Mike Evans would you?

Discuss your thoughts about anything draft related. Mocks, College and Pro. Knock yourselves out!!! RATING: PG-13
Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:19 am
  • I would trade our first this year and next maybe even our second as well to move up and get him. He is that good. I believe he is the best receiver in the draft. Just incredible agility and speed to go along with those LONG arms 6-5 frame and good hands. He is going to be a monster in this league. Another Calvin Johnson imo.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:24 am
  • I'd rather move up for Aaron Donald. But I agree, Evans is really good.
    HunnyBadger
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 368
    Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:26 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:27 am
  • Evans fills the role we're currently lacking and looks like a lock to be a stud. He seems like a top 10 pick now though, and I don't think we want to give up enough to move that high.
    User avatar
    EverydayImRusselin
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 777
    Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:38 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:37 am
  • I wouldn't trade up for Evans.

    This draft is ridiculously deep with WRs.

    If Pete and John want a WR, we'll get a real good one.

    I like Moncrief, Lee, Matthews, Street and Abbrederis.

    Lee will likely be gone by #32 but the others should all be available.
    EastCoastHawksFan posted... "Trading for Harvin is by far the worst move John S has ever made." (March 18, 2014)

    your World Champion Seattle Seahawks.. how sweet is that!!
    User avatar
    onanygivensunday
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3067
    Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:59 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:40 am
  • I don't agree, Mike Evans and Sammy Watkins are both clearly a cut above the rest. Real difference makers that will be immediate impact guys who most likely will be all pro type receivers. There are others with potential but those two are truly elite
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:41 am
  • I don't get all this doom-and-gloom talk about our receiving corps. I'd do such a thing, maybe, for Aaron Donald, but not for a WR given our immediate needs. If we lock up Tate and/or Baldwin and we already have Percy Harvin, I'm not sure wasting so many draft picks are a good idea given our needs at OT (did you see how horrible our O-line was with Unger's injury?) and DL (we are losing Red and possibly Clemons and have to work to keep Bennett).

    I could see teams like the Panthers, who are in desperate need of WR help, doing something like this. However, they have lots of needs given their free agents, so they probably wouldn't give up draft picks either.
    User avatar
    aawolf
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 440
    Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:04 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:03 pm
  • I see Donald as a potential trade up prospect. Pass rush is always a priority for us. Quality and impact would merit moving up.

    Evans I think tested his way too far up in the draft. Additionally, this team is a run heavy/defensive team. Receiver quality is going to be less impactful for us. We have to know what kind of team we are when projecting these kinds of moves.

    In terms of functional value coupled with available alternatives -- Donald really stands alone in his class. Evans is the best of a large cadre of quality 6'3"+ X receivers.

    I don't expect us to trade up for either. And truthfully, we don't have a good handle on our team needs until after the UFA period shakes out. If we lose two of the three WRs (Rice/Tate/Baldwin), then WR all of a sudden becomes a real need for us. We are better equipped to lose Clemons/Bryant as we are deep at DL already with some additional competitive depth returning (Jordan Hill, Jesse Williams and Greg Scruggs).

    This is a really interesting draft for us. There are so many ways we could add to this team.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 694
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:17 pm
  • Guys I'd trade up for (and I'm talking late teens, early 20s if available):

    Aaron Donald
    Mike Evans
    Odell Beckham Jr.
    Taylor Lewan

    Those are the only 4 that I'd mortgage picks for as I feel confident that all of them not only fit the mold of this team, but I believe these guys are going to be bonafide NFL players. I think all are gone by pick 18.
    Mtjhoyas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 309
    Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:03 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:17 pm
  • Can't really see it happening if you retain Tate, which looks a lot more realistic now with the new cap projection. How much is a drafted WR even going to play behind Harvin/Tate/Baldwin/Kearse? Maybe he plays a lot, but then you're just diminishing the returns of another good receiver. If you couple this proposed transaction with the Harvin deal last year, then suddenly you've burned a ton of capital on just two WRs. I'm at the point where I'm not even sure it's worth taking one at #32; forget trading up!

