hawksincebirth wrote:
So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
volsunghawk wrote:If Sanchez was willing to take the league minimum, I STILL wouldn't take him as our backup. I would take T-Jack back over Sanchez for twice the price.
Shock2k wrote:So what was the problem with Portis? Why wouldn't we bring him back, given our current offensive scheme he would seem to be a good fit, and cheap.
hawksincebirth wrote:
So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
Cartire wrote:Shock2k wrote:So what was the problem with Portis? Why wouldn't we bring him back, given our current offensive scheme he would seem to be a good fit, and cheap.
Usually when a QB is on the PS for 2 years, its because hes cant get any higher. We like to call them "Projects" and "Prospects", but the truth is, PS QB almost never, ever make it higher then a backup, and thats if they are lucky.
He had some ok at bats during the 2011 preseason, but obviously nothing was to be with him after this year.
"GM John Schneider insists the Seahawks are "really excited" about the potential of second-year QB Josh Portis."He had a phenomenal preseason," said Schneider, "and made a lot of progress throughout the year as well." Schneider once again emphasized that the team will not make any panic moves at quarterback, such as "giving up draft choices to go get somebody" or "guaranteeing somebody a ton of money that you're not quite sure is the guy that's going to get you over the hump." That would seem to rule out RGIII and Matt Flynn. Thu, Feb 23, 2012 06:18:00 PMSource: Tacoma News Tribune "
SkinsGuru wrote:so do you guys think the Hawks FO will be trading Flynn?? There was some talk on NFL Live last night alluding to such a move . . . Thoughts??
ivotuk wrote:I would puke if we picked up Snatchez.
hawksincebirth wrote:
So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
Cartire wrote:Flynn is not that big of a hit as you guys are projecting it to be. Because our STARTER RW is making almost minimum pay, It offsets Flynns larger (and not crazy large btw) contract. We have 2 QB's on the Team right now that make a small fraction combined then most teams Starter QB's. There is no reason to get rid of our legit backup right now. He needs to remain one more season, then we project after that.
Sgt. Largent wrote:Cartire wrote:Flynn is not that big of a hit as you guys are projecting it to be. Because our STARTER RW is making almost minimum pay, It offsets Flynns larger (and not crazy large btw) contract. We have 2 QB's on the Team right now that make a small fraction combined then most teams Starter QB's. There is no reason to get rid of our legit backup right now. He needs to remain one more season, then we project after that.
This is true, but why not take advantage of that bonus by bringing in a lower priced backup? That way we have more cap space to sign a free agent starter......or to keep one of our own starters.
IMO with Wilson we have an advantage over other teams in regards to cap space........but that's negated if we keep Flynn. Yes he's a good backup, but is THAT much better and/or worth keeping over another suitable backup? That's the argument.
hawksincebirth wrote:
So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
Cartire wrote:
But we have no cap hits next year. Almost our whole team is rolling over again into next year. The only notables that need new contacts are Jason Jones and, I cant think of who else. Why would we need to sign an expensive free agent starter? Im sure we will grab some guys, but we dont need to break the bank to get anyone. We hold onto flynn for one more year (cause you never know what will happen) since it doesnt hurt us at all, and then we can start looking somewhere else when we need can free up some more space.
Sgt. Largent wrote:
You get my point, if there's a big named free agent out there I'd like as much cap space as possible to land him. Carroll and Schneider have proven that they can upgrade through the draft. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't go after free agents if available.
volsunghawk wrote:Sgt. Largent wrote:
You get my point, if there's a big named free agent out there I'd like as much cap space as possible to land him. Carroll and Schneider have proven that they can upgrade through the draft. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't go after free agents if available.
I would hope that Schneider follows his Green Bay roots when it comes to FA. Avoid the big payday names and get the depth that fits the team. Use FA as rarely as possible, and only when the opportunity and cost mesh with the team's overall philosophy.
Sgt. Largent wrote:volsunghawk wrote:Sgt. Largent wrote:
You get my point, if there's a big named free agent out there I'd like as much cap space as possible to land him. Carroll and Schneider have proven that they can upgrade through the draft. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't go after free agents if available.
I would hope that Schneider follows his Green Bay roots when it comes to FA. Avoid the big payday names and get the depth that fits the team. Use FA as rarely as possible, and only when the opportunity and cost mesh with the team's overall philosophy.
Mostly agree, but if we have a chance to bring in a Bowe or Wallace type that won't break the bank? How can you pass that up?
You're right though, it's obvious that Schneider is staying true to his GB roots with building a super strong foundation through the draft at every position, then adding pieces.
hawksincebirth wrote:
So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
Cartire wrote:
Bowe will break the bank and Wallace is on the Decline. Having Bowe would be nice, but not worth the pocket book. Wallace is the next Branch and Hucsh if he comes here.
Hawks46 wrote:
It's not all about getting an elite guy to go out there and crush the secondary (although that's nice). It's about scheme; our run game predicates how open our guys get downfield. Personally, I'd like a taller, bigger guy like BMW was that can run underneath and intermediate stuff and dominate one on one matchups. It would also be nice if our TEs continue to progress and get better (read: more consistent). You can only send so many guys deep. Say we sign Wallace; do we just run Rice on the other side and run them both deep ? Rice becomes an intermediate/underneath guy ?
volsunghawk wrote:If Sanchez was willing to take the league minimum, I STILL wouldn't take him as our backup. I would take T-Jack back over Sanchez for twice the price.
ImTheScientist wrote:This guy is the closest thing to beast mode we will ever see. You got a glimpse of that yesterday. He was instantly my favorite player when they signed him. Give the dude a chance and don't overreact or overthink preseason. Go Hawks. Lacy will rush for 1,100 and 10TDs. Bend the knee.
It is currently Fri Apr 20, 2018 1:07 am