Who will the Seahawks cut?

CPHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
4,903
Reaction score
953
Definitely overpaid, but his 17 of 22 is a higher % than either Fant or Colby. The kid produces, just needs a reduced cap hit that reflects his utilization (which should be higher).

Hawks had 3 good TEs last year and were obviously trying to feature Fant. With him presumably moving on, it should open up opportunities for Dissly to provide value given a reduced cap hit.
Dizzly had a bunch of dropped passes last year. Should move on from him and try to get Fant back.
 

ElvisInBlue

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2022
Messages
1,601
Reaction score
799
Dizzly had a bunch of dropped passes last year. Should move on from him and try to get Fant back.
Granted Fant has the higher potential, but Dissly had a higher catch percentage.

Cutting him outright gives you 7M in relief, but replacing him could be 4M in FA. Creative extension seems the way to go.
 

Parallax

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
460
Reaction score
456
Granted Fant has the higher potential, but Dissly had a higher catch percentage.

Cutting him outright gives you 7M in relief, but replacing him could be 4M in FA. Creative extension seems the way to go.
I think is significantly better. He's fast and elusive. Catches well. He'll be more expensive than Dissley but might be worth it. I'd take the $7M in relief by cutting Dissley and plow it into Fant if we can sign him without breaking the bank. If it cost $11M per year, so we have to come up with another $4M elsewhere, I think it would be worth it.
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
8,727
Reaction score
2,500
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Granted Fant has the higher potential, but Dissly had a higher catch percentage.
I'd be interested in seeing what the average depth of target was for those two. I don't have any data to back it up, but it felt like Fant was generally targeted on deeper throws than Dissly, and it also felt like Fant had more contested catches. Even still, their catch percentage was a difference of less than 3% (77.3 to 74.4). Fant is listed as having a better "Success %" too whatever that means.
 

Parallax

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
460
Reaction score
456
I'd be interested in seeing what the average depth of target was for those two. I don't have any data to back it up, but it felt like Fant was generally targeted on deeper throws than Dissly, and it also felt like Fant had more contested catches. Even still, their catch percentage was a difference of less than 3% (77.3 to 74.4). Fant is listed as having a better "Success %" too whatever that means.
I get so tired of statistics. I find them so overused and overinterpreted. Fant looked obviously way more talented and effective. Dissley, as a rookie, caught a lot of passes. But after the first injury, he was no longer able to get the same kind of separation. Fant's speed, size and elusiveness made him so much harder to defend. Not a lunch-pail type TE. Big and strong but his strength is his finesse. I really like his skill set and hope he doesn't prove too expensive to re-sign.
 

bigcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
450
I don't think keeping Geno runs counter to doing a proper rebuild. Rather, having a steady veteran presence at QB helps significantly if you're going to be playing a bunch of youth and want them to actually get a chance to show their stuff and develop.

Every year, there are a bunch of busts that end up on some bad offense with a bad QB and it's tough to really judge them. Would Puka and Kyren have looked like studs this year for the Rams if that offense was being run by Stetson Bennett instead of Stafford?

The other factor is Grubb is going to be the only OC in the league with zero NFL experience, and he's basically in charge of the offense on his own. We need to be able to evaluate him, and Geno should be able to execute his schemes with a decent enough floor to gauge how things are going.
These aren't bad points, but I'd counter by saying that I don't know if it's fair to evaluate grubb on his performance with geno who he is stuck with, vs whatever qb he works with Schneider on acquiring to fit his scheme, especially since geno isn't a feasible long term play.

Maybe genos style does fit what grubb wants, but geno's less likely to unlearn old habits than a rookie, old dog new tricks kinda thing

Stafford/Bennett and geno/replacement isn't a viable comparison for numerous reasons though.

To keep it short, Stafford knows mcvays offense, geno doesn't know Grubb's, and stetson is a 4th round, 5'11 190 lb qb, in my original hypothetical we would have been plugging in a 1st round qb, and I was honestly thinking penix even before the seahawks hired grubb.
 

bigcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
450
Granted Fant has the higher potential, but Dissly had a higher catch percentage.

Cutting him outright gives you 7M in relief, but replacing him could be 4M in FA. Creative extension seems the way to go.
100 percent.

Worth noting that if an extension, a bit more evenly distributed, chance for comp pick remains.