    Trading up for a can't-miss DL prospect is a different story.
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3609
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:28 pm
  • I really want Kelvin Banjamin
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:35 pm
  • I am not nearly as high on KB as Evans but if he is there for the taking at 32 (excluding Aaron sitting there as well) I would jump on it. I wouldn't trade up for him though.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:03 pm
  • No! Giving up the farm for an individual player, especially a receiver is a horrible idea. (redskins, falcons, colts...ect
    nyc-seahawk
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 68
    Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:52 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:16 pm
  • DavidSeven wrote:Can't really see it happening if you retain Tate, which looks a lot more realistic now with the new cap projection. How much is a drafted WR even going to play behind Harvin/Tate/Baldwin/Kearse? Maybe he plays a lot, but then you're just diminishing the returns of another good receiver. If you couple this proposed transaction with the Harvin deal last year, then suddenly you've burned a ton of capital on just two WRs. I'm at the point where I'm not even sure it's worth taking one at #32; forget trading up!

    Trading up for a can't-miss DL prospect is a different story.


    I'm starting to lean this way too. Unless a big-time receiver high on their board is there at 32, the receivers on the roster (counting Tate) have shown they can do play without a first round pick and still win. The WR depth is good enough that unless KB is sitting there I hope they look to fix other positions.
    I am Godzilla, you are Japan!
    User avatar
    Recon_Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2054
    Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:01 pm
    Location: Vancouver, Wa


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:23 pm
  • No way I'd surrender major draft capital for Evans or anyone in this draft. We already lost 9 cheap years of possible productive rookie contract when we traded a 1st and 3rd for Harvin, not to mention a contract that's at the least going to make it hard to keep our secondary intact.

    I might trade players for better draft position, but wouldn't lose draft picks for anyone else unless we want to witness the debacle in DC first hand.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:34 pm
  • I'd do a Julio Jones type trade for Evans, no issues there. The fact that Seattle used one of their combine interviews on Evans indicates that this is something they are at least mulling over, and they should. You might get a little more "moneyball" value from keeping the picks, but freakish redline receivers like Evans are far from a dime a dozen. Seattle has been trying to get one cheap for years and hasn't even come close to succeeding.

    As much as I like Donald, I would much rather keep the picks and just pay Bennett. Bennett is vastly superior on running downs and can play outside at a very high level too. Donald will only play inside and might not be on the field on run downs. Really good player, but also really limited, like a DT version of Bruce Irvin a couple years ago.

    aawolf wrote:I don't get all this doom-and-gloom talk about our receiving corps.


    Nobody here thinks our WRs suck. We do however have an OC who either runs the ball or has play action on something like 85% of all plays, making him the most predictable playcaller in the NFL. Non-terrible defenses started to punish Seattle for this tendency late in the season. The only cure, other than firing Bevell, is to make defenses fear our receivers and back off in the front seven. That's why Percy Harvin is such a big deal. But can you count on Harvin to play as many as 20 games? You need another guy to strike fear into defenses on those deep sideline routes.
    Last edited by kearly on Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10737
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:50 pm
  • Agreed Kearly, our offense struggled at times because of receivers lack of ability to separate when getting man coverage. Had we had a player like Rice or Harvin I'm not sure they get away with it but like you said you can't count on having Harvin around and Rice is gone as well for the same reason. Not only that but Pete quite clearly wants that tall athletic receiver in his arsenal. Evans is SPECIAL!!!! I say go get him if possible.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:58 pm
  • Would likely take even more then the falcons traded for jones to move up to 10 or so and get evans and you really couldn't do it before the draft or else you could move up and have both evans and watkins off the board. Evans would be amazing but it would likely take literally the whole draft of picks and then some to get him.
    randomation
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:04 pm
  • randomation wrote:Would likely take even more then the falcons traded for jones to move up to 10 or so and get evans and you really couldn't do it before the draft or else you could move up and have both evans and watkins off the board. Evans would be amazing but it would likely take literally the whole draft of picks and then some to get him.

    The Falcons traded from the 27 spot up to the 6th. The Seahawks would trade from the thirty second pick to arguably the tenth pick with the Lions. Plus this is being touted as a very deep draft so someone might value later picks a little higher than normal. I don't think it would take more at all. In fact it might take less.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:09 pm
  • kearly wrote:As much as I like Donald, I would much rather keep the picks and just pay Bennett. Bennett is vastly superior on running downs and can play outside at a very high level too. Donald will only play inside and might not be on the field on run downs. Really good player, but also really limited, like a DT version of Bruce Irvin a couple years ago.


