Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:51 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: WA
Shane Falco wrote:
Could be the thing to do with Miller. I'm all in favor of only spending the big money on the true irreplaceable star players, which also means being against paying a superstar contract to Tate. The only thing I worry about is moving guys before having a proven replacement - that can be troublesome - both in losing them or overpaying them.


Tate said something interesting when interviewed on Brock & Danny. Mentioned how patient the organization was with him. He basically owned up to producing squat in his first year and seemed genuinely thankful that they didn't give up on him after a less than amazing year two.

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... 932&p=3&n=

Makes me wonder (which I usually never do) if he'd be more open to a little less money in order to benefit the team.

_________________
RockHawk wrote:
This has turned into nothing but a personal attack, which goes against our forum rules...... I'll allow it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:43 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 5:06 pm
Posts: 581
drrew wrote:
If Tate got a Cruz type contract (8yr $43m...which I think would be high) the cap number in year one was only $2.5m. I don't know that the Hawks would necessarily want to structure things like that, but there's ways to get both Tate and Bennett signed for relatively little hit on the cap year one. Cruz's cap jumps to $7.5m, then $8m, then $10m, so that's not ideal for Seattle knowing Wilson and Sherman deals are on the way, but it's an option.

What I think happens is that they cut Rice ($7.3m in cap savings) Clemons ($7.5m) Miller ($5m). Breno is not coming back at his current 4.75m cap, and Marshawns cap number drops by $1.5m next year. That's north of $25m.

Assuming Thomas, Sherman, and Wilson aren't looking to completely smash previous salary records, I think the Hawks are in pretty good cap shape.


This.

Breno, McQ, Rice, Clem are all gone and I'm not convinced that we'll bring back WT3.

Avril's contract comes off the books after next season so that creates more wiggle room.

Not saying that yours isn't a good idea, just don't think it's necessary.

If I could have it my way, I would keep Zach and pull the trigger on Lyerla in the 7th Rd or try him out as a UDFA.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:33 am 
NET Starter
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 493
SDHawk wrote:
drrew wrote:
If Tate got a Cruz type contract (8yr $43m...which I think would be high) the cap number in year one was only $2.5m. I don't know that the Hawks would necessarily want to structure things like that, but there's ways to get both Tate and Bennett signed for relatively little hit on the cap year one. Cruz's cap jumps to $7.5m, then $8m, then $10m, so that's not ideal for Seattle knowing Wilson and Sherman deals are on the way, but it's an option.

What I think happens is that they cut Rice ($7.3m in cap savings) Clemons ($7.5m) Miller ($5m). Breno is not coming back at his current 4.75m cap, and Marshawns cap number drops by $1.5m next year. That's north of $25m.

Assuming Thomas, Sherman, and Wilson aren't looking to completely smash previous salary records, I think the Hawks are in pretty good cap shape.


This.

Breno, McQ, Rice, Clem are all gone and I'm not convinced that we'll bring back WT3.

Avril's contract comes off the books after next season so that creates more wiggle room.

Not saying that yours isn't a good idea, just don't think it's necessary.

If I could have it my way, I would keep Zach and pull the trigger on Lyerla in the 7th Rd or try him out as a UDFA.

^ This makes more sense. ASJ for Miller is a lateral move, especially when one considers that our TE productivity is deflated due to Russell's limitations when throwing down the middle of the field. NFL network had a stat that Wilson only throws the ball to the middle of the field 15% of the time vs the league average of 24%. They suggested that his height forced him to focus out toward the sidelines since he had trouble seeing over the defensive line. This could explain why Miller isn't targeted more. ASJ is a slightly taller target than Miller but his impact could still be diminished if Russ fails to improve his mid-field reads.

I do think that Miller's contract should be reworked if possible, but cutting him and drafting another TE is too reminiscent of cutting Julian Peterson and drafting Aaron Curry. Not sure it would provide an immediate upgrade in 2014, apart from some cap savings. I'd rather see more dramatic upgrades at OG / OT / big WR...

_________________
"It was so loud Derrick Coleman heard it."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:49 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1141
HawkWow wrote:
I do think that Miller's contract should be reworked if possible, but cutting him and drafting another TE is too reminiscent of cutting Julian Peterson and drafting Aaron Curry. Not sure it would provide an immediate upgrade in 2014, apart from some cap savings. I'd rather see more dramatic upgrades at OG / OT / big WR...


I don't think it's fair to compare Miller to ASJ to Peterson vs. Curry.

The HAwks didn't save a lot of money going from Peterson to Curry, they would save a lot of money going from Miller to ASJ.

I personally don't think ASJ will be a great pro, I don't think his drive or fire matches his talent but he could easily prove me wrong.