Hard to remember given how long ago it was, but seahawks killed it with comp picks originally when Pete/John were new blood, I'm not entirely sure why they went EXTREMELY heavily in the opposite direction but I'd love to get back to where we're getting comps regularly.
 

bigcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,657
Reaction score
450
I get so tired of statistics. I find them so overused and overinterpreted. Fant looked obviously way more talented and effective. Dissley, as a rookie, caught a lot of passes. But after the first injury, he was no longer able to get the same kind of separation. Fant's speed, size and elusiveness made him so much harder to defend. Not a lunch-pail type TE. Big and strong but his strength is his finesse. I really like his skill set and hope he doesn't prove too expensive to re-sign.
I think Fant is pretty overrated, I'd rather him just be part of the comp pick calculation unless he's near vet minimum (he won't be).

He's not a good enough blocker to be a factor in singleback formation with the three wr. Dissly gives the appearance where they could run or throw at least even if not as skilled running routes.

I agree about statistics though.... Analytics fail to take WAY too much into account..... Surrounding players, weather, player health, momentum, etc etc..

Seahawks analytics crew/Evan on Twitter would have me hiding my seahawks Fandom if I was in the same room as them, completely insufferable.

Coming from a guy who throws out statistics and is probably seen as insufferable by a few.... Lol

I'll never really understand why people use Twitter to talk seahawks, you're kind of just talking into the void instead of having discussions like you can on message boards like this
 

SeaWolv

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,218
Reaction score
505
Granted Fant has the higher potential, but Dissly had a higher catch percentage.

Cutting him outright gives you 7M in relief, but replacing him could be 4M in FA. Creative extension seems the way to go.
For 2023 Dissly had 17 receptions on 22 targets, that's 77%. Fant had 32 or 43, or 74%. Of course 77% is higher than 74%, but not by much. However the sample size on Fant is nearly double that of Dissly. Fant made $6.85M and Dissly made $9.1M. Beyond salary the main difference between the two is Dissly is a better blocker.
 
Last edited:

Parallax

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
460
Reaction score
456
I think Fant is pretty overrated, I'd rather him just be part of the comp pick calculation unless he's near vet minimum (he won't be).

He's not a good enough blocker to be a factor in singleback formation with the three wr. Dissly gives the appearance where they could run or throw at least even if not as skilled running routes.

I agree about statistics though.... Analytics fail to take WAY too much into account..... Surrounding players, weather, player health, momentum, etc etc..

Seahawks analytics crew/Evan on Twitter would have me hiding my seahawks Fandom if I was in the same room as them, completely insufferable.

Coming from a guy who throws out statistics and is probably seen as insufferable by a few.... Lol

I'll never really understand why people use Twitter to talk seahawks, you're kind of just talking into the void instead of having discussions like you can on message boards like this
Blocking is not Fant's strength. Dissley's a better blocker.
 

Sonichound16

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2022
Messages
41
Reaction score
62
I would actually rather just roll with Parkinson myself and then sign a less expensive FA or draft another TE. Not sure about his blocking but a 6'7" target that can run at catch isn't easy to find. I am not sure how much he would cost to resign though.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,175
Reaction score
1,778
I would actually rather just roll with Parkinson myself and then sign a less expensive FA or draft another TE. Not sure about his blocking but a 6'7" target that can run at catch isn't easy to find. I am not sure how much he would cost to resign though.

I agree Parkinson was getting stronger and stronger the more he played. Dissly is overpriced for what he has delivered though the prior OC's were not good at using any TE until last season and although the team had some success with 2 TE looks early they went away from it inexplicably.

I think Fant will be overpriced and the team needs to rethink their spending on TEs. Frankly Fans is over rated and it is understandable why Denver offloaded his contract. JS won't keep him if he is expensive.

This is not a bad year for TEs in the draft and acquiring one should be possible in the mid rounds to me keeping Parkinson is a no brainer.
 

AgentDib

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
5,470
Reaction score
1,240
Location
Bothell
Pete was fired because the staff didn't get the most out of the roster. We'll see in 8 months...
I'd love it if you do end up correct, but when looking at this roster that seems like wishful thinking.

How many valuable contracts did we have last season? Spoon, Cross, JSN, and then a collection of cheap CBs who overplayed their draft position and contracts. Lucas was a big loss as one of our best contracts the previous year.

To put it another way, if we were having a lottery draft right now, how devastated should we be if we were only able to protect three players?

