Did we get worse?

[SonicHawk]

To be fair, you are always feeling negative about things evan.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

March 14th, Season starts September 4th. This front office......

It's gonna' be fine

 

[12evanf]

To be fair, you are always feeling negative about things evan.

Haha, touche. Its obvious we got worse though. We have lost Tate, Big Red, Schofield, Breno, Clem, McDonald and held steady with Bennett and McDaniel. We added Price. Add that up and it is a net negative, we have gotten worse.

However, Schneider always goes wait-and-see mode during free agency and grabs the bargains after the rush. We will get better by the start of next season.

 

[TwistedHusky]

I find it interesting how people are interpreting this post.

As if I am stating that because of the other day's moves we somehow are now so far behind that we should all throw our hands in the air and start mourning.

We got less strong because we lost some pieces. Other teams got better because they added some and did not lose as important of cogs.

We are still clearly better than a majority of the teams out there. Did the Saint's increase in defense augmenting what is already a potent offense close the gap more? Probably. Enough? Likely not.

What about the Broncos, who were missing pieces already (LT and Von Miller) that might now get them back? And they added more to their ability to rush the passer. Did they close the gap or even jump it? I think it depends on how important you feel Decker is. Certainly I think the loss of Tate is a bigger blow to our offense than the loss of Decker to them.

Finally, the 49ers, a team that we barely edged out, really lost almost nothing and might have gotten better (depending on whether you felt Hitner was liability or not, I felt he was). They lost almost none of their key people (unless you consider the temp loss of Bowman a loss) that I can see, addressed an issue in the secondary and otherwise are the same dominant team. We lost Red, Thurman, Browner, Breno, and Tate. It seems reasonable to wonder if considering now neck and neck we came - those losses might have also made the 49ers close the gap.

Being clear, I am aware of this team's ability to pluck UDFAs out of nowhere and the ability of the team to somehow find stellar performers in the later rounds (I think their success rate on the 4th and 5th rounders in recent years is something like 30% which is unheard of). I also know it is not normal.

I think you can assess we took some hits and need to fill them, and have a recent track record of being able to fill them. I was asking if in taking those hits you thought anyone eeked past us.

 

[TwilightError]

We did get worse and i dont think there will be many times when a franchise can field such a deep All Star squad that we did last season. There were many things that affected this, mainly the fact that Thomas, Sherman, tate, Baldwin, Wagner, Wright and Wilson were still on their rookie contracts. Also getting guys like bennett and avril on a "prove it" contract. It was a unique situation to have all that talent and depth. It is great that we took full advantage of the situation and won the whole thing! Losing would have been a massive missed opportunity.

I mean, the niners were the only team that really gave us any hard time. And they have been great for a few years now (but have missed their best opportunities now. Ha Ha!).

Great drafting brought us there and it will also keep us there, or drop us. Rookie contracts in a salary cap league are a huge advantage when the FO drafts well. Anyone can sign good Free Agents. We can sustain success but it will not be as easy as it was now, not in the foreseeable future. That is how salary cap works.

 

[MVP53]

I think it is fair to assume we got weaker with the loss of some of our FAs, certainly considering one strength of our defense was depth and one of our key weapons on offense is lost.

(It happens to most recent SB winners, they get stripped of FAs that are overpaid, so it was to be expected but still...)



The question is whether you think that getting weaker means that certain teams passed us, and if so who?

Are we still the strongest team in the league? How do we stack up now vs the teams that got better and are threats?

Kind of a silly time to ask this question. Technically, we got worse on paper the minute Red Bryant was cut.

 

[wrenches59864]

In John and Pete I trust. :179422:

 

[v1rotv2]

The op question can not be answered until the former players are replaced and the regular season is under way. Until then it's a moot point.

 

[MVP53]

I find it interesting how people are interpreting this post.

As if I am stating that because of the other day's moves we somehow are now so far behind that we should all throw our hands in the air and start mourning.

We got less strong because we lost some pieces. Other teams got better because they added some and did not lose as important of cogs.

We are still clearly better than a majority of the teams out there. Did the Saint's increase in defense augmenting what is already a potent offense close the gap more? Probably. Enough? Likely not.

What about the Broncos, who were missing pieces already (LT and Von Miller) that might now get them back? And they added more to their ability to rush the passer. Did they close the gap or even jump it? I think it depends on how important you feel Decker is. Certainly I think the loss of Tate is a bigger blow to our offense than the loss of Decker to them.

Finally, the 49ers, a team that we barely edged out, really lost almost nothing and might have gotten better (depending on whether you felt Hitner was liability or not, I felt he was). They lost almost none of their key people (unless you consider the temp loss of Bowman a loss) that I can see, addressed an issue in the secondary and otherwise are the same dominant team. We lost Red, Thurman, Browner, Breno, and Tate. It seems reasonable to wonder if considering now neck and neck we came - those losses might have also made the 49ers close the gap.

