Russell Okung back to Seahawks? (Speculation)

[misfit]

A little off topic but I prefer the idea of moving Fant to RT and trying to get a decent LT.

 

[KitsapGuy]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/834867723259756544[/tweet]

 

[FlyingGreg]

A little off topic but I prefer the idea of moving Fant to RT and trying to get a decent LT.

Same here.

 

[sutz]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RapSheet/status/834867723259756544[/tweet]

Ah yes, let's bring Geno home. With he and Ifedi side by side, we could set team records in personal and unsportsmanlike
fouls.

:mrgreen:

 

[nash72]

Okung is infinitely better than Fant (face it, Fants a bum). I would be willing to bring him back if the price is right.

 

[raisethe3]

Damn Breno is released. Shall we take him back?

 

[mikeak]

Breno as veteran backup is totally fine. We needed that this year - can't just have young rookies up front and no proper backup. Injuries happen

Report now is that Okung will in fact get released
http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2017/0 ... ell-okung/

I am sure they will negotiate with Okung who will come up with an equally smart deal as the last one he signed and in the end he restructures. Maybe push it so that he makes $2million next year and $100 million the year after that with zero guaranteed........sounds like a great deal

 

[Seymour]

Breno as veteran backup is totally fine. We needed that this year - can't just have young rookies up front and no proper backup. Injuries happen

Report now is that Okung will in fact get released
http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/2017/0 ... ell-okung/

I am sure they will negotiate with Okung who will come up with an equally smart deal as the last one he signed and in the end he restructures. Maybe push it so that he makes $2million next year and $100 million the year after that with zero guaranteed........sounds like a great deal

No...wait.......1 Billion $$ !!




But YES!!! Get Breno back please!

 

[seahawkfreak]

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Okung. I trust the guys in charge. I wonder about some of the comments in this thread, though. IMO, Okung's problems stemmed from injuries, both in availabilty and in performance. IIRC, most of his whiffs and misses were tied to the various injuries he tried to play through.

We'll see, I guess. I imagine the FO has been in contact with him, at least to feel things out.

Not buying this. He missed two games in 2014, 3 games in 2015 and 0 in 2016. All underwhelming seasons and very few games missed. If his performance was because of his injuries then that is on him. He should have gotten healthy if he couldn't play to a decent standard. Most NFL players play through injuries and many can still perform at a decent level. Bobby Wagner has missed more games to injury in that time span. No one complains about his gameplay.

Even if his performance was do his injuries (not that there is any proof to this, just opinion), it is irrelevant because he has a history of not performing healthy or not and that is all that matters. I wonder about comments of blind support for the guy. His negatives far out weigh his positives and he has no upside.

 

[sutz]

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Okung. I trust the guys in charge. I wonder about some of the comments in this thread, though. IMO, Okung's problems stemmed from injuries, both in availabilty and in performance. IIRC, most of his whiffs and misses were tied to the various injuries he tried to play through.

We'll see, I guess. I imagine the FO has been in contact with him, at least to feel things out.

Not buying this. He missed two games in 2014, 3 games in 2015 and 0 in 2016. All underwhelming seasons and very few games missed. If his performance was because of his injuries then that is on him. He should have gotten healthy if he couldn't play to a decent standard. Most NFL players play through injuries and many can still perform at a decent level. Bobby Wagner has missed more games to injury in that time span. No one complains about his gameplay.

Even if his performance was do his injuries (not that there is any proof to this, just opinion), it is irrelevant because he has a history of not performing healthy or not and that is all that matters. I wonder about comments of blind support for the guy. His negatives far out weigh his positives and he has no upside.

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Okung. That is "blind support?" Oh, OK. :229031_shrug:

 

[jammerhawk]

Thing is over his 5 seasons with Seattle he went on IR 2X, and he missed slightly greater than 28% of available regular season games and 1 playoff season. His penalty stats revealed his uncertainty in dealing with speed rushers as he took a lot of FS penalties and holding penalties. He was good when he arrived but his cumulative injury history seemed to rob him of his speed and by the end of his 5th season he was just not worth what he was paid on his rookie contract.

For sure you can point to his injury history which reduced his availability and his effectivness. Thing is though I can't see his chronic ankle issues improving with age and it sure looked as if he'd lost a step. I think the team would not be well served re-signing him unless it was very inexpensive. Someone here described him as trained in the system but demonstably not suited to it, or similar and I believe that is fair comment.

I'd certainly not mind seeing Breno back and hope he could be taught to take fewer retaliation type penalties. He certainly was tough and could move the pile if needed.

 

[seahawkfreak]

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Okung. I trust the guys in charge. I wonder about some of the comments in this thread, though. IMO, Okung's problems stemmed from injuries, both in availabilty and in performance. IIRC, most of his whiffs and misses were tied to the various injuries he tried to play through.