    To this point - if the Hawks can't agree with Bennett, then not only will there be a marked increase in the number of people projecting a Seattle trade-up for one of the defensive talents on the board, but the price for actually doing so will likely go up. Particularly from an Atlanta, which probably figures it'll be seeing Seattle on the road to Super Bowl 49.
    Last edited by Lynch'sLamborghini on Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    "I have an opportunity to close it out, brother. Or, if you want to, you can do it. But, I - I don't mind." - Marshawn Lynch
    Lynch'sLamborghini
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 39
    Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:39 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:10 pm
  • Have to say I'm torn.

    Last year, plenty of us imagined trading the farm for Sheldon Richardson. And truth be told, he likely would have been worth that trade. The prospects where we were picking were very mundane. Ultimately we did trade it away -- for a difference maker who happened to be unavailable for almost the entire season. The value, at the time, was definitely in our favor. However the contract that followed really really hurt.

    I would not wish to make a similarly costly trade up for Evans -- that's way too much stock in a position that doesn't coincide with our core identity. It's an ancillary piece. We've committed to Harvin and I think we have to stand on that.

    Donald is a player, not unlike Richardson in terms of role fit. Richardson was the best pass rushing 3 tech. I would consider Donald to be a better player for that specific role, where Richardson doesn't have Donald's run fit liability. This is a defense first club. I can sit here imagining the awesome terror that Avril/Donald and Bennett could wreak on opposing offenses. So many rushers -- you'd have your choice of 1 on 1 matchups in that scenario.

    And then I imagine what that kind of rush would do relative to our secondary. If they only have to cover for up to 2-3 seconds -- how stifling could our defense be? In terms of the whole, Donald could be a valuable piece of the puzzle.

    This is a team that is already on the mountaintop. The challenge for this team is now to maintain quality across the board. To add talents so that we don't have to extend players who are good, but not great. This is a team built on breadth of talent. Good players everywhere and several rows deep.

    Trading up really moves away from what we are as a team. It's quality built on players who don't leave us salivating with anticipation. Guys who we kind of shrug and go 'guess we'll see what he looks like in August'.

    Seriously so many plausible scenarios are laid out before us. The team can go in any direction. Or multiple directions. I would say this: I wish we had a lot more picks, because in a deep draft I'm laying money on Seattle for getting the most productive players on day 2 and 3. Guys that don't excite in May but by the end of the year, you are hoping you can resign them when their time comes.

    Natethegreat wrote:
    randomation wrote:Would likely take even more then the falcons traded for jones to move up to 10 or so and get evans and you really couldn't do it before the draft or else you could move up and have both evans and watkins off the board. Evans would be amazing but it would likely take literally the whole draft of picks and then some to get him.

    The Falcons traded from the 27 spot up to the 6th. The Seahawks would trade from the thirty second pick to arguably the tenth pick with the Lions. Plus this is being touted as a very deep draft so someone might value later picks a little higher than normal. I don't think it would take more at all. In fact it might take less.


    Agreed. There are a lot of teams in the early teens that have rather mundane needs. NYG/Pittsburgh/Baltimore. Those are all teams that really have needs that could be very adequately addressed at 32. Many of them projected to take players that now look generically available where we are picking.

    I expect Donald's floor is pick 17 (Dallas) if he does make it that far, I don't see them passing on him. Their need for interior pass rush is very high.
    Last edited by Attyla the Hawk on Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 694
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:14 pm
  • Man that's a hard one to call. When I first opened this thread my thought was "no way!" I think I'd trade up but I don't think he's worth 2 #1s. I'd do a 1 and plus a 2 next year or a 1,4,5 this year because at 32 you are damn close to it being a 2nd round pick.

    I think Evans would have to fall and the cost be reasonable for them to do it. But expect a surprise from John Schneider every year. And when it happens I'll jump and clap my hands with glee like a little kid at Christmas, even though I'll probably have no idea what just happened.

