MontanaHawk05
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 1, 2009
- Messages
- 18,575
- Reaction score
- 1,511
nanomoz":3gk0cp6r said:
Which is probably more than 50% of why they're doing it.
1 Year FA philosophy - risky?
- Thread starter mikeak
- Start date
Which is probably more than 50% of why they're doing it.
Largent80
New member
The ultimate goal is win the superbowl, not how many comp. picks you get for losing players because of success.
ivotuk
Well-known member
They use a 3+ year model, so even though they give out one year contacts, they're thinking about how they effects the team down the road.
They don't want to get stung with another Carey Williams deal that effected the cap in a bad way.
They don't want to get stung with another Carey Williams deal that effected the cap in a bad way.
Pandion Haliaetus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 3,976
- Reaction score
- 989
Not at all, at this day and age, as Cary Williams and J'marcus Webb have taught us, you can't bend to fill. When you give mediocre veterans multi-year deals with guaranteed money, the Seahawks have gotten burned. Seahawks shelled out almost $10m for 2 guys who gave the Seahawks 18 games, 13 starts.
In the curious case of Webb, he not only gave 8 games, 3 starts before he was cut: he wasn't a great role model or mentor, his injury forced Gilliam back to RT, which in my opinion one of the reasons for Gilliam' s regression amongst other things.
Seahawks promised Gilliam an opportunity to compete at LT, I'm sure he wasn't too happy about being forced back to RT because of Webb as Gilliam spent his entire off-season training to be a LT. Then when Sowell got hurt, Fant was given the opportunity over Gil because it was obvious the Seahawks didn't want anything to do with Webb.
I'm certain Gilliam, behind the scenes, probably propositioned Cable for the LT job during Sowell's absence. I could see Gilliam sour when Cable said Gilliam would stay at RT, and that was all but cemented when the Seahawks cut Webb leaving Gilliam without any leverage. At that point Gilliam bitter, probably started to mail it in and his performance fell off even more so. Which probably led to more talks with Cable I could imagine leading up to Gilliam' s demotion to get his mind right or whatever.
I'm speculating but the logic is within reason of the timeline. I think it's part of the reason why Gilliam was re-signed, the potential he showed in the 2nd half of 2015 where he was an average to above average performer was kind of set back in 2016 for the reasons stated above. And the Seahawks challenged Gil to fight for it, grit it out, put it on the field when he was put back in after 3 games.
But back to Webb, so all of that was affected by Webb plus he cost the Seahawks a comp pick for Mebane or Sweezy.
TL
R version:
What did Webb cost the Seahawks?
- $2.55m for 8 games, 3 starts none at RT
- With no leadership to show for it
- Circumstances possibly leading to Gilliams regression/demotion
- Partly to blame for Russell Wilson's lack of mobility, as Webb got hurt, putting rookie Rees Odhiambo at RG in the play Suh steps on Russ's ankle IIRC. Or it could have been Webb getting owned.
- Probably a 5th Round Comp, maybe a 4th but I'm not going to look for a chart.
So, case in point Seahawks learned from their past. Not to put themselves in a multi-year deficit. Not to put themselves in a position where free agents don't have to prove themselves first in our system and earn it.
By all accounts, this was a really poor market, and I'm glad the Seahawks didn't shackle themselves to long term contracts like they did with Webb and Williams, and to a lesser extent like Kearse and Lane, both who seemingly regressed after getting paid and those deals force the Seahawks to keep them on roster.
Other than Joeckel's 7.25m guaranteed but at least if he fails, that 7.25m comes back 2017. No dead cap to deal with like the $3m shelled out for Williams and Webb over this year and last year.
And I'm certain Seahawks want all of these guys to thrive, to perform, to exceed expectations, why wouldn't they. They've put themselves in a position that if these guys perform well, they will net them comps picks.
And that's the end game, with a crazy FA market, any sustained success for a team paying so many premium players, you really need to build through the draft. More draft picks the better. We know this.
Not counting future contract signings, Seahawks signed, re-signed, or tendered:
DB Parrish Cox
PK Blair Walsh
RB Troymaine Pope
RB Terrance McGee
OT Garry Gilliam
OT Luke Joeckel
RB Eddy Lacy
CB Neiko Thorpe
CB Deshawn Shead
TE Luke Willson
OL Oday Aboushi
LB Arthur Brown
DB Bradley McDougald
12 players. Not all guaranteed to make the team. But all having to compete either to make the roster or earn playing time and perform well to gain any future value. Only long term commitment is Thorpe at 2 years. Meaning whatever cap Seahawks put in for these guys, they'll get back.
