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  [ 33 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:18 pm 
NET Pro Bowler
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
Posts: 11177
Location: Antioch, CA
Probably just Schneider doing his regular "leave no stone unturned" gig, but still interesting to hear that we contacted the Wallace camp at some point. This is just the first confirmation that I have seen that says the Hawks were even looking in his direction at any point. And that we were only one of a handful of teams to do so. Once we saw just how much money was being talked about was probably the cue to stop pursuing him.

Quote:
Mike Wallace Jr. claims his son actually turned down more money from the Minnesota Vikings. The St. Louis Rams and Seattle Seahawks were among the teams that also showed interest, according to Wallace's dad.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000155184/article/vikings-offered-mike-wallace-richer-contract-dad-says

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:32 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
The main thing I got from that article is that the Vikings have no idea what they're doing. Yeah, let's offer $13 million/yr to a WR whose only dimension is speed, so we can pair him with a QB who can't throw deep. I'm sure that would have ended well.


Last edited by DavidSeven on Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:33 pm 
* NET Eeyore *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
Posts: 10541
Location: Pasco, WA
I'm glad we didn't sign him. I am happy we have Harvin even if it cost us our 1st rd pick.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:29 am 
* Mr Random Thought *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am
Posts: 9843
DavidSeven wrote:
The main thing I got from that article is that the Vikings have no idea what they're doing. Yeah, let's offer $13 million/yr to a WR whose only dimension is speed, so we can pair him with a QB who can't throw deep. I'm sure that would have ended well.


Good point. I've been thinking for a while that Minnesota seems 2 years away from disaster, and this supports that idea as well as anything. In a way, they remind me of the Raiders when they traded for Palmer. A good team at that moment in time, but destined to suck and suck badly within a couple years. That's what happens when you have a weak armed QB leading an aging roster.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:57 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:04 pm
Posts: 1861
kearly wrote:
DavidSeven wrote:
The main thing I got from that article is that the Vikings have no idea what they're doing. Yeah, let's offer $13 million/yr to a WR whose only dimension is speed, so we can pair him with a QB who can't throw deep. I'm sure that would have ended well.


Good point. I've been thinking for a while that Minnesota seems 2 years away from disaster, and this supports that idea as well as anything. In a way, they remind me of the Raiders when they traded for Palmer. A good team at that moment in time, but destined to suck and suck badly within a couple years. That's what happens when you have a weak armed QB leading an aging roster.


I think they are an Adrian Peterson historic season away from being a disaster. They have a decent defense, but if AP doesn't put them on his back last year I think they are one of league's worst teams last year.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:05 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:47 pm
Posts: 2824
Location: Seattle
The Vikings have been a poorly run team for a while, even the year they made it to the NFC Championship game. They've always appeared shortsighted and confused. Holding onto the idea of Favre too long, letting a solid young talent like Rice just walk away in FA, drafting Ponder, keeping with Ponder last year, seemingly treating Ponder as the unquestioned starter for 2013, etc. They let young talent walk, they make horrible errors at QB beyond lucking out with Favre for one year, they've made some bad moves in the draft, they don't have the balls to move on from bad players (though they let Sid walk and can't hang onto an elite young player like Harvin), and so on and so on. They come off as a delusional franchise with many delusional fans who think Ponder is going to grow into this franchise quarterback he was never going to be and thinking they aren't a team whose best players are near the end of their primes or careers in general that needs to focus more on rebuilding than anything else at this point.

I know there's a lot said about the Seahawks and Vikings swapping players here and there, but I think there's just a series of unrelated moves and with our current regime + their's you're just seeing a franchise that lets really good young players leave and another that knows that these types aren't usually available and snatching them up.

When I was hearing they were in on Wallace before he signed in Miami, I thought it was absurd. What a ridiculous pairing. They trade away the type of guy Ponder needs for success that can make plays if this bad QB just does a minimal job and gets the ball in the guy's hands (which Percy reportedly recognized as he argued that Ponder wasn't worthwhile), and then pursue a guy hard in FA for more money that's biggest talent is doing something their QB can't take advantage of. This is just an awful franchise, it reminds me of the Ruskell era. Just awful decision after awful decision, some good players might sneak through, some good vets carrying over from better days, but lots of good players leaving the team and a team that really has no hope to go anywhere. Sometimes bad teams make the playoffs, the Vikings were a bad team last year, they were carried by a historic performance by AP and a decent defense, but it's just not a good team. I'd bet on them picking top 3 next year before I bet they make the playoffs again.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:10 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10063
I kind of got the idea long before Wallace went to Miami that he is a south beach kind of guy. We don't know waht Seattle had offered, but no doubt it was competitive.