    I just don't think we throw enough to make it worthwhile though, especially with all that we have invested in the running game. Lynch, Turbin, Michael, Ware, Coleman, the offensive line and Tom Cable. This team is about running and beating the hell out of opposing defenses.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8110
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:31 pm

Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:35 pm
  • Natethegreat wrote:I would trade our first this year and next maybe even our second as well to move up and get him. He is that good. I believe he is the best receiver in the draft. Just incredible agility and speed to go along with those LONG arms 6-5 frame and good hands. He is going to be a monster in this league. Another Calvin Johnson imo.


    I'd go the opposite route and trade this year's first with next years first for like 5 trades in the 5th and 6th round. Trading 3 draft picks for one is the opposite of what this team has done to win the superbowl.

    This team is going to depend on young and cheap to sustain their core. You don't do that with trading your draft picks for a high first round pick. In fact, I think a 15th overall pick costs like 5m per year. I know Earl cost roughly that much and that was years ago. While the 3rd-6th rounders cost like 500k. These numbers are not exact, I just pulled them out of Earl and Wilson's contracts. I think one is 4.8m and the other started off 500k-600k.
    User avatar
    plyka
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1322
    Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:40 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:47 pm
  • plyka wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:I would trade our first this year and next maybe even our second as well to move up and get him. He is that good. I believe he is the best receiver in the draft. Just incredible agility and speed to go along with those LONG arms 6-5 frame and good hands. He is going to be a monster in this league. Another Calvin Johnson imo.


    I'd go the opposite route and trade this year's first with next years first for like 5 trades in the 5th and 6th round. Trading 3 draft picks for one is the opposite of what this team has done to win the superbowl.

    This team is going to depend on young and cheap to sustain their core. You don't do that with trading your draft picks for a high first round pick. In fact, I think a 15th overall pick costs like 5m per year. I know Earl cost roughly that much and that was years ago. While the 3rd-6th rounders cost like 500k. These numbers are not exact, I just pulled them out of Earl and Wilson's contracts. I think one is 4.8m and the other started off 500k-600k.

    While I agree with what you are saying, this roster is drastically different than the one inherited by the FO. This team cannot realistically keep drafting 10 players and expect them to make the team. The talent level of the roster is too great.

    Trading down to accumulated more picks just might be a strategy of the past, IMO. They need to hit on these picks to further reduce the cap in future years. The roster is too talented and too deep. For instance, would the 2010 version of Kam make the 2014 Seahawks? We talk about the FO hitting on the Kam's, Sherm's, KJ's etc of the world which is awesome. But my concern is would those guys make this team? We might see less just because there are only so many roster spots actually up for grabs. Just look at the production we got from the 2013 draft class. I think we ranked 2nd to last in snaps from rookies.

    So I guess what's better? Trading down to accumulate more picks fully knowing half won't make the team? Or going "all in" and getting an elite WR playmaker that may save you from spending on WR?
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:50 pm
  • plyka wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:I would trade our first this year and next maybe even our second as well to move up and get him. He is that good. I believe he is the best receiver in the draft. Just incredible agility and speed to go along with those LONG arms 6-5 frame and good hands. He is going to be a monster in this league. Another Calvin Johnson imo.


    I'd go the opposite route and trade this year's first with next years first for like 5 trades in the 5th and 6th round. Trading 3 draft picks for one is the opposite of what this team has done to win the superbowl.

    This team is going to depend on young and cheap to sustain their core. You don't do that with trading your draft picks for a high first round pick. In fact, I think a 15th overall pick costs like 5m per year. I know Earl cost roughly that much and that was years ago. While the 3rd-6th rounders cost like 500k. These numbers are not exact, I just pulled them out of Earl and Wilson's contracts. I think one is 4.8m and the other started off 500k-600k.

    You will never ever come up with a receiver with the abilities that Evans has in the 5th and 6th rounds. Sometimes you have to vary from your mo to get a guy. Its not like we have multiple needs this year and we have only so many roster spots at this point(we had to hide guys on IR just to not lose them). Not to mention we still have the ability to pick in the later rounds and pick up free agents for competition just like every year. Especially with so many underclassmen coming out there will be quality undrafted players.