Last edited by WestcoastSteve on Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:51 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1141
E.C. Laloosh wrote:
Shane Falco wrote:
Could be the thing to do with Miller. I'm all in favor of only spending the big money on the true irreplaceable star players, which also means being against paying a superstar contract to Tate. The only thing I worry about is moving guys before having a proven replacement - that can be troublesome - both in losing them or overpaying them.


Tate said something interesting when interviewed on Brock & Danny. Mentioned how patient the organization was with him. He basically owned up to producing squat in his first year and seemed genuinely thankful that they didn't give up on him after a less than amazing year two.

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_pla ... 932&p=3&n=

Makes me wonder (which I usually never do) if he'd be more open to a little less money in order to benefit the team.



No way, Tate knows he had a big year when he needed to and he will get paid. Veterans take pay cuts all the time, Tate is coming off his rookie deal, he's going to fight for every cent. Loyalty from him would be in the form of perhaps allowing us to match whoever offers him the most money.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:34 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:39 pm
Posts: 207
To say that players will simply leave for more money is not taking into account all the factors. They are competitive, so it's not like its in Golden Tate's makeup to go to catch passes from Ponder for a year to sit out the playoffs year after year simply for more money when he has a good relationship with a championship team. The whole "home town discount" might be overhyped, and if someone like the patriots come at him with pocketbook blazing, sure, he will probably leave. But most good teams are smart with their money and I don't see him getting much more than the seahawks would offer them. They aren't dumb they know what he's worth, they simply don't have any room to exceed that if he gets a mega contract.

_________________
“How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”

- Henry David Thoreau


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:59 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
WestcoastSteve wrote:
HawkWow wrote:
I do think that Miller's contract should be reworked if possible, but cutting him and drafting another TE is too reminiscent of cutting Julian Peterson and drafting Aaron Curry. Not sure it would provide an immediate upgrade in 2014, apart from some cap savings. I'd rather see more dramatic upgrades at OG / OT / big WR...


I don't think it's fair to compare Miller to ASJ to Peterson vs. Curry.

The HAwks didn't save a lot of money going from Peterson to Curry, they would save a lot of money going from Miller to ASJ.

I personally don't think ASJ will be a great pro, I don't think his drive or fire matches his talent but he could easily prove me wrong.


Aside from disagreeing with your thought "ASJ won't be a good pro"...I have no idea how you managed to get my name on that quote. I never said any of that. You must be attempting to quote someone that quoted me...unsure, but those are not my words, nor my opinion.

Earlier someone said drafting ASJ, while letting Miller go (if he won't restructure) would only a be a "lateral move". I do hope you're right. If we can get us a 22 yr old version of Miller at a fraction of the cost...what's not to love? Some of you sadly underestimate what Miller is capable of , what he brings to the table and that it was the team, not him, responsible for his declining numbers...just as Sark was responsible for ASJ's drop.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:58 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm
Posts: 634
bbsplitter wrote:
To say that players will simply leave for more money is not taking into account all the factors. They are competitive, so it's not like its in Golden Tate's makeup to go to catch passes from Ponder for a year to sit out the playoffs year after year simply for more money when he has a good relationship with a championship team.


That's spiking your argument. He could take Snyder's money and catch passes from RG3. Or Jerruh's money and take passes from Romo. And I'm pretty sure in either case, he'd be a 1000 yd/season receiver in either location. He could be a 75-90 catch guy in either offense. And those two teams are going to have a windfall of UFA cash available to them this offseason.

The simple fact is, if you are a receiver for the Seahawks, your potential NFL productivity will be halved the moment you sign a contract here. Receivers don't get the plays in Seattle like they do everywhere else. And their ability to earn on the open market is abnormally retarded by the nature of our offense. If Tate resigns here, he may as well kiss a productive 3rd contract goodbye. Because he will be sealing a 400-700 yard/season average for his career. Receivers that hit their late 20s with those numbers end up playing for the league minimums and trying to be the 4th receivers on a roster.

Resigning here could cost him upwards of 3 million per season in his 6th through 12th seasons (if he plays that long). It's a HUGE financial hit for him to stay. And you're trivializing that if you think that his only option is to play for an NFL purgatory type losing franchise. There are a lot of bubble teams with robust passing attacks who would love to have Tate. And they'd be well positioned to make him a star.

Were I his agent, I'd make him keenly aware of what he'd be giving up by staying here. From a purely logical standpoint from Tate's perspective -- it should require that Seattle pays a vast premium to keep him. Because this offense is going to cost him dollars down the road. And he's never going to get the recognition for his talents working in this offense either. Tate is already giving up glory and long term earning potential by staying.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:48 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 4363
I think Miller is likely gone, but I'd much rather have Jace Amaro than ASJ. Though I don't know if Amaro will drop to 30-32

_________________
February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:17 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm
Posts: 634
Not an Amaro fan. Definitely not a fan of replacing Miller with Amaro. His blocking, whether in space or in line, is pretty atrocious.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:53 am 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:39 pm
Posts: 207
Attyla the Hawk wrote:
bbsplitter wrote:
To say that players will simply leave for more money is not taking into account all the factors. They are competitive, so it's not like its in Golden Tate's makeup to go to catch passes from Ponder for a year to sit out the playoffs year after year simply for more money when he has a good relationship with a championship team.