And the more money in Minnesota thing is pointless, unless the guaranteed was more. His Miami deal actually has some club options built in after three years, so fixing on the 65 million number could be pretty innaccurate.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:51 pm 
* The Doc *
* The Doc *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:33 am
Posts: 8882
Location: Covington, Washington
Side note on Ponder.

The Vikings once had Joe Kapp as their starter. He got them to the Superbowl, was tough as nails but it was the defense more than Kapp's skills that made them a force. Ponder probably looks like a godsend compared to what the old duffers saw with Kapp.

_________________
Image
Leon Washington 2010-2012 Red Bryant 2008-2013 Chris Clemons 2010-2013 Golden Tate 2010-2013
Brandon Browner 2011-2013 Breno Giacomini 2011-2013 - Gone but not forgotten.
Wilson will sign for $18M+ (3/4/2014)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:30 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:35 pm
Posts: 200
Location: Olympia
I am happy we ended up with Harvin. I am not a big fan of Wallace tbh and I think Harvin is a superior player. Had we not received Harvin then I would have preferred to get a WR in the draft to signing super 1 dimensional Wallace.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:35 pm 
* NET Cynic *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3512
Location: St. Louis, MO
They should have been interested in Wallace. He's an elite deep ball receiver, and we have one of the best deep-ball passers in the league.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:18 pm 
* NET Radish *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
Posts: 18018
Location: Spokane, Wa.
drdiags wrote:
Side note on Ponder.

The Vikings once had Joe Kapp as their starter. He got them to the Superbowl, was tough as nails but it was the defense more than Kapp's skills that made them a force. Ponder probably looks like a godsend compared to what the old duffers saw with Kapp.



Kapp was awful in that he threw "dying quails" for passes tho he did get them there on time. As Doc said he was mostly gritty and hung in there but was not much of a QB.

:les:

_________________
Image
The SuperB owl ladys have left the building with our thanks.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:24 pm 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7408
Location: CVN-68
Harvin is a much better fit for our offense.

_________________
@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: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:32 pm 
* NET Cynic *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3512
Location: St. Louis, MO
FlyingGreg wrote:
Harvin is a much better fit for our offense.

Absolutely. Wallace was definitely worth looking into though, and would have been a nice option had we not been able to add Harvin.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
I am just grateful Harvin doesn't have Wallace's agent. Wallace is a one trick pony and his agent deserves an incredible bonus for orchestrating one of the most insane deals since the Raiders signed Carson Palmer. Bizarre.

Edit: Romo just got a long term deal at 18 mil per (with 55 guaranteed). The madness continues.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:40 pm 
* NET Cynic *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3512
Location: St. Louis, MO
HawkWow wrote:
I am just grateful Harvin doesn't have Wallace's agent. Wallace is a one trick pony and his agent deserves an incredible bonus for orchestrating one of the most insane deals since the Raiders signed Carson Palmer. Bizarre.

Edit: Romo just got a long term deal at 18 mil per (with 55 guaranteed). The madness continues.

Wallace does a lot on the field; he's not a one-trick pony, he just has something that he does so well that it overshadows the rest of his game.

Romo is a top 10 QB, and that's what the going rate is for that. Good move for the Cowboys. Franchise QBs are hard to find, so lock him when you do find one.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:47 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
Rat wrote:
HawkWow wrote:
I am just grateful Harvin doesn't have Wallace's agent. Wallace is a one trick pony and his agent deserves an incredible bonus for orchestrating one of the most insane deals since the Raiders signed Carson Palmer. Bizarre.

Edit: Romo just got a long term deal at 18 mil per (with 55 guaranteed). The madness continues.

Wallace does a lot on the field; he's not a one-trick pony, he just has something that he does so well that it overshadows the rest of his game.

Romo is a top 10 QB, and that's what the going rate is for that. Good move for the Cowboys. Franchise QBs are hard to find, so lock him when you do find one.


I respect your opinion but couldn't disagree more. Wallace is more of a track guy playing football than vice versa. Plus he has a bad attitude and drops too many balls. Crime of the century and I believe time will prove my position.