    Edit: Hawkfan just beat me to it. Well put.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:57 pm
  • This is a great dialogue going on here and there are some great points being raised. While I think the MO of this FO is to always have a bunch of picks, we are getting to the point where the roster is crowded. It's been mentioned, but do you go with quantity over quality and hope to have some big hits? Or do you go with quality and shoot for premo talent? Great questions and it's going to be fun to see what this FO does now.

    Part of me is kinda hoping that they trade up and grab a guy who they think can keep this ball rolling. Whether that's Evans or Donald, it would be cool to see. Doubt it happens but it makes for fun dialogue when you're picking all the way down at 32. Poor us, huh?
    Mtjhoyas
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 309
    Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:03 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:57 pm
  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    plyka wrote:
    Natethegreat wrote:So I guess what's better? Trading down to accumulate more picks fully knowing half won't make the team? Or going "all in" and getting an elite WR playmaker that may save you from spending on WR?


    It's a relevant question especially considering the relative weakness at cornerback in the rest of the NFC West (Peterson and Janoris Jenkins not withstanding) as well as the relative lack of standout talent at the position in this year's draft. The Hawks would enjoy a substantial advantage for as long as Marshawn remained healthy.

    I'm trying to resist the temptation to say we should trade up, but that means I'm sorely tempted. I think Evans may well have gotten himself into the Top 10 with his Combine, and I don't see Sammy Watkins making it past the Rams at #2 unless the Falcons trade the farm to move up. But hell, if you're going to go get Evans at (probably) 8-11, what happens if Evans goes first, or if Sammy just falls to to #9 overall?
    "I have an opportunity to close it out, brother. Or, if you want to, you can do it. But, I - I don't mind." - Marshawn Lynch
    Lynch'sLamborghini
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 39
    Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:39 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:09 pm
  • First a trade would have to be set in place with a team and the trade would be done on draft day when their pick comes up. This is pretty common and doesn't always work out but can certainly be set up beforehand.
    Look at his production against some of the best defenses in college.
    11 catches, 287 yards, 4 TD (including 95-yard TD) vs Auburn. 7 catches, 279 yards, TD vs Alabama. Five 100-yard games. Led SEC in touchdowns. Set school records for receiving yards in a single game, receiving yards in a single season. 20.2-yard per-catch average. 2012: Started all 13 games

    And he wasn't a secret out there on the field. He absolutely tore up Alabama every time they played. He is going to be one of the best and I can't imagine how good Russel would be with a guy that has the catch radius he has. He couldn't throw it over his head if he tried(yes I know its hyperbole but still).
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:14 pm
  • I would love Evans I just don't see the hawks trading up to get him but who knows stranger things have happened in the past.
    randomation
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:19 pm
  • No. I would not make the same mistake that redskins made for RG3 and Falcons made for Julio Jones. It's a team sport and I don't think it's worth giving up so many picks for a guy who's proven nothing. We gave up picks for Percy who's played in the NFL at a very high level before we gave up picks for him and I am all in for a trade like that. These are NFL prospects, not NFL players yet.
    Richard Sherman to Skip Bayless: "I'm tired of your ignorant pollution!"

    Follow me on twitter: @seahawks_fan12
    User avatar
    SeahawksFanForever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1988
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:11 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:30 pm
  • SeahawksFanForever wrote:No. I would not make the same mistake that redskins made for RG3 and Falcons made for Julio Jones. It's a team sport and I don't think it's worth giving up so many picks for a guy who's proven nothing. We gave up picks for Percy who's played in the NFL at a very high level before we gave up picks for him and I am all in for a trade like that. These are NFL prospects, not NFL players yet.

    How do you qualify those as mistakes?

    Julio Jones is an elite WR and RG3 won a division his rookie year.
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:41 pm
  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    SeahawksFanForever wrote:No. I would not make the same mistake that redskins made for RG3 and Falcons made for Julio Jones. It's a team sport and I don't think it's worth giving up so many picks for a guy who's proven nothing. We gave up picks for Percy who's played in the NFL at a very high level before we gave up picks for him and I am all in for a trade like that. These are NFL prospects, not NFL players yet.

    How do you qualify those as mistakes?

    Julio Jones is an elite WR and RG3 won a division his rookie year.


