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 OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:28 am 
* Smackmeister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm
Posts: 6894
Offense
Marshawn Lynch - 26
Russell Wilson - 24
Percy Harvin - 24
Zach Miller - 27
Russell Okung - 25
Max Unger - 26

Defense
Richard Sherman - 24
Earl Thomas - 23
Bobby Wagner - 22

You can make an argument that each one of those guys is top 5 at his position...or will be within the next couple of years.

These other guys are pretty awesome too.

Offense
Robert Turbin - 23
Golden Tate - 24
Sidney Rice - 26
James Carpenter - 23
John Moffit - 26
Doug Baldwin - 24


Defense
KJ Wright - 23
Bruce Irvin - 23
Kam Chancellor - 24
Red Bryant - 28
Brandon Mebane - 28
Jason Jones - 26

Depending on how the FO decides to play Leroy Hill's OLB spot, and work with the D Line, our defense could be together for 4-5 years (assuming the work out the contracts) and our offense can manage the same. I'm sure some guys will leave to the allure of ridiculous free agent contracts, but if JS can keep reloading on the back end, we're in for an incredible decade or more.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:34 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
Can anyone think of a Seahawks roster that had more talent on it? Seriously, the 2013 Seahawks are stacked and not in the 2012 Eagles roster kind of way.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:35 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17307
Location: Graham, WA
Its beautiful compared to where we were a few years back ain't it?

I had no idea Moffitt was 26 though.

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:35 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:37 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1407
Location: Blaine, WA
Meanwhile, by adding Boldin and Reed to an already aging roster, the Niners are setting themselves up for injury issues and long term decline (see The Bears and Stealers of 2012).

Their draft picks this year will help mitigate some of that, if they hit on them.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:39 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm
Posts: 629
FlyingGreg wrote:
The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.


The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.

McGruff wrote:
Meanwhile, by adding Boldin and Reed to an already aging roster, the Niners are setting themselves up for injury issues and long term decline (see The Bears and Stealers of 2012).

Their draft picks this year will help mitigate some of that, if they hit on them.


It'll be interesting because SF isn't a team that generally trusts their rookies. At least that's been Harbaugh's MO. So even if they do hit on some, they may not be functional depth until next season.


Last edited by Attyla the Hawk on Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:41 am 
USMC 1970-77
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
Posts: 9530
Location: Monroe, WA
FlyingGreg wrote:
The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.

....but with PC&JS's ability to find guys late in the draft coupled with a strategy of keeping the competition going all the time should keep the team on the right track. We have the ability to bring 'marginal' guys in and not have to throw them in the fire right away, but can coach them up a season or two until they're ready.

Yeah, it's gonna be nerve-wracking when contract time comes up for some of these guys, but somehow I think Pete will have guys ready to step up if we lose players to the lure of money elsewhere. It looks like we have some depth at most positions that should carry us through.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:41 am 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9811
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Can anyone think of a Seahawks roster that had more talent on it? Seriously, the 2013 Seahawks are stacked and not in the 2012 Eagles roster kind of way.


Right now our backups would probably smack the shit out of the 2008 and 2009 teams.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:45 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
Posts: 1994
Location: Graham, WA
This team would beat 05 for sure

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:45 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
Attyla the Hawk wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.


The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.

McGruff wrote:
Meanwhile, by adding Boldin and Reed to an already aging roster, the Niners are setting themselves up for injury issues and long term decline (see The Bears and Stealers of 2012).

Their draft picks this year will help mitigate some of that, if they hit on them.


It'll be interesting because SF isn't a team that generally trusts their rookies. At least that's been Harbaugh's MO. So even if they do hit on some, they may not be functional depth until next season.


You can't keep everyone, but you have to keep the core together. Sherman isn't going anywhere, neither is Wilson...or Thomas and possibly Okung. After those guys, who knows.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:49 am 
* Smackmeister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm
Posts: 6894
Attyla the Hawk wrote:
FlyingGreg wrote:
The only downside is trying to keep guys when their cheap rookie deals expire in the next 2-4 years. There are going to be a lot of tough decisions, but that's the nature of the league.


The fallacy is in trying to keep them. This team needs to be getting the next Chancellor/Tate/Sherman. One thing we can definitely say about this FO, is that they are very comfortable with change. Changing to a 'trying to keep' them team is paramount to resting on one's laurels. I don't think that fits with the core philosophy of the team.

