After thinking about it, I'm rooting for Irvin to stay

[pehawk]

Irvin leaving will be the first business decision exodus, in the Pete Era, I'll be emotionally disturbed over. Love, love, love Bruce.

Not for Tate?

He, for me, embodied everything that was pretty awesome about the Seahawks at that time.

For a Hawks fan I'd also imagine that Browner leaving would have sucked, if only because it broke up the OG LOB.

I'm a Tate and Ashtin Wilson truther so I was okay with him leaving. Browner sucked too but not as much as this one will. Probably because of Bruce's backstory.

 

[Popeyejones]

I'm a Tate and Ashtin Wilson truther so I was okay with him leaving.

:lol:

Gotcha.

 

[pehawk]

I'm a Tate and Ashtin Wilson truther so I was okay with him leaving.

:lol:

Gotcha.

What's your, outsider, opinion?

 

[Hawks46]

I like Irvin as much as the next guy but the hype surrounding his free agency has baffled me.

He's grown. A lot. But he was probably our 11th most important defensive starter in 2013 and 2014. This dude was outplayed by Malcom Smith and O'Brien Schoefield in our championship run. If you're going to sign him to a crazy deal based on upside, you cannot also keep KJ Wright and Bobby Wagner. What are we doing sinking so many resources into the most fungible position group on the team?

We had a #1 defense with the ghost of Leroy Hill as a starting LB, for goodness sakes.

These are all good points, but here's the problem with them: it's not 2013 anymore. Irvin has grown a lot at OLB, where he never played before. 2013 was his first full year there, and he's gotten markedly better at setting the edge in the run game, rushing the passer (both 3 point and stand up), and in coverage (2 pick 6's). All in one player.

Do I think it's worth 10 mil/year ? No, in our defense that LB spot doesn't hold that much value. But it's also facile to say that because we won't pay him 10 m/year, he's not good or not worth it.

 

[firebee]

He was reportedly seen down in Jacksonville.

That's where I have him going. They have money to burn and Irvin was a Gus Bradley guy, as much as he was a PC guy.

 

[Hawks46]

Well I'm seeing a lot of "Bruce isn't all that good" type responses, yet one has to ask "who will you have to replace him with?"

You're going to need a Lber, and a nickle rush DE. Irvin had 5.5 sacks last year. I've seen more "he sucks, he's not worth the $ for 5.5 sacks" comment than anything else. irvin also had 10.5 hurries. I don't see pressures anywhere, but when you add it all up, he's incredibly efficient as a pass rusher that usually only rushes on 3rd down. Someone better at stats might be able to find that.

if you're paying a DE to come here that is that efficient, well, good luck. You're going to PAY. People have theorized that they want Olivier Vernon here. In triple the snaps pass rushing, Vernon has 7.5 sacks and 20 hurries. The only downside to this comparison is that Vernon has more tackles at DE, which shouldn't out perform a LBer most times.

Either way, Vernon will make 10 mil/year this offseason. That's the market, and Irvin is squarely in it. I'm not saying we'll pay that, or that we need to pay that to keep him, but he's going to get it, and it won't be regarded as a bad contract league wide.

 

[firebee]

Well I'm seeing a lot of "Bruce isn't all that good" type responses, yet one has to ask "who will you have to replace him with?"

You're going to need a Lber, and a nickle rush DE. Irvin had 5.5 sacks last year. I've seen more "he sucks, he's not worth the $ for 5.5 sacks" comment than anything else. irvin also had 10.5 hurries. I don't see pressures anywhere, but when you add it all up, he's incredibly efficient as a pass rusher that usually only rushes on 3rd down. Someone better at stats might be able to find that.

if you're paying a DE to come here that is that efficient, well, good luck. You're going to PAY. People have theorized that they want Olivier Vernon here. In triple the snaps pass rushing, Vernon has 7.5 sacks and 20 hurries. The only downside to this comparison is that Vernon has more tackles at DE, which shouldn't out perform a LBer most times.

Either way, Vernon will make 10 mil/year this offseason. That's the market, and Irvin is squarely in it. I'm not saying we'll pay that, or that we need to pay that to keep him, but he's going to get it, and it won't be regarded as a bad contract league wide.