    Both of these players most likely won't be busts. They are very good to great players with a lot of potential but look at the bigger picture. Headcoach who was a part of the team that made the decision to trade up for RG3 isn't with the team anymore. Mike Smith and Falcons thought getting another WR can help them win the superbowl and that didn't workout for them too well. We all know that there were reports after this season that Mike Smith might be fired. Now that didn't happen but it might happen in the next couple of years if falcons don't turn around. It's so hard to build your team through the draft without your top picks that you give away when you make these major trades with other teams. This is just my opinion and I like building through the draft and don't like giving away picks. We just won the superbowl and I don't think we are in a desperate position at all to trade up for a player who hasn't proven anything in the NFL yet. I am a huge fan of Mike Evans but I just don't think it's worth it.
    Richard Sherman to Skip Bayless: "I'm tired of your ignorant pollution!"

    Follow me on twitter: @seahawks_fan12
    User avatar
    SeahawksFanForever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1988
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:11 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:46 pm
  • Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?
    randomation
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 3:54 pm
  • randomation wrote:Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?


    Draft compensation maybe close for both options, but the contract for the rookie would be set, Gordon would want a new deal much like Harvin. Would you give Gordon a 5 year contract knowing he is 1 substance fail from hanging out with Browner for a year?
    Brahn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 680
    Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:06 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:43 pm
  • Aaron Donald will be a Bear, if he even lasts that long. It's going to take a fair amount to move up for either Evans or Donald.
    User avatar
    Pie Romania
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 107
    Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 pm
    Location: Lewis County


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:55 pm
  • Pie Romania wrote:Aaron Donald will be a Bear, if he even lasts that long. It's going to take a fair amount to move up for either Evans or Donald.

    I love Evans combine showing: Soft hands, smooth catching motion, speedy 4.5 in 40 and 37 inch vert for a 6'5" 230 pound receiver. Yes we have a GM that could get it done but he most likely won't if Evans is a top 15 because it's about value for our teams needs.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 669
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:59 pm
  • Oh and that 20.2 yd per catch avg is just too good for most people to pass up. No doubt he is a huge part of Manziel's production.
    Russ Willstrong
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 669
    Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:20 pm
  • Kelvin Benjamin please! If we were gonna trade up, that'd take less and Benjamin seems like the perfect giant bulky target that can somehow high point like crazy.
    User avatar
    JKent82
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3009
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 12:13 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:21 pm
  • I'm not sure we would even have to move up to get KB. He isn't the talent Evans is but he would be a fine consolation prize.
    Natethegreat
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 645
    Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:21 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:55 pm
  • JKent82 wrote:Kelvin Benjamin please! If we were gonna trade up, that'd take less and Benjamin seems like the perfect giant bulky target that can somehow high point like crazy.


    Kelvin Benjamin's hands are too inconsistent for me personally. Sure, his size is outstanding and would create mismatches, but you want a guy who you know is going to come down with the ball and Benjamin dropped way too many easy passes for me to want him in the 1st. Don't get me wrong, he does have good hands at times and can make tough catches, but those drops that are uncontested that should be a given, aren't for him.

    The only receivers I like in the 1st round are Mike Evans, and Jordan Matthews. There are other guys I like too, but with Harvin on this team, I'd like to add another decently sized receiver. If no one's there worth picking and (by some miracle) Eric Ebron is on the board a 5-8 picks before us, I'd love to have him on this team. Doubt it happens though, but with another threat from the TE position, I'd be fine with smaller WR's for the most part. Tons of talent at the receiver position and if the opportunity presents itself, I wouldn't mind doubling down with a receiver in one of the first two rounds and another in the 5th or later that has potential to be a solid #2 with a little coaching.
    User avatar
    Pie Romania
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 107
    Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:35 pm
    Location: Lewis County


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:11 am
  • Attyla the Hawk wrote:I would not wish to make a similarly costly trade up for Evans -- that's way too much stock in a position that doesn't coincide with our core identity. It's an ancillary piece. We've committed to Harvin and I think we have to stand on that.

    This is a team that is already on the mountaintop. The challenge for this team is now to maintain quality across the board. To add talents so that we don't have to extend players who are good, but not great. This is a team built on breadth of talent. Good players everywhere and several rows deep.