As fans, we fear it because we don't think it's easily replicated. Like we got lucky and now we have to stave off attrition. I don't think that's how this brain trust is wired.



Agreed. I think we'll keep the core guys, Thomas, Sherman, Wilson, Unger, Okung, Wagner.

I think those 5 are pretty safe until they start to decline. With a guy like Harvin it remains to be seen how he will fit in with the culture, but talent wise, I don't see how you can let him walk once you get him here. A lot of the difficulty is letting a Sidney Rice or Golden Tate take their big payday from someone else, but it is a very real possibility. As long as the cupboards are restocked with young talent it's a non-issue. Pete has been exemplary at getting rookies on the field in an impactful manner.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:16 am 
* NET E-Knight *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am
Posts: 4157
Sarlacc83 wrote:
Can anyone think of a Seahawks roster that had more talent on it? Seriously, the 2013 Seahawks are stacked and not in the 2012 Eagles roster kind of way.


I had this exact conversation with a coworker this morning. I can think of some years where the Hawks had better/deeper talent in specific positional groups (DL, OL off the top of my head) but nowhere NEAR the overall depth across the board. The best part about it, we will be in a position to continually replenish that depth with the way this front office operates.

And you are correct to point out the disparity between the Eagles (more 2011 "dream team") and the Hawks. Another good example is the Redskins through most of the 2000's.

_________________
cboom wrote:
Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:39 am 
* NET Sports Handicapper *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 9:13 am
Posts: 1407
Looks like the way I build my Madden teams. As soon as they get their 3rd contract (pushing 30) - they're outta here. You can sustain and build through the draft and 2nd contract FA's - the key is to stick to it. We do have a few guys that are carrying some big contracts - the key to this whole act is to make sure that the organization (and fans) do not get married to one or two guys. Everyone is valuable, but also should have the expectation that one day they will be gone if they want that big deal.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:43 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7701
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

Quote:
1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.


So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

So who would our 18 "stars" be?

First off, consider those guys who are already on that 2nd deal: Rice, Harvin, Bryant, Mebane, Miller, Clemons, Lynch, Unger. That's 8.

You could add in Okung and Thomas as guys who got big rookie deals and will be priorities to re-sign. That brings it to 10.

Then the guys who are currently on cheap deals but will be top priority to re-sign before they hit the market: Wilson, Sherman. That's 12.

Who are the other 6 that we would include in that list?

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:00 am 
* NET Philistine *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 14120
Location: Portland, OR
volsunghawk wrote:
This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

Quote:
1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.


So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

So who would our 18 "stars" be?

First off, consider those guys who are already on that 2nd deal: Rice, Harvin, Bryant, Mebane, Miller, Clemons, Lynch, Unger. That's 8.

You could add in Okung and Thomas as guys who got big rookie deals and will be priorities to re-sign. That brings it to 10.

Then the guys who are currently on cheap deals but will be top priority to re-sign before they hit the market: Wilson, Sherman. That's 12.

Who are the other 6 that we would include in that list?


You have to figure that K.J. Wright or Bobby Wagner will be candidates for the list. Irvin, if he proves himself a LEO over the next couple of years.

_________________
Super Bowl Champions XVLIII


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:26 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7701
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
Sarlacc83 wrote:
volsunghawk wrote:
This seems like an ideal time to reference the research done by Davis Hsu on the Green Bay model of player management that was posted at Field Gulls a while back.

Basically, it outlined the idea that with few exceptions, the Packers don't bother with FA and instead reward their own FAs according to the following general philosophy:

Quote:
1/3 (One-third) - or more importantly - 18 - which is the closest number to 1/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay rewards 1/3 of its roster with big money 2nd contracts - typically players in Year 5-8 of their careers (peak) and about four more Legacy type players (Year 9+).

2/3 (two-thirds) - Or more importantly - 35- which is the closest number to 2/3 of a 53 man roster. Green Bay is able to always pay its best players, and never lose the players they want to another bidder, because 2/3 of the roster is cheap, young labor playing on inexpensive rookie contracts.

13 - or perhaps you can think of it as 1/4 - This is the number of new players that enter the Green Bay system each year.


So there are your stars that you reward with lucrative contracts, your role players who tend to be on cheap rookie deals, and a steady influx of new players to compete for jobs.

We are about to hit the point in PC/JS's tenure where guys who came in and were beloved because they were building blocks in turning our team's fortunes around are going to start leaving - either because they were offered a better deal in FA or because they get beat out by fresh blood from the draft. It's not going to be comfortable, but it should allow Seattle to sustain an excellent team for a long time.

So who would our 18 "stars" be?

First off, consider those guys who are already on that 2nd deal: Rice, Harvin, Bryant, Mebane, Miller, Clemons, Lynch, Unger. That's 8.

You could add in Okung and Thomas as guys who got big rookie deals and will be priorities to re-sign. That brings it to 10.

Then the guys who are currently on cheap deals but will be top priority to re-sign before they hit the market: Wilson, Sherman. That's 12.

Who are the other 6 that we would include in that list?


You have to figure that K.J. Wright or Bobby Wagner will be candidates for the list. Irvin, if he proves himself a LEO over the next couple of years.


Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:37 am 
* Smackmeister *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:56 pm
Posts: 6894
volsunghawk wrote:
Sarlacc83 wrote:

You have to figure that K.J. Wright or Bobby Wagner will be candidates for the list. Irvin, if he proves himself a LEO over the next couple of years.


Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?


Golden Tate or Doug Baldwin could make the list if they continue to improve. You need lots of receivers in the modern NFL. I think the last 5 or so on the 18 is going to be in flux every year.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:40 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:35 pm
Posts: 810
Location: Canby, OR
volsunghawk wrote:

Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?


Personally I think Browner is replaceable (if he wants a big contract). On the fence in regards to Okung. It seems like he would be replaceable, but sometimes you don't appreciate what you have until you lose 'em. I've seen some teams that let a solid LT go and then really pay the price for it.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 10:59 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:20 am
Posts: 7701
Location: Surrounded by Elway, Tebow, and Manning jerseys
I think you could make the argument that we've got about 15 or so key guys who we need to lock up and to whom we grant those big dollar deals. They'll take the bulk of the money available under the salary cap. In Hsu's analysis of the Green Bay model, about 80% of the available money went to those 18 star players. The last 20% is split up among the remaining 35 guys on rookie deals.

The benefit to this split is that you can pay at least market value to keep your star players and don't risk losing them in FA while you grow young talent within your culture and system. If that young talent blossoms and deserves to be rewarded with a 2nd contract, it will likely replace one of the older members of your group of 18 "stars." This keeps the team young and loyal (Hsu does a much better job of explaining this than I am doing... find it at http://www.fieldgulls.com/seahawks-anal ... -schneider).

In any case, I think that outside of the 15 or so guys we just named in this thread, we should be prepared to see departures when some of the other group start reaching the ends of their deals. We'll have new guys coming in to compete for their jobs anyway.

_________________
Image

Super Bowl XLVIII Champions


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:07 am 
* NET E-Knight *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:06 am
Posts: 4157
Starrman44 wrote:
volsunghawk wrote:

Okay, 15. Maybe add Chancellor as a unique player? Carpenter if he stays healthy and works well with Okung? Browner?


Personally I think Browner is replaceable (if he wants a big contract). On the fence in regards to Okung. It seems like he would be replaceable, but sometimes you don't appreciate what you have until you lose 'em. I've seen some teams that let a solid LT go and then really pay the price for it.


I can understand Browner, simply because of age. We could definitely live without him but he brings a physical presence that people underestimate. Just go back and watch the NE game, and when it starts to turn around. Brandon Browner lighting Wes Welker up (and others) was a big part of that.

As for Okung, that thought is crazy. Okung was one of the best LTs in the game last year, no way they let him test FA.

_________________
cboom wrote:
Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:44 am 
* NET Staff Alumni *
* NET Staff Alumni *
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
Posts: 1407
Location: Blaine, WA
Current Second Contract long-term Starters

Marshawn Lynch
Sydney Rice
Percy Harvin
Zach Miller
Max Unger
Brandon Mebane
Red Bryant

Keepers at almost any cost rookies (next contract):

Russell Wilson
Russell Okung
Earl Thomas
Richard Sherman
KJ Wright
Bobby Wagner

Aging Veteran Starters who are year-to-year

Breno Giacomini
Paul McQuistan
Michael Robinson
Chris Clemons

First contract starters/significant contributors with something to prove

James Carpenter
John Moffit
JR Sweezy
Golden Tate
Doug Baldwin
Bruce Irvin
Brandon Browner
Kam Chancellor

Backup players who could become significant with playing time

Malcolm Smith
Mike Morgan
Jeremy Lane
Byron Maxwell
Jeron Johnson

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.