Romo? Romo is a choke artist. He has good fundamentals, a good arm, but loses the plot in crunch time. The examples are many. I think it was a better deal for the rest of the NFC than it was for the Cowboys. I'm good with that.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:49 pm 
* NET Cynic *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3512
Location: St. Louis, MO
The Romo choke stuff is WAY overblown. He has been pretty studly for most of the past few years.

It took the Seahawks nearly 40 years to find a QB better than Romo (we assume, which feels safe, but you never know). You can't let a guy like him go.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:06 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:50 pm
Posts: 499
HawkWow wrote:
Rat wrote:
HawkWow wrote:
I am just grateful Harvin doesn't have Wallace's agent. Wallace is a one trick pony and his agent deserves an incredible bonus for orchestrating one of the most insane deals since the Raiders signed Carson Palmer. Bizarre.

Edit: Romo just got a long term deal at 18 mil per (with 55 guaranteed). The madness continues.

Wallace does a lot on the field; he's not a one-trick pony, he just has something that he does so well that it overshadows the rest of his game.

Romo is a top 10 QB, and that's what the going rate is for that. Good move for the Cowboys. Franchise QBs are hard to find, so lock him when you do find one.


I respect your opinion but couldn't disagree more. Wallace is more of a track guy playing football than vice versa. Plus he has a bad attitude and drops too many balls. Crime of the century and I believe time will prove my position.

Romo? Romo is a choke artist. He has good fundamentals, a good arm, but loses the plot in crunch time. The examples are many. I think it was a better deal for the rest of the NFC than it was for the Cowboys. I'm good with that.




Your Logic don't make sense. Then DHB whould have produced same yards as Wallace.

I think you should watch Wallace's last season highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KFfTKLc36E


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:14 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
Highlights were apparently enough for Miami, too. I'm not saying Wallace is garbage...I'm saying he was over-paid and we clearly got the better deal with Harvin. We have more weapons than Miami and I'd still be willing to bet Harvin's numbers exceed Wallace's in '13.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:16 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
Rat wrote:
The Romo choke stuff is WAY overblown. He has been pretty studly for most of the past few years.



OK.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:24 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am
Posts: 3100
Personally, I don't think the choke artist stuff in regard to Romo is blown enough. He doesn't just choke away playoff games. He's played horribly in almost every prime time game he's ever been involved in. This guy doesn't do well when the spotlight is bright. Look at their record the last three seasons: 8-8, 8-8, 6-10. We've had QBs who could have taken us to those records with the same surrounding talent in Dallas.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:30 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:46 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: WA
Carmon1274 wrote:
Your Logic don't make sense. Then DHB whould have produced same yards as Wallace.

I think you should watch Wallace's last season highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KFfTKLc36E


Am I the only one who got bored watching this?

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


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:33 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
DavidSeven wrote:
Personally, I don't think the choke artist stuff in regard to Romo is blown enough. He doesn't just choke away playoff games. He's played horribly in almost every prime time game he's ever been involved in. This guy doesn't do well when the spotlight is bright. Look at their record the last three seasons: 8-8, 8-8, 6-10. We've had QBs who could have taken us to those records with the same surrounding talent in Dallas.


Yeah, but he was stuck with Bryant, Witten, Austin and Murray. Hard to win games with guys like that. ;) In fairness to Romo, he has a crap line, but that does not excuse his deer in the headlights look every time a play has to be made. Perhaps one of the most over-rated QBs of this era and I am now convinced he has pictures of Jerry Jones wearing a little bo peep outfit.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:43 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:53 pm
Posts: 141
HawkFan72 wrote:
Probably just Schneider doing his regular "leave no stone unturned" gig, but still interesting to hear that we contacted the Wallace camp at some point. This is just the first confirmation that I have seen that says the Hawks were even looking in his direction at any point. And that we were only one of a handful of teams to do so. Once we saw just how much money was being talked about was probably the cue to stop pursuing him.

Quote:
Mike Wallace Jr. claims his son actually turned down more money from the Minnesota Vikings. The St. Louis Rams and Seattle Seahawks were among the teams that also showed interest, according to Wallace's dad.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000155184/article/vikings-offered-mike-wallace-richer-contract-dad-says


John Schneider specifically said they "Were not involved with any of the Free Agent WR's"

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_player_sports/?a=9953606&p=1034&n=John%20Clayton%20Show (27 minute mark)

- I smell BS here. Either Schneider is lying or Wallace's dad is trying to compensate for his son for some reason?

