SDHawk wrote:This was a major point of consideration leading me to speculate that Browner would be tagged.
Both ET and Sherm have been very clear about their desire to keep the LOB together and Sherm has recently stated that BB was his equal and deserved to be paid the same. While that might not be our reality, it is Sherm's reality and accommodating this could work out for all parties involved. We'll be negotiating Sherm and ET's extensions next off-season and my feeling is that franchising Browner will give us leverage. While $10mm may be a premium for Browner, it is just for a season and could potentially save us a boatload on Sherm and ET. Even if we don't commit to BB long-term, franchising BB furthers the FO's reputation as one that takes care of its players.
I can't say I agree on the discount theory. I think Sherman will want to get paid, and he'll have a certain dollar amount. Sherman is a stand up guy, but lets not think he doesn't have an ego. I think that in FA, he'll handle his business in a very similar manner to what we just saw from Revis.
Also, by the time Sherman hits FA, Browner will be over 30 years old. Very few corners maintain pro-bowl ability after hitting 30, and the few that do tend to be smaller corners. Browner is the biggest corner in the league, by a healthy margin. Even if Seattle franchised Browner in 2014, and then signed him to an expensive multi-year extension, it wouldn't take long before performance dropoff would make him a target for restructure or release. If Browner were still here, I think everyone would know that his days would be very much numbered by that point, especially if he was on a big contract.
And with Kam locked up at safety, that kind of kills the position switch idea. You wouldn't pay Browner pro-bowl money to play the Jeron Johnson role.
Though Browner really is an elite level defender, I am okay with letting him walk because at the end of the day, I don't think his remaining shelf life is worth the cap expense. We'd very likely get a 3rd round pick from the league if he left in UFA too, which is a lot better than releasing him a year or two into a big contract and getting nothing.
PC/JS have shown a knack for bargain hunting when it comes to the secondary. A major reason why our roster is so good right now is because we are getting so much value per dollar out of our back 7. But if you pay every one of them pro-bowl money, suddenly that value aspect isn't true anymore, and there aren't any starter spots left to plug in the next big find. That gift for finding great yet cheap contributors in the secondary is one of our biggest advantages over the league, and we'd basically have to discard that advantage for several seasons if we paid the entire legion of boom to do it.
I also have high hopes for Tharold Simon, but I'm holding those thoughts back until we see him in action. Thurmond has missed a lot of time, but he's extremely talented and probably won't cost much to retain next offseason. Finding cheap yet good players needs to be a constant goal so that the Seahawks can remain the NFL's top roster.
SDHawk wrote:I think we may keep Tony McDaniel. IMO Bryant and Bennett are too rich.
I would wait until I see McDaniel play for us before I pencil him in. Also, I was under the impression that McDaniel was strictly a 3-tech. If Bryant and Bennett both leave, who becomes the new 5-tech? I guess it would be Greg Scruggs, though they appeared to be grooming Scruggs for more of a pure 3-tech role last I checked. Or maybe the draft a rookie and start him.
I'm pulling for Bennett big time (as a 5-tech). He reminded me of Justin Tuck last season, while also being a very good run defender. He is EXACTLY what this pass rush desperately needs from it's 5-tech role.
SDHawk wrote:I don't see it. Both are unremarkable and my feeling is Person, Bowie, Moffit, Seymour, Sweezy, et. al. could fill in admirably at lower cost.
Mark that down as the first time in history that someone described Breno as "unremarkable."
I agree that McQuistan is probably gone. Heck, Frank Omiyale had a really nice season for us last year and could have been kept dirt cheap, but they didn't bring him back. Though McQuistan deserves to be kept, I think the depth we have at guard allows us to move on.
Giacomini is yet to be determined, IMO. At his best, he looks like one of the five best right tackles in the game. I thought he dominated the preseason last year and he finished the regular season with his penalty problem under control. Despite that, I think he needs to continue improving to justify a 2nd contract. If he takes that next step in 2013, then I sign him back no question (I'd be pretty surprised if he got much interest league wide).
Of course, if I'm wrong and Giacomini is getting big offers from other teams, then Seattle has to evaluate their roster at that point and decide what's best. Right now our backup group is physically talented but inexperienced. I also think Sweezy is our long term RG, though it's true that he has the physical tools to play tackle.
SDHawk wrote:I love Tate but you've got to see the situation for what it is.
1. Rice and Harvin have a history with Bevell.
2. Golden Tate will be an unrestricted free agent.
3. We can't afford to pay Golden Tate what he is worth, which is probably in excess of $5mm per year.
4. Both Harvin and Harper were acquired prior to Tate's contract year.
5. Harvin and Harper offer skills that are much more similar to Tate than Sidney Rice.
I agree with a few of those points, but don't forget that Wilson and Tate are a close knit pair both on the field and off it. Towards the end of last season, Tate clearly emerged as Wilson's favorite target. I think Sando had the exact breakdown, but over the final 7 games or so Tate had 33% more receptions than 2nd place finisher Sidney Rice. 32 to 24? Something like that.
Tate also had quite a few big catches and big plays last season that couldn't be replaced by Chris Harper. His YAC TD against Minnesota, his YAC TD (which turned out to be the game winner) against Carolina. His (should have been) game winner at the end of regulation vs. Chicago. Maybe Percy Harvin can replace that, but Harvin doesn't play the same position and has significant differences to Tate in usage and skillset.
WR is one of those positions on the team where you can never have too many good ones. So if Tate can be kept at a reasonable figure, I don't see much room for debate. You keep him. Basically, you never want to toss away a player who's performance outstrips his paycheck. This team is great specifically because it has so many players who are outperforming their pay level. If Tate gets the contract that I think he will, then he'll likely remain in that category. If you could get 90% of Percy Harvin for 50% of the cost, you'd take it, right?
Tate's counting stats looked pedestrian, but his efficiency numbers were elite and he literally won games for us on multiple occasions.
Right now, Tate is one of our most valuable players on offense, while also being one of the few Seahawks who remains under the radar nationally. It's not very often that you can be a championship caliber team and be able to keep one of your best players at a reasonable rate of cost. But that's the way things are headed for Tate right now, and if it remains so I think Seattle would be wise to retain him.