Junior Galette might be an inexpensive option in free agency after falling off the radar in Washington.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If Irvin goes, I think it will create a hole on the roster the same way Maxwell's departure did last year. Its not the end of the world, but I'm at the point where I think Irvin could justify up to $10m APY to Seattle, given the dropoff level to his replacement.

This is really what Irvin comes down to, whether he's worth 10M a year if the rumors are true that that's his market right now.

IMO he's not worth this sort of front line DE elite pass rushing contract that'd put him ahead of Cameron Wake, and right with guys like Cameron Heyward and Robert Quinn. Irvin isn't even on the same page on the DE stat board for the kind of production needed to justify 10M per year.

Is that all his fault for what we have his role as? No, but that role was created two years ago because he WASN'T developing into that front line elite DE we thought he'd be picking him as high as we did in the draft. His role was changed to take advantage of his crazy athletic ability, and not so much his speed rushing.

Bottom line for me with Irvin is I like what he brings to the team, but not for 10M a year.........that'd mean having over 20M per year in cap space occupied by 3 DE's? No, not when we already have a depth issue now with both Mebane and Rubin FA's and needing to be resigned or replaced.

 

[oldhawkfan]

Just throwing this out, but is Bruce Irvin maybe regarded as highly as he is because he was a 1st round pick? 1st rounders generally get a longer leash and time to prove themselves than anyone else or how they were acquired. Irvin came from a unique draft class in that he was the #1 pick but is third in importance behind two guys picked after him in Wagner and Wilson. This draft also produced Jeremy Lane and JR Sweezy. Either Lane or Sweezy could go on and have a better career than Irvin. Is Irvin the best football player out of this draft for the Seahawks? Not even close.

If Irvin was the 3rd round pick would we be holding him in such high regard? I believe that he would be viewed much differently if his draft status was different. We would probably look at him as a gifted athlete who contributes a moderate amount. When he was drafted in the 1st round, I'm guessing most of us thought or at least hoped we would be getting a sack machine. I know Idid.

 

[jdblack]

Irvin is genuinely important for our team, it's not just his 1st round status. Our entire backfield is best attacked by quicker receivers (and TEs when we forget them...), and that problem would get worse if Irvin is replaced by a less versatile LB; more opportunities for our opponent to find a mismatch.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Irvin is genuinely important for our team, it's not just his 1st round status. Our entire backfield is best attacked by quicker receivers (and TEs when we forget them...), and that problem would get worse if Irvin is replaced by a less versatile LB; more opportunities for our opponent to find a mismatch.

So you'd give him a monster deal for 10M a year?

Some of you guys are explaining away the elephant in the room here, do you give him 10M a year to be a good but not great LB that drops into coverage and plays the run more than pass rush now.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

I'd like him to stay.

Expect he will get paid elsewhere. But if we were 35m under the cap, I'd say he stays.

You don't get a lot of players who really embrace the community like Bruce did. It'll be a shame to see a guy who kind of personified a lot of what Pete's been building here go.

I get why he'll go. It won't make me feel any better about it though. Good on him -- he's been a pretty exemplary player representing our franchise in a positive way.

 

[ivotuk]

I'm sure greed enters the picture at some point with certain guys, and they won't even mind playing on losing team to get twice the contract, but economically speaking, anything more than 30 million in a bank account, is just showing off.

If you can't live the rest of your life on 40 million and relative good health, you're an idiot.

I'd rather play on a team that gets me trophies, national night games, rings, 40 million, and one-on one coverage, than play on a team that pays me 80 million, with a half-full stadium, no national night games, no rings, and I get triple covered in every game.

Greedy idiotic bastards.

:roll:

It's so easy to throw out a statement like that and never have to back it up. Sure it's easy and nice to say you'd take 50% less and leave 40 million dollars out there on the table...I guess asking your boss for a raise makes you a "greedy idiotic bastard" no one should ever make the most possible!

Not even the same thing. I don't think you read his post, just posted what you were already thinking.

The upside of taking less to stay on a winning team? Recognition, commercial deals, broadcasting after a football career which can actually equal more money in the long run. And maybe even a HOF career. Most HOF players are from teams that won multiple Superbowls. And once you're in the HOF, you're life is pretty much made.