    Trading up really moves away from what we are as a team. It's quality built on players who don't leave us salivating with anticipation. Guys who we kind of shrug and go 'guess we'll see what he looks like in August'.


    During that late season 4-game stretch when Seattle was without Rice and Harvin and facing good defenses that stopped respecting our WRs, Seattle averaged just 16 points a game on offense, and Wilson's passer rating was in the low 80s. Seattle's offense struggled to move the ball in their two home playoff games as well, relying on turnovers and big plays to reach 23 points in both games. At home.

    I really don't want to be in a situation where Seattle is one injury away from being highly vulnerable on offense, especially when that lynchpin player is maybe the biggest injury risk on the team. To me, getting another weapon is not a luxury. It is a need.

    As far as trading up, JS compared the Percy move to trading up last year, and he's right for doing so. So I wouldn't say it's out of character. Seattle has shown many times that they are capable of making bold moves to get a guy they think it a centerpiece player, whether that is in the draft, FA, or trade.

    Percy cost a ton, the cash aspect alone is probably as big a burden as the picks were. So if Seattle traded a ton of picks for Evans and paid him $3.5 million a year on his slotted deal, it's basically like doing the Percy trade all over again. Right now this team needs Percy insurance. Doesn't have to be another player just like Percy, but it does need to be a player that scares defenses deep.

    Maybe Seattle gets Brandon Coleman at #64 and there isn't any need to move up. But if you've watched Evans, you know this guy is going to be a STAR. Not "maybe a good player." The extra cost to get a very likely star at a position of dire need makes a lot of sense to me, especially since Seattle doesn't really have many needs elsewhere and usually does all their damage with late picks anyway.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10737
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 1:19 am
  • randomation wrote:Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?


    I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 10737
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:45 am
  • kearly wrote:
    randomation wrote:Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?


    I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.


    Yeah just a random thought but yeah trading up for Evans would be amazing would just cost so much.
    randomation
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 256
    Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:35 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:39 am
  • Hardly any of our picks last year played. If you feel he will be a star then make the move.
    P-Rich fo life
    User avatar
    ImTheScientist
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2492
    Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:14 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:01 am
  • If he can be had for Percy like compensation, do it. Russ needs a big target, and I think two of our rivals are intent on getting better at WR this draft as well.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10855
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:06 am
  • kearly wrote:
    randomation wrote:Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?


    I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

    True but if Evans does explode, you can almost guarantee that after 3 years he will want his money.
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:08 am
  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    kearly wrote:
    randomation wrote:Random thought how much more would we have to give up to trade for someone like say Josh Gordon then to draft Evans?


    I was a big proponent of Gordon when he was still at Baylor, but I'd rather have Evans if the cost were the same. Evans would have 5 years of low cost team control compared to 2 years for Gordon, doesn't have attitude red flags that Gordon has and won't be suspended for a year the next time he decides to get high. I'd still kick the tires on Gordon at a lower price, but if Seattle is going to pay big for a WR, I'd rather have the low risk guy who has a real chance to be one of the NFL's biggest bang for the buck WRs over the next half-decade.

    True but if Evans does explode, you can almost guarantee that after 3 years he will want his money.

    That is a good problem to have, right?
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10855
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:09 am
  • QB/OL needy teams will draft their players that they need to build around. Someone should and will fall to #32. If Christian Ponder can go in the first round then any QB can go in the first round. I wouldn't be surprised if Derrick Carr or even AJ McCarron is a first round pick.
    Richard Sherman to Skip Bayless: "I'm tired of your ignorant pollution!"

    Follow me on twitter: @seahawks_fan12
    User avatar
    SeahawksFanForever
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1988
    Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:11 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:23 am
  • Scottemojo wrote:That is a good problem to have, right?

    Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1670
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


Re: Mike Evans would you?
Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:31 am
  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:That is a good problem to have, right?

    Definitely. But I was pointing that out because kearly said he would rather have Evans over Gordon (all things considering) because we would have Evans for 5 years at a relatively low cost.

    Well, Gordon would be asking for a new deal after this year, so there is that. With the tag option, though, we would control Evans for 5 years.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10855
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


Next


It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:39 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests