish but it could be a stopgap.

We are probably going to have to have a QB that nobody is happy with to deal with the reality that almost any QB we bring in is going to be found wanting vs a HOF QB. So the QB after can be looked as an improvement and we can move forward.

Normally I like guys that have a chip on their shoulder. And Pete does well with them. So there is that. But where is the upside? What is the endgame?

Get us to 8-9 wins and be an occasional wildcard?
Keep us from losing too badly to keep the fans from getting restless?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

If the team is gonna' suck in 2022, might as well be entertaining. He would qualify.

 

[CalgaryFan05]

I'm good.

I don't think we have the roster yet to compete, so I'd rather see what we have in Lock before drafting the next Hawk QB next year.

You sign Mayfield, even to a vet minimum, then you're already casting off Lock as irrelevant.....and you probably still won't win enough games to get into the playoffs.

We know Mayfield's ceiling, he's already reached it. We don't know Lock's ceiling. So if we're still a year away from seriously competing for the playoffs again? I'd rather see what we have in Lock then a one year band-aid in Mayfield.

This. This. This. Been saying all spring - bridge with Lock, and check out FA/Draft next year.

"I don't think we have the roster to compete" - and we don't have a roster to ATTRACT a QB that everyone is salivating over.

And unless the FO has the largest blockbuster crazy signing under their cap, they agree - unless they are liars Which is possible.

 

[jammerhawk]

Dream the impossible dream, this is pie in the sky thinking.

 

[HawkFreak]

The Browns had a much better roster and coach, and they couldn't advance much with Baker. The Browns even had good receivers at one point.

In relation to this Baker conversation - I'm interested if this is the consensus feeling around here? Do most feel that outside of the obvious issue at the QB position - that the Hawks have a terrible roster?

I guess I've maybe been blindly homering feeling like we have a potentially pretty good roster and could just be a solid QB performance away from contending.

 

[nwHawk]

If he gets cut he is not coming here.

 

[nwHawk]

In relation to this Baker conversation - I'm interested if this is the consensus feeling around here? Do most feel that outside of the obvious issue at the QB position - that the Hawks have a terrible roster?

I guess I've maybe been blindly homering feeling like we have a potentially pretty good roster and could just be a solid QB performance away from contending.

I think the roster is young and needs a bit of seasoning before we can understand what we have, but I like what we have overall. Just raw.

 

[sutz]

Anybody really think he would come here for cheap? I don't. And I don't really want to go there anyway.

Fly with what we have and look again next off season.

 

[Welshers]

I'm curious as to how you believe the Seahawks can force the Browns to cut BM.

The browns are likely going to be forced to cut him for the roster spot at this point. Has nothing to do with seattle