12 players for money other teams probably spent on just 1-2 players. I'd say at least 3/4th of these guys will have the opportunity to be either starters or key backups and/or key special teams contributors.
Not a bad haul. No true difference makers unless you can get Joeckel and Lacy to play to thier utmost potential.
I see this off-season as a success thus far, Seahawks have done well in getting back to thier recipe of success, churning out bodies for high competition with some risk for reward free agents while also raising thier floors at certain positions.
Sure everyone would rather was the ceiling but last year's team still won 11 of 18 games dealing with many key injuries. The team beat both Superbowl contenders. The team also had alot of youth on the roster, plenty of rookies, first-time/full-time starters especially at O-Line and RB.
I think the Seahawks are doing exactly what they need to thus far, now they just need to go out and get those ceiling raisers through the draft, and churn out more bodies for competition.
In the curious case of Webb, he not only gave 8 games, 3 starts before he was cut: he wasn't a great role model or mentor, his injury forced Gilliam back to RT, which in my opinion one of the reasons for Gilliam' s regression amongst other things.
Seahawks promised Gilliam an opportunity to compete at LT, I'm sure he wasn't too happy about being forced back to RT because of Webb as Gilliam spent his entire off-season training to be a LT. Then when Sowell got hurt, Fant was given the opportunity over Gil because it was obvious the Seahawks didn't want anything to do with Webb.
I'm certain Gilliam, behind the scenes, probably propositioned Cable for the LT job during Sowell's absence. I could see Gilliam sour when Cable said Gilliam would stay at RT, and that was all but cemented when the Seahawks cut Webb leaving Gilliam without any leverage. At that point Gilliam bitter, probably started to mail it in and his performance fell off even more so. Which probably led to more talks with Cable I could imagine leading up to Gilliam' s demotion to get his mind right or whatever.
I'm speculating but the logic is within reason of the timeline. I think it's part of the reason why Gilliam was re-signed, the potential he showed in the 2nd half of 2015 where he was an average to above average performer was kind of set back in 2016 for the reasons stated above. And the Seahawks challenged Gil to fight for it, grit it out, put it on the field when he was put back in after 3 games.
But back to Webb, so all of that was affected by Webb plus he cost the Seahawks a comp pick for Mebane or Sweezy.
TL
R version:What did Webb cost the Seahawks?
- $2.55m for 8 games, 3 starts none at RT
- With no leadership to show for it
- Circumstances possibly leading to Gilliams regression/demotion
- Partly to blame for Russell Wilson's lack of mobility, as Webb got hurt, putting rookie Rees Odhiambo at RG in the play Suh steps on Russ's ankle IIRC. Or it could have been Webb getting owned.
- Probably a 5th Round Comp, maybe a 4th but I'm not going to look for a chart.
So, case in point Seahawks learned from their past. Not to put themselves in a multi-year deficit. Not to put themselves in a position where free agents don't have to prove themselves first in our system and earn it.
By all accounts, this was a really poor market, and I'm glad the Seahawks didn't shackle themselves to long term contracts like they did with Webb and Williams, and to a lesser extent like Kearse and Lane, both who seemingly regressed after getting paid and those deals force the Seahawks to keep them on roster.
Other than Joeckel's 7.25m guaranteed but at least if he fails, that 7.25m comes back 2017. No dead cap to deal with like the $3m shelled out for Williams and Webb over this year and last year.
And I'm certain Seahawks want all of these guys to thrive, to perform, to exceed expectations, why wouldn't they. They've put themselves in a position that if these guys perform well, they will net them comps picks.
And that's the end game, with a crazy FA market, any sustained success for a team paying so many premium players, you really need to build through the draft. More draft picks the better. We know this.
Not counting future contract signings, Seahawks signed, re-signed, or tendered:
DB Parrish Cox
PK Blair Walsh
RB Troymaine Pope
RB Terrance McGee
OT Garry Gilliam
OT Luke Joeckel
RB Eddy Lacy
CB Neiko Thorpe
CB Deshawn Shead
TE Luke Willson
OL Oday Aboushi
LB Arthur Brown
DB Bradley McDougald
12 players. Not all guaranteed to make the team. But all having to compete either to make the roster or earn playing time and perform well to gain any future value. Only long term commitment is Thorpe at 2 years. Meaning whatever cap Seahawks put in for these guys, they'll get back.