That's spiking your argument. He could take Snyder's money and catch passes from RG3. Or Jerruh's money and take passes from Romo. And I'm pretty sure in either case, he'd be a 1000 yd/season receiver in either location. He could be a 75-90 catch guy in either offense. And those two teams are going to have a windfall of UFA cash available to them this offseason.

The simple fact is, if you are a receiver for the Seahawks, your potential NFL productivity will be halved the moment you sign a contract here. Receivers don't get the plays in Seattle like they do everywhere else. And their ability to earn on the open market is abnormally retarded by the nature of our offense. If Tate resigns here, he may as well kiss a productive 3rd contract goodbye. Because he will be sealing a 400-700 yard/season average for his career. Receivers that hit their late 20s with those numbers end up playing for the league minimums and trying to be the 4th receivers on a roster.

Resigning here could cost him upwards of 3 million per season in his 6th through 12th seasons (if he plays that long). It's a HUGE financial hit for him to stay. And you're trivializing that if you think that his only option is to play for an NFL purgatory type losing franchise. There are a lot of bubble teams with robust passing attacks who would love to have Tate. And they'd be well positioned to make him a star.

Were I his agent, I'd make him keenly aware of what he'd be giving up by staying here. From a purely logical standpoint from Tate's perspective -- it should require that Seattle pays a vast premium to keep him. Because this offense is going to cost him dollars down the road. And he's never going to get the recognition for his talents working in this offense either. Tate is already giving up glory and long term earning potential by staying.


........."and if someone like the patriots come at him with pocketbook blazing, sure, he will probably leave."

_________________
“How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”

- Henry David Thoreau


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: How cutting Zach Miller & going TE in R1 could help Seattle
 Post Posted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:49 pm 
* NET Alumni *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:49 pm
Posts: 2988
Attyla the Hawk wrote:
bbsplitter wrote:
To say that players will simply leave for more money is not taking into account all the factors. They are competitive, so it's not like its in Golden Tate's makeup to go to catch passes from Ponder for a year to sit out the playoffs year after year simply for more money when he has a good relationship with a championship team.


That's spiking your argument. He could take Snyder's money and catch passes from RG3. Or Jerruh's money and take passes from Romo. And I'm pretty sure in either case, he'd be a 1000 yd/season receiver in either location. He could be a 75-90 catch guy in either offense. And those two teams are going to have a windfall of UFA cash available to them this offseason.

The simple fact is, if you are a receiver for the Seahawks, your potential NFL productivity will be halved the moment you sign a contract here. Receivers don't get the plays in Seattle like they do everywhere else. And their ability to earn on the open market is abnormally retarded by the nature of our offense. If Tate resigns here, he may as well kiss a productive 3rd contract goodbye. Because he will be sealing a 400-700 yard/season average for his career. Receivers that hit their late 20s with those numbers end up playing for the league minimums and trying to be the 4th receivers on a roster.

Resigning here could cost him upwards of 3 million per season in his 6th through 12th seasons (if he plays that long). It's a HUGE financial hit for him to stay. And you're trivializing that if you think that his only option is to play for an NFL purgatory type losing franchise. There are a lot of bubble teams with robust passing attacks who would love to have Tate. And they'd be well positioned to make him a star.

Were I his agent, I'd make him keenly aware of what he'd be giving up by staying here. From a purely logical standpoint from Tate's perspective -- it should require that Seattle pays a vast premium to keep him. Because this offense is going to cost him dollars down the road. And he's never going to get the recognition for his talents working in this offense either. Tate is already giving up glory and long term earning potential by staying.


Speaking of spiking an argument. The bases for your argument is heavily flawed. Going from a pass first oriented offense to a run first oriented offense does not cut a receivers productivity in half ... that's false.

A switch in run/pass orientation does produce a shift in receiver targets verses blocking/decoying assignments. A difference of maybe 20% is believable. Receivers in Seattle are valued as much for their blocking and decoy abilities as they are for their catch and run abilities. Seattle signs receivers to fit Carroll's style .... just as other teams sign receivers to fit their style.

Tate gives up nothing by staying in Carroll's offense. Tate was drafted for this offense because he was built for this offense. IMO a pass happy offense could not take full advantage of all that Tate brings to the field of play.


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brahn, CPHawk, General Manager, kigenzun, kobebryant, McGruff, Osprey, Recon_Hawk, salukihawk12, Yxes1122 and 15 guests

 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.