Considering most players are broke a few years after they get out of the league, taking less to play on a Championship team is actually a more profitable way to go. And players on bad teams don't get good contracts afterwards much of the time. Not to mention, they don't get taken care of physically as well as they do here. Look at Maxwell, I doubt his next contract is going to be that good.

And remember, the IRS gets about 50% of a contract, and if you go through a divorce, the ex gets 50% of that.

Long term stability is better than short term windfalls. There's points to both sides, but most people are short-sighted. That's why the end up broke so soon. 10 cars and giant house.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The upside of taking less to stay on a winning team? Recognition, commercial deals, broadcasting after a football career which can actually equal more money in the long run. And maybe even a HOF career. Most HOF players are from teams that won multiple Superbowls. And once you're in the HOF, you're life is pretty much made.

That's quite the slippery slope to greatness and financial security.............that very few players outside the top 10% in the league attain. You really think Bruce Irvin is going to be a broadcaster or rake in a bunch of endorsement deals? No he's not.

There is a hometown discount, as others have stated it around 10%, maybe 15%. Some players give it (Bennett), and some players don't (Tate).

But like Tate it doesn't sound like the Hawks are even close to the rumors of what Irvin is hearing from these other teams. So don't blame the player, especially for his first big payday. It's not like Tom Brady who everyone gushes over because he signs for far less than market value to stay on a winner in NE. Yeah, it's also his 3rd or 4th extension, he's already made tens of millions.

Irvin hasn't yet, so I don't blame the guy for entertaining these big offers elsewhere. It's not like Pete and John are giving him a reason to stay with a close offer. Hell, sounds to me like we aren't even making an offer because we know he's not in the long range plans.

 

[Hawks46]

I'm sure greed enters the picture at some point with certain guys, and they won't even mind playing on losing team to get twice the contract, but economically speaking, anything more than 30 million in a bank account, is just showing off.

If you can't live the rest of your life on 40 million and relative good health, you're an idiot.

I'd rather play on a team that gets me trophies, national night games, rings, 40 million, and one-on one coverage, than play on a team that pays me 80 million, with a half-full stadium, no national night games, no rings, and I get triple covered in every game.

Greedy idiotic bastards.

:roll:

It's so easy to throw out a statement like that and never have to back it up. Sure it's easy and nice to say you'd take 50% less and leave 40 million dollars out there on the table...I guess asking your boss for a raise makes you a "greedy idiotic bastard" no one should ever make the most possible!

Not even the same thing. I don't think you read his post, just posted what you were already thinking.

The upside of taking less to stay on a winning team? Recognition, commercial deals, broadcasting after a football career which can actually equal more money in the long run. And maybe even a HOF career. Most HOF players are from teams that won multiple Superbowls. And once you're in the HOF, you're life is pretty much made.

Considering most players are broke a few years after they get out of the league, taking less to play on a Championship team is actually a more profitable way to go. And players on bad teams don't get good contracts afterwards much of the time. Not to mention, they don't get taken care of physically as well as they do here. Look at Maxwell, I doubt his next contract is going to be that good.

And remember, the IRS gets about 50% of a contract, and if you go through a divorce, the ex gets 50% of that.

Long term stability is better than short term windfalls. There's points to both sides, but most people are short-sighted. That's why the end up broke so soon. 10 cars and giant house.

This doesn't really make sense to me. Sure, you get more endorsements on a winning team, but the vast majority of endorsement money goes to active players, not retired players, so I'm not sure how the HOF comment comes in.

If we're talking IRS, it's much easier to boil it down to: no state tax in Washington state. It's one of the reasons why pro athletes love Florida teams so much as well.

 

[Rob12]

When I look at the draft, I don't really see an obvious replacement for Irvin. Leonard Floyd and Darron Lee will probably be gone before #26, and the only other LB who could clearly fill Irvin's role might be Travis Feeney, a guy with medical concerns. There are some other draftable LBs with decent speed on day 3 but you probably wouldn't feel great about plugging them in as day one starters.

When I look at free agent linebackers, there aren't really any other free agent alternatives that can do all the stuff Irvin could do for us.