12 players for money other teams probably spent on just 1-2 players. I'd say at least 3/4th of these guys will have the opportunity to be either starters or key backups and/or key special teams contributors.
Not a bad haul. No true difference makers unless you can get Joeckel and Lacy to play to thier utmost potential.
I see this off-season as a success thus far, Seahawks have done well in getting back to thier recipe of success, churning out bodies for high competition with some risk for reward free agents while also raising thier floors at certain positions.
Sure everyone would rather was the ceiling but last year's team still won 11 of 18 games dealing with many key injuries. The team beat both Superbowl contenders. The team also had alot of youth on the roster, plenty of rookies, first-time/full-time starters especially at O-Line and RB.
I think the Seahawks are doing exactly what they need to thus far, now they just need to go out and get those ceiling raisers through the draft, and churn out more bodies for competition.
bigskydoc
Well-known member
Nice post PH. Thanks
seahawkfreak
New member
mikeak":3rxwhq0y said:
I suppose it would be a negative if Seattle did this every year. The team's issue the past couple of years seems to be depth so one year deals on a young team might not be a bad idea. Get some hungry players that think they have been overlooked and that want a starting job and a big contract. The FO's FA talent evaluation and cap management seems to be Seattle's competitive advantage in the league so they should use it.
What if Lacy and Graham have stellar seasons in 2017? Might only be able to keep one after the year is up. This is a problem that any team would be ok with having (just an example, I realize there are multiple variables involved). Seattle just has to make sure they pick the right one.
Not really concerned about consistency when it comes to depth players. If they are too good at the end of the contract to ride the pine and we cannot afford them, good for them. Time to move on and find more depth.
mikeak
Well-known member
OK lets look at what the two bad ones cost - Williams and Webb
Williams
Signed a 3 year $18million contract
Signing Bonus was $3.5M
Guaranteed money was $7M -- all paid in 2015 his first year of the Contract
Cost for having him for year 2 and 3 of the Contract -- 2/3 of $3.5M so the cost was $2.3M -- everything else went away when we cut him
Point being if we sign Cary Williams to a 1 year deal we save $2.3M -- if he had panned out and been a good player we would have had him under contract for another 2 years. $2.3M is NOT that much in dead money. The problem with Cary is that he sucked from day 1 and he would have sucked regardless if it was a 1 or a 3 year deal
Webb
I don't really care what it cost to sign him. The question of this thread is what did it cost in ADDITION to sign him to a two year deal vs a one year deal. The loss of a comp pick would have been there regardless
Signing bonus - $1.2M for 2 years - dead money for 2nd year - $600k. ZERO guaranteed money for year 2
Both of these deals were great from the standpoint that you could cut the player with minimal impact for year 2 and 3. From a "how to draft a contract" they were great by the FO and an example for how to do it. They are not examples why you shouldn't sign a guy to 2 or 3 years......
Pandion -- without copying your whole post appreciate the input. I do agree that the FA market this year drove the 1 year deals to a large extent. I also agree that from a 2017 season perspective we did good. I am actually not even saying we did bad for the future I am simply saying that it should be concerning with this many FA going into 2018 and we really need to hit it in the upcoming draft.
Signing some FA for need will allow us to draft the best players which does increase the odds but don't kid yourself we have to be very active in the FA market next year unless all our draft picks stick and the 1 year deals aren't sustainable long term
Williams
Signed a 3 year $18million contract
Signing Bonus was $3.5M
Guaranteed money was $7M -- all paid in 2015 his first year of the Contract
Cost for having him for year 2 and 3 of the Contract -- 2/3 of $3.5M so the cost was $2.3M -- everything else went away when we cut him
Point being if we sign Cary Williams to a 1 year deal we save $2.3M -- if he had panned out and been a good player we would have had him under contract for another 2 years. $2.3M is NOT that much in dead money. The problem with Cary is that he sucked from day 1 and he would have sucked regardless if it was a 1 or a 3 year deal
Webb
I don't really care what it cost to sign him. The question of this thread is what did it cost in ADDITION to sign him to a two year deal vs a one year deal. The loss of a comp pick would have been there regardless
Signing bonus - $1.2M for 2 years - dead money for 2nd year - $600k. ZERO guaranteed money for year 2
Both of these deals were great from the standpoint that you could cut the player with minimal impact for year 2 and 3. From a "how to draft a contract" they were great by the FO and an example for how to do it. They are not examples why you shouldn't sign a guy to 2 or 3 years......
