vin.couve12 wrote:Yeah, Jimmy seems like an OK dude. He's just not a real TE, IMO. He has to know that this isn't the best place for his career regardless of who else wants what.

Where will tight end Jimmy Graham land in free agency?
Matt Bowen, NFL writer: Houston. The Texans have the cap space, and Graham could be a key matchup piece in their heavy play-action scheme with Deshaun Watson back on the field at quarterback. Landing Graham also would give Watson another top red zone weapon to pair with standout wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins.

Dan Graziano, national NFL writer: Baltimore. The Ravens need all kinds of pass-catchers, including one at tight end. I say they make a play for Graham as they try to put more playmakers around Joe Flacco to see whether he can help them make one more run before it's all over.

Mina Kimes, senior writer: Denver. While Graham struggled at times last season in Seattle, he did one thing very well: scored touchdowns (10). The Broncos, who have a need at tight end, had the worst red zone efficiency percentage in the league. Adding Graham could be cost prohibitive if they sign Cousins, but it would help an offense that sorely needs a steady red zone threat.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2258 ... nings-cuts

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Seymour wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

Only if they all don't go to someone else and become 3 instead of 7. Lets also not assume his replacement gets zero either.

We sure aren't going to miss his 2nd in league leading drops or his disappearance between the 20's.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

chris98251 wrote:Montana worries about losing 10 TD's, I'm more optimistic about scoring much, much more in quarters 1 - 3 then 10 TD's.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

chris98251 wrote:Montana worries about losing 10 TD's, I'm more optimistic about scoring much, much more in quarters 1 - 3 then 10 TD's.

What is your basis for that optimism?

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

Seymour wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:
You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

We have no idea how good or bad the oline is or will be. You cannot go by what Fable put on the field, that is for damn sure. Only thing you can count on is, he brought out the worst in everyone.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:
Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

We have no idea how good or bad the oline is or will be. You cannot go by what Fable put on the field, that is for damn sure. Only thing you can count on is, he brought out the worst in everyone.

Right now our starting O-line is Brown (if he doesn't hold out again), ???? at left guard, Britt, Pocic and Ifedi.

I don't care if the ghost of Vince Lombardi has risen from the grave and is now our O-line coach, that's not a good line.

I HOPE Solari with HOPEFULLY some free agent guard and/or tackle help will mean some improvement. But that's all you're peddling right now Seymour..............hope.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:
Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

We have no idea how good or bad the oline is or will be. You cannot go by what Fable put on the field, that is for damn sure. Only thing you can count on is, he brought out the worst in everyone.

Right now our starting O-line is Brown (if he doesn't hold out again), ???? at left guard, Britt, Pocic and Ifedi.

I don't care if the ghost of Vince Lombardi has risen from the grave and is now our O-line coach, that's not a good line.

I HOPE Solari with HOPEFULLY some free agent guard and/or tackle help will mean some improvement. But that's all you're peddling right now Seymour..............hope.

Seymour wrote:
I never said they were good. I said wait, you've been listening to Fables. You said Horrible, I said Fable was in charge and we don't know. There is some middle ground between Good and Horrible.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
I never said they were good. I said wait, you've been listening to Fables. You said Horrible, I said Fable was in charge and we don't know. There is some middle ground between Good and Horrible.

Below average, mediocre, horrible, it's all semantics. It's mediocre at best, and horrible at worst.

Either way, as with every other position group this O-line is nowhere near at the level it needs to be for Solari to greatly improve the line, even if you think Cable stunk.

To bring it all back around to why Graham isn't coming back, and we're shopping every good player we have.............we're in BIG trouble all over the place, and desperately need picks and cap space to address major needs.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
I never said they were good. I said wait, you've been listening to Fables. You said Horrible, I said Fable was in charge and we don't know. There is some middle ground between Good and Horrible.

Below average, mediocre, horrible, it's all semantics. It's mediocre at best, and horrible at worst.

Either way, as with every other position group this O-line is nowhere near at the level it needs to be for Solari to greatly improve the line, even if you think Cable stunk.

To bring it all back around to why Graham isn't coming back, and we're shopping every good player we have.............we're in BIG trouble all over the place, and desperately need picks and cap space to address major needs.

Major needs created by...the departure of the players we're shopping.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Seymour wrote:
I never said they were good. I said wait, you've been listening to Fables. You said Horrible, I said Fable was in charge and we don't know. There is some middle ground between Good and Horrible.

Below average, mediocre, horrible, it's all semantics. It's mediocre at best, and horrible at worst.

Either way, as with every other position group this O-line is nowhere near at the level it needs to be for Solari to greatly improve the line, even if you think Cable stunk.

To bring it all back around to why Graham isn't coming back, and we're shopping every good player we have.............we're in BIG trouble all over the place, and desperately need picks and cap space to address major needs.

Major needs created by...the departure of the players we're shopping.

RolandDeschain wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

Now that we have a new OC, If we start intelligently using a passing tight end that is not Jimmy G. and he's gone from Seattle, I'm going to put a proverbial gun in my mouth thinking about what could have been.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

hawknation2018 wrote:The Seahawks need to get Russell Wilson some pass catchers.
Or we will be complaining ad nauseum about 3rd downs and red zone.

IndyHawk wrote:

hawknation2018 wrote:The Seahawks need to get Russell Wilson some pass catchers.
Or we will be complaining ad nauseum about 3rd downs and red zone.

This is an old cliche..
They need a RUN game or they are screwed!

adeltaY wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:
You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

Yeah, I really think some are over-exaggerating the loss of Jimmy and Paul. We still have Russell Wilson and the OL damn well better improve under Solari. We also had ONE RB rushing TD. That's far more of an outlier than Jimmy's 10 TDs were. If the running game is even average, we can get 11 RB rushing TDs and that makes up the difference there. If the running game is good, we can get 15+ RB rushing TDs. We have Darboh, hopefully he can get on the field more and get us some TDs. If the line holds up, Wilson stays healthy, and the offensive system is good, I'm not worried.

hawkman wrote:I sure hope they can find a way to keep him. You don’t let your one true star on O walk and get better.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:We're going to miss those ten touchdowns.

fridayfrenzy wrote:Jimmy Graham was awesome for the Seahawks and added something everyone complained about before...Redzone TDs.

Wilson to Graham was a pitch and catch TD almost every time and now people are acting like that is easy to replace.

adeltaY wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:

GeekHawk wrote:
You keep saying this. Like another tight end can't catch any touchdowns or something. Or like a true blocking tight end won't allow the WRs to catch an additional 20 touchdowns. Just "OMG Graham caught 10 TDs and nobody else in the world could ever do such a thing!"

Only three people in the league did it last year. I think five each year do it annually on average or something.

Also, we're probably jettisoning Paul Richardson's six touchdowns, so factor that in.

And finally, remember that even if we do (despite somehow being cash-strapped and pick-strapped) somehow recover those 16 TD's, that only gets us back to the level of our 2017 offense - which we all agree wasn't enough.

Didn't you hear, we're going back to running the ball to make up for all these lost TD's..................with no RB, no blocking TE, terrible blocking WR's and a horrible O-line.

Yeah, I really think some are over-exaggerating the loss of Jimmy and Paul. We still have Russell Wilson and the OL damn well better improve under Solari. We also had ONE RB rushing TD. That's far more of an outlier than Jimmy's 10 TDs were. If the running game is even average, we can get 11 RB rushing TDs and that makes up the difference there. If the running game is good, we can get 15+ RB rushing TDs. We have Darboh, hopefully he can get on the field more and get us some TDs. If the line holds up, Wilson stays healthy, and the offensive system is good, I'm not worried.