_________________
<A>
<IMG></A>


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:18 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:45 pm
Posts: 660
Location: Yakima
McGruff wrote:
Current Second Contract long-term Starters

Marshawn Lynch
Sydney Rice
Percy Harvin
Zach Miller
Max Unger
Brandon Mebane
Red Bryant

Keepers at almost any cost rookies (next contract):

Russell Wilson
Russell Okung
Earl Thomas
Richard Sherman
KJ Wright
Bobby Wagner

Aging Veteran Starters who are year-to-year

Breno Giacomini
Paul McQuistan
Michael Robinson
Chris Clemons

First contract starters/significant contributors with something to prove

James Carpenter
John Moffit
JR Sweezy
Golden Tate
Doug Baldwin
Bruce Irvin
Brandon Browner
Kam Chancellor

Backup players who could become significant with playing time

Malcolm Smith
Mike Morgan
Jeremy Lane
Byron Maxwell
Jeron Johnson

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.


That's a really good overview. Pretty accurate I think. Since there are some high paydays coming up,
do you think the Harvin trade might be an "all in" move while these players are together?
Choices in free agency and the draft will probably be an indicator.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:16 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:09 am
Posts: 2903
Location: Omaha, NE
McGruff wrote:
Current Second Contract long-term Starters

Marshawn Lynch
Sydney Rice
Percy Harvin
Zach Miller
Max Unger
Brandon Mebane
Red Bryant

Keepers at almost any cost rookies (next contract):

Russell Wilson
Russell Okung
Earl Thomas
Richard Sherman
KJ Wright
Bobby Wagner

Aging Veteran Starters who are year-to-year

Breno Giacomini
Paul McQuistan
Michael Robinson
Chris Clemons

First contract starters/significant contributors with something to prove

James Carpenter
John Moffit
JR Sweezy
Golden Tate
Doug Baldwin
Bruce Irvin
Brandon Browner
Kam Chancellor

Backup players who could become significant with playing time

Malcolm Smith
Mike Morgan
Jeremy Lane
Byron Maxwell
Jeron Johnson

I'm probably missing people . . . but put the first two lists together, and you've got 13 names . . . from the 3rd group I think all are replaceable as their contracts come off the books, freeing up significant money. From the 4th group we need at least one of the guards to become long term starters and join the top 18 or so. I think you can tell from the salaries of Harvin and Rice that Tate and Baldwin are on the outside, looking in long term. And Browner and Kam could be considered expendable and replacable with lower cost alternatives.


Walter III

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Dang we're young...
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:27 pm 
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
*SILVER SUPPORTER*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:40 am
Posts: 4362
Location: Southern CA
Pete's college coaching experience melds perfectly with the Green Bay type strategy that John generally follows. Both guys are used to dealing with player turnover.

_________________
Help bring peace to the South LA / Puget Sound communities. Are you in?
http://www.abetterla.org | http://www.abetterseattle.com


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: akula, Ballz, bandiger, Bill Assumpcao, BirdsCommaAngry, BobcatHawk, brettb3, Cinque52, dbmack, dradee, dunceface, Escamillo, Floridahawk79, Geezerhawk, getnasty, godzillarad, Google [Bot], Hasselbeck, hawker84, Hawk_Nation, HHHTGT, InadvertentSmell, irocdave, Jazzhawk, jeremiah, JMR, JZ#1, kamikazehawk, kearly, keatonisballin, kf3339, Largefarva, LargentFan, Majestic-12 [Bot], McGruff, Missing_Clink, Morpheus08, muhmitchell, NCHawkFan, NoTurnUnstoned, okhawkfan, onanygivensunday, Pandion Haliaetus, PascoHawk, Perfundle, PlinytheCenter, rickychen, RolandDeschain, ruffENrowdy, samwize77, scutterhawk, Seabean, Seahawks4life, seahawksny, Seahawk_Dan, Seahwkgal, SHOCKER315, thaima1shu, the ditch, theENGLISHseahawk, Tokadub, Top, usChawks, VancitySeahawk, Whiskeyjack44, Yahoo [Bot], YaktownHawK, Yoonhawk, Yxes1122, zifnab32, ZorntoLargent and 272 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.