Pandion -- without copying your whole post appreciate the input. I do agree that the FA market this year drove the 1 year deals to a large extent. I also agree that from a 2017 season perspective we did good. I am actually not even saying we did bad for the future I am simply saying that it should be concerning with this many FA going into 2018 and we really need to hit it in the upcoming draft.
Signing some FA for need will allow us to draft the best players which does increase the odds but don't kid yourself we have to be very active in the FA market next year unless all our draft picks stick and the 1 year deals aren't sustainable long term
mikeak
Well-known member
seahawkfreak":fxfzjbwo said:
This is all opinion based so in the end we will all disagree and I think it is partially because of this
I don't see $3M-$5M on a RB and $7M+ on an OL to be money spent on "depth players"
I see that as money spent on starters and for starters I think consistency matters
The rest of the guys - 100% agree with you (and several other posters). Having a churn of the below starter guys that are very motivated to play awesome on their one year deal is probably a really good thing
Attyla the Hawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2013
- Messages
- 2,559
- Reaction score
- 47
mikeak":3duonjt5 said:
This isn't bad. It's good. Teams get in cap hell because they pay bloated contracts to bad talent. And next year, you have other options/avenues to keep players (increasing cap, ability to resign own players before UFA period begins, other contracts falling off the books). You have considerably more cap flexibility which is the real key.
The alternative of course would be you sign 3 guys to long term deals. One hits, the other two fail. You now eat dead money to release the other two. And you still have to spend to replace them on the roster.
One year deals on unknown quality is always preferred. You are paying the cap hit all up front, and are free to address the failed attempts to improve in the following year.
mikeak":3duonjt5 said:
This isn't true. You still have the option to pay them a higher salary. A new deal can have very little new money in it up front. The reality is too, that your next year, your entire roster is a year older. Some of those salaries that come off the books in 2018 aren't going to be retained.
It's worth noting too -- that Seattle is very rigidly against pushing cap space down the road. They like to pay up front. Many of our contracts actually decline in cap value as they come closer to expiring.
Flexibility in the cap: one year deals in conjunction with front loaded contracts in conjunction with limited dead money in conjunction with targeting younger talent -- gives Seattle the ability to resign players who do hit. The youth of the guys we target (almost always 25-27 yrs) gives us a greater measure of realizing maximum value for a 3 year resign commitment.
mikeak":3duonjt5 said:
This is totally true. In this age however, that's completely unavoidable. All teams have to roll over talent. The best teams year in and year out are the ones that successfully reload cheap talent. The Patriots are absolute masters of this and it's been undeniably one of the two most important reasons for their success.
The best you can do, is to keep your core guys around. And change out your role players.
mikeak":3duonjt5 said:
Yes, we reload with rookies. That's exactly what you want to do with role player talent.
It's also why pre drafting ahead of need is so useful. And why we do it. One can look at who we draft a year or two in advance of these expiring contracts. So that when the time comes for them to roll off the books (to help pave the way for resigning UFAs that stick) -- we have a successor in place in the system and somewhat experienced.
Seattle uses roster mirrors for this express purpose. To give us flexibility where we need it. We can't know which players we can't live without two years down the road. But having options so that when you have to make tough choices on the roster -- as every team in the league does -- we can allow those players whose backups are the most ready to contribute.
These one year deals are perfect. If a guy just becomes something awesome (like Michael Bennett in 2013), you can make a tough choice elsewhere. Maybe with a player that has a capable alternative. Or a player whose role isn't as vital to success. Or a player whose position is strong in UFA or the draft. Or a guy who's on the wrong side of 30.
It's not a bad thing to have too many great players that are worth top dollar in this league. Even if you have to pick between two great players -- you have the flexibility to let walk the one player who is more readily replaceable.
hawknation2017
New member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2017
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reaction score
- 0
As strange as this may sound, I believe the front office is committed to paying players what they are worth.
