EverydayImRusselin":ckq3pjiq said:
Attyla the Hawk":ckq3pjiq said:
I am doubtful they take him for a couple reasons.
First and foremost, he's not a tackle, but a guard. Positional value is one aspect, but another being that we have players under club control there and I'm not sure their grades relative to a rookie are going to be that poor. While I do think he'd be an upgrade at both of the positions, Seattle looks at the delta. The relative difference is going to be lessened. In particular, it'll be much much less relative to a position group where starters are released.
Second, Seattle has to start plowing under big contracts for cheaper rookie talent. Sweezy is uber cheap. Replacing Carpenter with a first round rookie is almost a financial wash. The big picture will be that we are going to have to cut productive expensive starters in order to restructure our roster payouts to the guys that have high impact. Getting Jackson doesn't provide that. However getting a RT does. I personally have doubts that Bowie will be able to seize the RT position in a manner that Seattle will demand. Not a knock on him, just that he is still developing and it's unlikely he'll be developed sufficiently to entrust him in the starter role by years' end. If Giacomini is not resigned, they will need an infusion of good rookie talent, not late day three projects, to compete effectively for a starting nod.
Obviously we're going to need to cut some salary to extend/resign the guys we really need. Seattle will be in a position to bolster these losses in UFA before the draft. But it's unlikely they'll resign expensive/top shelf talent to do that even if it's on show me deals. Whomever they let go is going to go a long way to tipping Seattle's draft hand.
I think Jackson may well be on the board. But I think there will be some good 2nd tier OT prospects available in the 40s. Seattle could opt to drop back 10 or so spots if a couple of prospects look good there. And I'm certain there will be WR talent there if OTs get run on during the course of the draft. I know it's not a revelation that we might trade down -- we try it all the time. But I'm doubtful Jackson makes it to 40.
For us to take him, I'd have to think he slides to the mid 40s due to other teams taking the OTs/WRs we like in that 30-40 range. If Seattle does take him if he's available in the first, then it would indicate to me that Seattle isn't as enamored with Sweezy and/or Carpenter as we've been led to believe. This is of course a possibility -- Cable indicated we were looking at OL in day 2 last draft. I wouldn't expect Seattle to tip their hand publicly like that going into 2014. So I won't pretend to think I know what their opinions are of their existing starters.
I suspect Jackson would be a luxury pick that we won't be in position to indulge.
I'm interested in your own analysis of the Delta value for the Hawks. Which positions do you think provide the most potential delta? How will that square with salary cap issues? For instance, I doubt a rookie WR provides a higher delta over Rice, but they would provide a massive salary cap cut. Which positions do you think they will be targeting to start young guys in 2014?
I'll give a crack at it:
1. Richard Sherman v. any available CB. Sherman has more positional value over any player at his position. It is imperative that he be extended. He is absolutely worth his value. It's exceptionally rare that you find superstar talent go hand in hand with superstar work ethic at any position. I fully expect Sherman to continue to get better injuries willing. There might be 5 players in this league with that same combination of talent, drive and dedication to work. This combination reverberates over the entire roster. When your hardest workers are your stars, then you create a clubhouse where there are no exceptions. Everyone gets better. Because the alpha players set the work standard.
This reality drives our draft scenario in a way that is incomparable to how we've drafted in the 3 years since Pete and John have arrived. I believe we will alter how we draft based on how our roster is moving from rookie deal dominated to mature, 2nd contract dominated.
2. ASJ v. Luke Willson. This assumes that Miller is cut to partially pay for Sherman -- thus we are left with Willson and McCoy on the roster. ASJ is a better blocker than either of those two, and is an outstanding target over the middle. His catch radius is ridiculous and his ability to catch balls in traffic is excellent. He probably won't tear up the combine, but then Zach Miller tore the 40 with a blistering 4.84.
Look to see if Seattle tries to renegotiate/extend Miller to a cheaper cap hit.
3. Daniel McCullers v. Jesse Williams. McCullers is a very good 2 gap player with incredible length. Williams is a guy I liked in 2013. But availability is in question and for sure talent level is. He didn't look like a guy who was going to push for playing time. We don't have the ability to really gauge how Carroll feels about him. McCullers should be a big upgrade over Williams. Why consider this backup delta? Because it's a possibility Bryant is released to pay for Sherman.
4. Robinson/Matthews/Abbrederis/Street v. Kearse. Assumes Rice and his 7m+ contract (dead money factored in) are released. Personally, I have grown very fond of Kearse. He just keeps answering the call with every opportunity thrown his way. But the real problem could be that Rice and Tate walk. The WR position has the potential of losing Tate and Baldwin too. We're unfortunate in that we have 2 free agents and a salary cap crater all in the same year. Kearse is likely going to start next year, whether it's at Tate's position or at Rice's. So in truth, there is likely to be a cap related vacancy with no player to fill it. We might end up keeping Rice and cutting elsewhere because we don't have a succession plan in place.
5. Zack Martin/Ogbuehi/Richardson v. Michael Bowie. Assumes Giacomini is not resigned. Although that could be a big assumption. Honestly, Giacomini is not worth 3.5m to any team in this league. It's not unrealistic that Giacomini is actually brought back at near half his current contract. Recall, we were in a position where we had to overpay for him because our rosters' depth was unable to let him go. Carpenter was already being moved after not working out on the edge. Overall, if we could shave 1m off of Giacomini's cap hit, I'd be ok with Giacomini with some extended development time for Bowie.
Richardson is one of my favorite prospects. If he slides to our pick and we trade out, I'd kind of feel similar to how I felt when Fletcher Cox slid to us in 2012 and we moved back to get Irvin. Richardson would be in essence a second left tackle. Only on the right side. But given Okung's availability question, having a 2nd option that is better than McQuistan as an injury contingency would be worth getting him.
6. Ed Reynolds/Clinton-Dix v. Chris Maragos. Outside of Russell Wilson, there is no player on this team as irreplaceable as Earl Thomas. Our whole scheme revolves around his talent like spokes on a hub. If he goes down, this defense drops from top 5 to the 8-15 range. Seattle has flirted with the idea of a 3 safety personnel group. Ed Reynolds would fit in that aspect nicely. Although I prefer Clinton-Dix. He is an outstanding tackler who can physically punish players despite his rangy physique. Seattle likes a good measure of thumper in their defenders. Dix fits that closely.
7. Gabe Jackson/Zack Martin v. Carpenter/Sweezy. I believe Jackson is a big upgrade at either position. There could be questions whether he'd be a schematic fit under Cable. From a pass pro perspective, he'd probably enter training camp as our second best pass protector to Russell Okung. He is an absolute wall. Quick feet, great leg drive good balance and excellent strength and girth. The real problem though is that Carpenter and Sweezy are passable talents at guard. Some of the depth guys listed above aren't as much.
I just get the feel that the OL group as a whole has more depth and ability to absorb attrition than other position groups. Yes, it's not performing as well as we'd like but allowing for circumstance, probably as well as we could hope. Bowie is getting experience. He and Bailey aren't as good now as they will be next spring.