Being clear, I am aware of this team's ability to pluck UDFAs out of nowhere and the ability of the team to somehow find stellar performers in the later rounds (I think their success rate on the 4th and 5th rounders in recent years is something like 30% which is unheard of). I also know it is not normal.

I think you can assess we took some hits and need to fill them, and have a recent track record of being able to fill them. I was asking if in taking those hits you thought anyone eeked past us.

So, what's the point of asking the question? I mean, you take last year's roster and take Red, Clem, McDonald, Breno & Tate off of it and, yea, obviously it's worse.

So, I suppose we can discuss it now, if you want, or we can give the FO a chance to replace the guys they lost.

They could sign a handful of guys tomorrow which would render this entire discussion moot.

 

[the ditch]

A lot can happen before the first game of the season, if you want a snapshot of right this second, we're probably worse than we were before but I think by the time the season starts we will be looking better off.

It sucks to lose players, especially popular or dynamic ones but that's the cost of business in the nfl. Pete and John don't like to over pay for their players. I'm actually a bit surprised that we also didn't cut Zach Miller but it could still happen.

 

[superdeluxe]

No

 

[HawkStar22]

I'm so glad that all of you saying "we got worse" are not our GM. Our team would be full of average, over paid, injury prone, aging, role players. Then we'd end up in situations like all the other bad teams where we start to lose all our core star players because we can't afford them, due to the other stupid contracts given out to players who are easily replaceable.

 

[HawkStar22]

I'm so glad that all of you saying "we got worse" are not our GM. Our team would be full of average, over paid, injury prone, aging, role players. Then we'd end up in situations like all the other bad teams where we start to lose all our core star players because we can't afford them, due to the other stupid contracts given out to players who are easily replaceable.

Some of you have absolutely no clue. Go cheer for the broncos they're making a real "splash"

 

[SonicHawk]

We of course have gotten worse at the moment. But it's a long way before we need to start panicking. Plenty of ways to fill holes (plenty of FAs, Draft, UDFAs, Trades..)

 

[bjornanderson21]

Remember guys, there are still FAs available AND there will be more vets available after teams cut down their roster.

Guys that get cut in the pre-season can be snagged up cheaper because most FA money has already been spent.

Trust me (for no discernible reason) , when vets get unexpectedly released in a few months the Hawks will be at the top of many players' list.

 

[Ziggyy108]

Remember guys, there are still FAs available AND there will be more vets available after teams cut down their roster.

Guys that get cut in the pre-season can be snagged up cheaper because most FA money has already been spent.

Trust me (for no discernible reason) , when vets get unexpectedly released in a few months the Hawks will be at the top of many players' list.

well said

 

[bmorepunk]

I think that the OP should have used this opportune time to also ask "does this look infected?"

 

[Blitzer88]

The more I think about it, the more I look at how both Golden during his interview and WTIII in a tweet specifically mentioned Bid Red being cut as something that they did not like. That move by the FO clearly seems to be rubbing our own FAs the wrong way. And losing most our of FAs is definitely bad especially went we have yet to bring anyone one in to fill those holes that are opening up. So right now I would have to say that we have gotten worse. I mean we can't replace everyone we have lost in FA through the draft, yet none of the options out there in FA are better than what we had. I just think the FO is trying to be a bit too cute right now for their own good. Really, I had no idea where I was going with this post, I have just been frustrated lately and losing so many key guys isn't helping.

 

[davidonmi]

The more I think about it, the more I look at how both Golden during his interview and WTIII in a tweet specifically mentioned Bid Red being cut as something that they did not like. That move by the FO clearly seems to be rubbing our own FAs the wrong way. And losing most our of FAs is definitely bad especially went we have yet to bring anyone one in to fill those holes that are opening up. So right now I would have to say that we have gotten worse. I mean we can't replace everyone we have lost in FA through the draft, yet none of the options out there in FA are better than what we had. I just think the FO is trying to be a bit too cute right now for their own good. Really, I had no idea where I was going with this post, I have just been frustrated lately and losing so many key guys isn't helping.

I think your sentiment has some validity. I will say this though, we lost a role playing DT, a mediocre at best RT, a slot CB, two aging DE's, and an oft injured WR. I feel using the 2012 and 2013 draft classes we can replace those guys, and FA still isn't done yet.
I don't like Thurmond tweeting that he was upset over the big red cut however, that is worrisome

 

[davidonmi]

tate will be hard to replace but you can't keep everybody, and if harvin is healthy the WR corps will be fine