I think it's safer to bet that Schneider was the more truthful. Both Pete and John have been very honest about things in past interviews. They have told us exactly what they were going to do and have gone out and done it for a few off-seasons now.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:34 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 4682
Location: The 5-0
"Dads" should just shy away from the media, IMO. I too trust JS over some malcontents daddy. What else has he told his dad? That Paul Allen offered him a share of the Trailblazers? That he is secretly working for the CIA and once smothered Beyonce' in mayonnaise?

All of this has to be taken with a grain of salt. The good news is we got Harvin and NOT Wallace. Wallace Sr. only needs to know he will have nice seats, a Rolex and a T-shirt featuring a mammal jumping through a hula hoop.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 8:39 pm 
* Handsome *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:37 pm
Posts: 2873
Location: Tri Cities, WA
The old guy from 60 minutes?

_________________
"it'd be a newborn deer" - pehawk


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:52 am 
* NET Curmudgeon *
* NET Curmudgeon *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:06 am
Posts: 7225
Location: Eastern Washington
DJrmb wrote:
HawkFan72 wrote:
Probably just Schneider doing his regular "leave no stone unturned" gig, but still interesting to hear that we contacted the Wallace camp at some point. This is just the first confirmation that I have seen that says the Hawks were even looking in his direction at any point. And that we were only one of a handful of teams to do so. Once we saw just how much money was being talked about was probably the cue to stop pursuing him.

Quote:
Mike Wallace Jr. claims his son actually turned down more money from the Minnesota Vikings. The St. Louis Rams and Seattle Seahawks were among the teams that also showed interest, according to Wallace's dad.


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000155184/article/vikings-offered-mike-wallace-richer-contract-dad-says


John Schneider specifically said they "Were not involved with any of the Free Agent WR's"

http://mynorthwest.com/category/pod_player_sports/?a=9953606&p=1034&n=John%20Clayton%20Show (27 minute mark)

- I smell BS here. Either Schneider is lying or Wallace's dad is trying to compensate for his son for some reason?

I think it's safer to bet that Schneider was the more truthful. Both Pete and John have been very honest about things in past interviews. They have told us exactly what they were going to do and have gone out and done it for a few off-seasons now.


"Showed interest" is not the same thing as "was involved with." It's possible the Seahawks phoned the Wallace camp just long enough to find out what the starting numbers really were -- which Wallace's dad could fairly interpret as "interest", but wouldn't qualify as "involvement" to JS. I don't assume either side was lying in this situation.

_________________
49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.
49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:39 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm
Posts: 2274
Rat wrote:
The Romo choke stuff is WAY overblown. He has been pretty studly for most of the past few years.


Peyton Manning is a choke artist too.
Romo is no better/worse than Matt Ryan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:41 pm 
* NET Cynic *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
Posts: 3512
Location: St. Louis, MO
themunn wrote:
Rat wrote:
The Romo choke stuff is WAY overblown. He has been pretty studly for most of the past few years.


Peyton Manning is a choke artist too.
Romo is no better/worse than Matt Ryan

Romo is way better than Matt Ryan. If we hadn't lucked out in the draft last year, and the Cowboys had let him go, I'd be thrilled to get Romo for what the Cowboys got him for.


Last edited by Rat on Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:52 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:36 pm
Posts: 145
Hawk Strap wrote:
The old guy from 60 minutes?


Now THAT was funny!! :icon_new:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:47 pm 
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
*GOLD SUPPORTER*
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
Posts: 4631
Location: Puyallup, WA USA
Rat wrote:

Romo is way better than Matt Ryan. If we hadn't lucked out in the draft last year, and the Cowboys had let him go, I'd be thrilled to get Romo for what the Cowboys got him for.



Me thinks that your proximity to Texas must be affecting your mind! :roll:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:07 pm 
US Navy Air VP 56 `74-`78
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 1455
Location: Smokey Point
Romo will continually get your team into draft position #17.
It is not whether he has blown big games, it is that his w/l record in big games is about 1-16.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seahawks were interested in Mike Wallace
 Post Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 11:50 pm 
NET Rookie
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:55 pm
Posts: 128
Location: The Wall
If we had a Mike Wallace paired with Percy Harvin, I would probably say in 2013 the Seahawks will field a record-breaking offense, for sure.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ] 

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



 
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.