When I look at the in-house talent... KPL plays more like a free safety, Morgan is decent but a free agent, and Pinkins is raw. I actually like Pinkins a lot as a prospective LB, but he just seems like the kind of player that wouldn't get the opportunity and be a forgotten man. Coyle is kind of an emergency LB to me and is a pure MLB, IMO.

In other words, the Seahawks are not yet in a great position to lose Irvin.

Seattle will gain a nice 2017 compensatory pick, probably a 3rd rounder, if Irvin leaves. So I won't be mad if he does. That said, I look at the needs on the Seahawks and the talent in FA and the Draft, and the more I study it the more Bruce Irvin looks he should be a priority signing.

If Irvin goes, I think it will create a hole on the roster the same way Maxwell's departure did last year. Its not the end of the world, but I'm at the point where I think Irvin could justify up to $10m APY to Seattle, given the dropoff level to his replacement.

I respect you a great deal kearly, but I disagree.

$10M APY might be fair market value for Irvin from someone, but I hope it's not us. I am a huge fan of Irvin, but tying that much money up in our three linebackers in a 4-3 scheme just does not seem prudent - especially when there's other positional groups on the roster that need some serious capital injected into them.

I think Bruce is the classic Seahawks player that has played his way out of town. After the success of the 2013 season, I accepted the fact that we're going to lose some really good players because there's simply not enough cash to go around. I view Bruce a lot like I viewed Golden Tate - damn good player, and will have continued success, but the salary cap will ensure that we can't keep players like that around.

I really think he's gone because a team will come in with a $10-11M APY offer and that will be that.

 

[Rob12]

I like Irvin as much as the next guy but the hype surrounding his free agency has baffled me.

He's grown. A lot. But he was probably our 11th most important defensive starter in 2013 and 2014. This dude was outplayed by Malcom Smith and O'Brien Schoefield in our championship run. If you're going to sign him to a crazy deal based on upside, you cannot also keep KJ Wright and Bobby Wagner. What are we doing sinking so many resources into the most fungible position group on the team?

We had a #1 defense with the ghost of Leroy Hill as a starting LB, for goodness sakes.

There's that, and there's also the fact that Bruce isn't all that young. He'll be 29 next season, which isn't much younger than guys like Bennett and Avril.

A 3 or 4 year deal at $40M would make me very nervous at this point, because I just don't think he's worth that.

 

[Rob12]

Love Bruce dearly, and will be sad when he goes.

I wouldn't stomp my feet in anger if the FO locks him up, even if it seems financially uncomfortable. They know what they're doing.

I just think he's gone.

 

[Willyeye]

Kearly, I was still thinking about this, and wanted to say: I'm a little surprised that you are still thinking you'd like to keep Bruce. The bottom line is that the Seahawks FO WAS/IS NOT even slightly interested in keeping Irvin. If there was a chance that they'd want to keep him long term, they'd have exercised his 5th-year option. It would have cost them less than $8 million for 2016. Irvin was obviously NOT in their long term plans.

Having said that, I'm glad for Bruce that he'll likely be getting $10+ million from another team and I'm sure the Hawks FO is ecstatic that they could possibly get a 3rd round pick for him. I guess I just never looked at this situation over the last year and thought to myself that there was ANY chance that he'd be on the Seahawks in 2016.

 

[Willyeye]

I'd like him to stay.

Expect he will get paid elsewhere. But if we were 35m under the cap, I'd say he stays.

You don't get a lot of players who really embrace the community like Bruce did. It'll be a shame to see a guy who kind of personified a lot of what Pete's been building here go.

I get why he'll go. It won't make me feel any better about it though. Good on him -- he's been a pretty exemplary player representing our franchise in a positive way.

A lot of commenters are missing the point. I love Irvin as much as the next fan...the point is, the Hawks don't have $35 million in cap space and they already knew a year ago that even with the huge increases every year, cap space would be EXTREMELY tight for 2016. If Irvin had been in their future plans, they would have exercised his 5th year option. The reality is, they knew they wouldn't have the space to re-sign Irvin, and unfortunately, he's gone from the team. Next man up...GO HAWKS!