And honestly, i think most GMs would give themselves some cushion by saying the opposite... that it will take some time. Not that they won't miss a beat. Saying they'll hit the ground running sets expectations pretty high. Saying it will take some time, lowers the expectations and allows for misses in his hires to be far less of a black mark.
New GM's? Absolutely. Not long-tenured incumbent GMs who have been here the entire time and have direct responsibility for the current roster.

in my original hypothetical we would have been plugging in a 1st round qb, and I was honestly thinking penix even before the seahawks hired grubb.
I think we can agree that when the offense is operated at a higher level then the offensive schemes and offensive personnel can be more accurately evaluated. As such, we might disagree on which QB would operate the offense the best, but my main point is that good veteran QB play can be highly beneficial in a rebuild even if the QB isn't a long-term answer.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,865
Reaction score
6,776
Location
Cockeysville, Md
I'd love it if you do end up correct, but when looking at this roster that seems like wishful thinking.

How many valuable contracts did we have last season? Spoon, Cross, JSN, and then a collection of cheap CBs who overplayed their draft position and contracts. Lucas was a big loss as one of our best contracts the previous year.

To put it another way, if we were having a lottery draft right now, how devastated should we be if we were only able to protect three players?


New GM's? Absolutely. Not long-tenured incumbent GMs who have been here the entire time and have direct responsibility for the current roster.


I think we can agree that when the offense is operated at a higher level then the offensive schemes and offensive personnel can be more accurately evaluated. As such, we might disagree on which QB would operate the offense the best, but my main point is that good veteran QB play can be highly beneficial in a rebuild even if the QB isn't a long-term answer.
Schneider doesn't have to shoulder the responsibility for past failures. He's cloaked in the shadow of Pete. One could say he was a GM in name only, charged with budget management, suggesting trades and acquisitions.

This is his first year where every move is attributable to him.
 

Parallax

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2023
Messages
460
Reaction score
456
I'd love it if you do end up correct, but when looking at this roster that seems like wishful thinking.
I'm with you in thinking the talent level wasn't as stellar as a lot of fans seem to think. Part of the problem, in my view, is poor allocation of cap space and my sense is a lot of that was Pete. He was the one who threw so much money and draft capital at the safety position. He's the one who never focused on interior offensive linemen. The D was a mess in part because our schemes were simplistic, predictable and outdated. Our supposed defensive guru couldn't keep up with the times. We held our own against average and low quality teams but would get blown off the field by the really good teams. All of which made us helpless come the playoffs.

These problems were evident from the beginning. Pete and John were amazing in bringing together the Legion of Boom plus Lynch and Wilson. But the play calling was often flawed. We had enough talent to overcome it most of the time. On the other hand, when one considers all the talent that was on that LOB roster, it's surprising it won only one Superbowl. I wouldn't call it a disappointment because winning in 2013 was such a huge breakthrough for this program. But we've never fully recovered from 2014 and then came the Graham trade and bad draft picks and it's all been a slow downhill journey from there.

I'm very excited about the new coaches and hope that we see a new direction in terms of the roster over the next few years.
 

morgulon1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
7,830
Reaction score
3,688
Location
Spokane, Wa
Schneider doesn't have to shoulder the responsibility for past failures. He's cloaked in the shadow of Pete. One could say he was a GM in name only, charged with budget management, suggesting trades and acquisitions.

This is his first year where every move is attributable to him.
My gut tells me Schneider is going to put a hell of a team together without Pete telling him what to do.
 

WarHawks

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
1,839
Reaction score
1,416
I'll be surprised if Wagner is re-signed and even more surprised if he gets more than an occasional snap. He's an all time great and we love him. But he doesn't really belong on the gridiron anymore. This is not uncommon. How many times have we watched former greats stay too long.

Sometimes a player needs to be saved from himself. I remember, when I was a kid, watching Willie Mays make a really bad error in the outfield. Fell onto the ground and wept. My dad felt so bad for him. Was telling me how great he once was and that it was wrong to put him out there like that. It's a good thing it was long before the internet or he would have been embarrassed by that error for the rest of his life. Fortunately, people have short memories. He retired soon after and the world moved on. Was not able to find any videos of it online. I doubt my dad remembers. I was around 10 so there was a lot of space to lay down memory tracks.
Good point. I hope they bring Bobby in as a linebacker coach after he's done playing. One of my fav Hawks of all time.
 
Top