They have shown to be less interested in locking good players into "bargain contracts" than just about any other team in the league. They have tried to not force an unrestricted free agent's hand through use of the fifth-year rookie option, transition tag, or franchise tag since 2011. They have preferred offering four-year deals to established veterans, even though five-year deals could save money in the long term and have been more popular league wide.
This strategy could be a way to avoid contract dissension and holdouts. Plus, they might just view it as the right thing to do. If a player has proven enough, then we are happy to pay them what they are worth. See: Bennett, Michael.
They have shown to be less interested in locking good players into "bargain contracts" than just about any other team in the league. They have tried to not force an unrestricted free agent's hand through use of the fifth-year rookie option, transition tag, or franchise tag since 2011. They have preferred offering four-year deals to established veterans, even though five-year deals could save money in the long term and have been more popular league wide.
This strategy could be a way to avoid contract dissension and holdouts. Plus, they might just view it as the right thing to do. If a player has proven enough, then we are happy to pay them what they are worth. See: Bennett, Michael.
Jimjones0384
New member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2016
- Messages
- 819
- Reaction score
- 0
mikeak":sl5dzxlu said:
My thoughts are that this is business as usual for pcjs. They sign a lot of fa's to one year deals. It just usually isn't for 8 mil, which is what I think has got everyone worried about this. That is the risk they will have to take. Plus, we assume that it is pcjs that wants the one year deals. It might be that some of, or maybe a lot of these guys won't sign a multi year deal. They "bet on themselves."
Uncle Si
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Messages
- 20,596
- Reaction score
- 3
I think they will draft heavy in the areas they are also grabbing FAs. Means competition in the teams areas of need. If the FA guys play well then they can go, Hawks get the comp pick and cap flexibility and have the players they drafted.
People are seeing this the way they want to see it. Let me explain something to you from an actual experience this off-season. A lot of Cardinals fans, like many others thing it's great to get all these comp picks. But at what expense? You can get a maximum of 4 comp picks. Not 5, just 4. The Cardinals for example lost 9 starters... Do you see an issue there with diminishing returns? Had we extended some prior, and lost 4 qualifying players, and in essence got 4 comp picks there is a lot more value there. Instead, players 5-9, we got 0 value for. So having 20+ UFA's in one season can do a lot more harm than good.
I frequent a lot forums. The other thing I see in common is Cardinals fans, and Seahawks fans think all these 1 year deals we signed are great. They are to in extent, but thinking that its 50% of the equation is going to lead to disappointment. Not just for the reason listed above, but the fact that this off-season has had more 1 year deals handed out league wide then ever. That means next year the market is going to have the biggest flood of UFA's ever. But the amount of comp picks will remain at 32. So that means your UFA's have to perform better, and get better contracts next season then they would have in any other season to get those comp picks. You can lose a lot more then you are going to potentially gain. So I doubt, comp picks are the main reason why. I mean look at this. If I was told for 9 starters off Arizona we'd be getting a 3rd, 4th, and two 6th round picks for players like Campbell, Jefferson, Swearinger, etc. I'd be extremely disappointed and trust me I am. I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.
If you temper your expectations now, for next off-season. It's likely going to lead to a lot less disappointment then if you want to believe Seattle is going to get rewarded greatly via comp picks.
I frequent a lot forums. The other thing I see in common is Cardinals fans, and Seahawks fans think all these 1 year deals we signed are great. They are to in extent, but thinking that its 50% of the equation is going to lead to disappointment. Not just for the reason listed above, but the fact that this off-season has had more 1 year deals handed out league wide then ever. That means next year the market is going to have the biggest flood of UFA's ever. But the amount of comp picks will remain at 32. So that means your UFA's have to perform better, and get better contracts next season then they would have in any other season to get those comp picks. You can lose a lot more then you are going to potentially gain. So I doubt, comp picks are the main reason why. I mean look at this. If I was told for 9 starters off Arizona we'd be getting a 3rd, 4th, and two 6th round picks for players like Campbell, Jefferson, Swearinger, etc. I'd be extremely disappointed and trust me I am. I knew having 20 expiring contracts in one-offseason would spell trouble and it did.
If you temper your expectations now, for next off-season. It's likely going to lead to a lot less disappointment then if you want to believe Seattle is going to get rewarded greatly via comp picks.
jammerhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,931
- Reaction score
- 2,555
ringless":1ck1ll2x said:
Your observation is absolutely right as to the dilution but the team will have many more chances for a comp pick when following this scheme, and no dead cap problems.