We'll see, I guess. I imagine the FO has been in contact with him, at least to feel things out.

Not buying this. He missed two games in 2014, 3 games in 2015 and 0 in 2016. All underwhelming seasons and very few games missed. If his performance was because of his injuries then that is on him. He should have gotten healthy if he couldn't play to a decent standard. Most NFL players play through injuries and many can still perform at a decent level. Bobby Wagner has missed more games to injury in that time span. No one complains about his gameplay.

Even if his performance was do his injuries (not that there is any proof to this, just opinion), it is irrelevant because he has a history of not performing healthy or not and that is all that matters. I wonder about comments of blind support for the guy. His negatives far out weigh his positives and he has no upside.

I'm still a bit ambivalent on Okung. That is "blind support?" Oh, OK. :229031_shrug:

Was just a rib at your "I wonder about some of the comments in this thread" Didn't imply "your" support.

 

[chris98251]

Breno has back issues, pass.

 

[DJrmb]

Breno has back issues, pass.

Everyone in FA has issues, otherwise they wouldn't have ever hit FA...

 

[brimsalabim]

He was better in an offense that didn't ask him to move around much. We aren't a good fit for him nor he for us.

 

[chris98251]

Breno has back issues, pass.

Everyone in FA has issues, otherwise they wouldn't have ever hit FA...

Lineman that have back issues that make them miss 11 games I think it was that are paid to push and lift on the move 300 or 600 pounds of man flesh isn't a good bet.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Lineman that have back issues that make them miss 11 games I think it was that are paid to push and lift on the move 300 or 600 pounds of man flesh isn't a good bet.

Totally agreed. That's a tough situation.

That said, if he's out there post draft just lingering around, I would sign him for the vet minimum if for no other reason than to maybe imbue Gilliam and Fant with his unique brand of edginess. Gilliam in particular could afford a nasty influence. Even if Breno ultimately serves no value other than a camp body.

In that respect, it'd merely be win/win. Either he shakes the odds and is healthy enough (or good enough) to play and makes the team. Or he's not. And we cut him, absolving the cap hit and costing us nothing. And for 6+ weeks, maybe a needed bit of him rubs off on the guys that do make the team.

He'd be a guy I would advise we keep an eye on come late May/early June. Definitely after the deadline for qualifying for comp picks. Seattle has kicked tires with the likes of Eric Winston and Jahri Evans at this time too. So we do have a history of just this sort of thing. Breno probably offers more than either of those two did.

 

[DJrmb]

Lineman that have back issues that make them miss 11 games I think it was that are paid to push and lift on the move 300 or 600 pounds of man flesh isn't a good bet.

Totally agreed. That's a tough situation.

That said, if he's out there post draft just lingering around, I would sign him for the vet minimum if for no other reason than to maybe imbue Gilliam and Fant with his unique brand of edginess. Gilliam in particular could afford a nasty influence. Even if Breno ultimately serves no value other than a camp body.

In that respect, it'd merely be win/win. Either he shakes the odds and is healthy enough (or good enough) to play and makes the team. Or he's not. And we cut him, absolving the cap hit and costing us nothing. And for 6+ weeks, maybe a needed bit of him rubs off on the guys that do make the team.

He'd be a guy I would advise we keep an eye on come late May/early June. Definitely after the deadline for qualifying for comp picks. Seattle has kicked tires with the likes of Eric Winston and Jahri Evans at this time too. So we do have a history of just this sort of thing. Breno probably offers more than either of those two did.

Well said Attyla, this speaks to the point I was trying to make. In free agency every player has issues, that's why they hit free agency. Free agency is all about risk versus reward. Of course going after Breno in the early part of FA and offering him a deal with guaranteed money is dumb... duh... but bringing him in like you mentioned, late, on a minimum deal with no guarantees offers nothing but potential upside for Seattle. In that scenario there is no or very little risk and moderate chance at some reward.

This is the same point some of us are trying to make with Okung. The risk of bringing in Okung is so low that it just makes sense. Not every move is for some super star top 5 starter. Sometimes you have to just stop the bleeding until you can address something longer term. Okung seems to provide a perfect opportunity to do that. Wherever he signs it's going to be for a short term deal with very little guaranteed money (very low risk) and that is in a market that is starving for bodies at his position. Seattle is lucky to have this opportunity in my opinion. After all, that's how John and Pete initially built this team. They set the transactions record because they were bringing in huge volumes of these low risk type of players and trying them and seeing if they stick. It's a proven method, why deviate from it now?

 

[Largent80]

Getting Okung would be like getting back together with your ex.

There were good times, but the bad times outnumber them and they want your money.

 

[DJrmb]

Getting Okung would be like getting back together with your ex.

There were good times, but the bad times outnumber them and they want your money.

That analogy might work,

if it was just a booty call and then you kick her out after you're done...