Some of what produced these one year contracts may be a reaction to the weakness of the 2013 draft class i.e. lots of guys getting a fresh start and a second chance. So, although this could be an emerging trend, it could also be an anomaly.
IMO the reasons for the Seahawks in particular signing a lot of one-year players has nothing to do with motivation or comp picks.
There is a sea change coming, so to speak, over the next two years. The org wants as much flexibility as possible to carry out this change to maximum effect.
The org wants to figure out what it has in the young OL it's invested all this time developing. We no longer have the underpaid RW advantage with contracts. If the young OL pans out, and I actually think it will (Fant and Gilliam included), we'll have a similar advantage via OL. Last year's sucktitude was a high price to pay, possibly costing us a strong title run, but that investment may start to really pay off this year. If they sign a prime vet to unequivocally take one of those spots for 3+ years and the young guys develop as expected, you waste that advantage.
This draft has a very deep talent pool. It's critical the Hawks pull out a good draft. If they do it's very possible we get 6+ future starters out of the draft and UDFA this year. We nail this draft and keep Wilson healthy and we have a Patriots-like SB window. We just need enough to get us through 1-2 years of transition while the young guys turn in to starts and pro bowlers. So these 1-year guys hold things down and give the rookies a year to develop before they're thrown in to prominent roles.
Lastly, the big contracts are ending - either they expire, are extended, or terminated a year early to open cap space, all dependent on the performance and prospects for future performance of each individual player. JG, Kam, Avril, Sherm, KJ, Earl... along with mid-level contracts like Kearse and Lane. The team will keep who they want, let the ones they want go. They can open up oodles of cap space if they want to splash in FA - not on the Cary Williams of the world, but top players who carry little risk of performing poorly.
It's gonna be big. This is the last year the team will make a run before big changes happen. The Seahawks have a solid chance but they weren't gonna mortgage the future for 2017. Title or no, everything will start changing dramatically after this year.
It's brilliant planning by Pete and John - lining all this up perfectly. The key is pulling it off, and the first big part of that is this draft.
There is a sea change coming, so to speak, over the next two years. The org wants as much flexibility as possible to carry out this change to maximum effect.
The org wants to figure out what it has in the young OL it's invested all this time developing. We no longer have the underpaid RW advantage with contracts. If the young OL pans out, and I actually think it will (Fant and Gilliam included), we'll have a similar advantage via OL. Last year's sucktitude was a high price to pay, possibly costing us a strong title run, but that investment may start to really pay off this year. If they sign a prime vet to unequivocally take one of those spots for 3+ years and the young guys develop as expected, you waste that advantage.
This draft has a very deep talent pool. It's critical the Hawks pull out a good draft. If they do it's very possible we get 6+ future starters out of the draft and UDFA this year. We nail this draft and keep Wilson healthy and we have a Patriots-like SB window. We just need enough to get us through 1-2 years of transition while the young guys turn in to starts and pro bowlers. So these 1-year guys hold things down and give the rookies a year to develop before they're thrown in to prominent roles.
Lastly, the big contracts are ending - either they expire, are extended, or terminated a year early to open cap space, all dependent on the performance and prospects for future performance of each individual player. JG, Kam, Avril, Sherm, KJ, Earl... along with mid-level contracts like Kearse and Lane. The team will keep who they want, let the ones they want go. They can open up oodles of cap space if they want to splash in FA - not on the Cary Williams of the world, but top players who carry little risk of performing poorly.
It's gonna be big. This is the last year the team will make a run before big changes happen. The Seahawks have a solid chance but they weren't gonna mortgage the future for 2017. Title or no, everything will start changing dramatically after this year.
It's brilliant planning by Pete and John - lining all this up perfectly. The key is pulling it off, and the first big part of that is this draft.
Seahawkfan80
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 11,710
- Reaction score
- 926
ringless":2tuocvnh said:
Great thoughts. Thinking of one player in mind for next season too. But I am good with it. Hope to see you again in that area if I go for that game this year. You are a great team knowledge person.
Seafan
New member
I think we all wish the Carey Williams situation was a 1 year prove it deal. The Hawks may have benched him sooner.
Adding players to the pile is never a bad thing.
Competition is never a bad thing.
Adding players to the pile is never a bad thing.
Competition is never a bad thing.
