Thoughts on the Lockett deal & Hundley trade

August 30th, 2018 | Written by Rob Staton

The new contract for Tyler Lockett is a good thing. Lockett is a talented, highly motivated player with a fantastic attitude. He’s a playmaker in the return game, is adept at getting open and despite his lack of size, somehow finds a way to make difficult, contested grabs.

He’ll earn an average salary of $10.6m a year which some people have scoffed at (more on that in a moment). Here’s the reality. He’s now the 21st highest paid receiver in the league. Such is the receiver market these days, that ranking will only get lower over time.

Lockett is earning less per year than Davante Adams ($14m), DeSean Jackson ($11.2m) and Emmanuel Sanders ($11m). He’s earning a bit more than Randall Cobb ($10m), Donte Moncrief ($9.6m), Pierre Garcon ($9.5m) and Marqise Lee ($8.5m).

When placed in that context, Lockett’s contract makes perfect sense. The market for a good #2 receiver — or even an average #2 receiver — is in the $9-11m range per year. Is Davante Adams worth $3.4m more per year than Lockett? I’d argue not — at least not without Aaron Rodgers throwing the ball.

This is exactly the type of deal you’d expect Lockett to get. He’s a player the Seahawks really like on a second contract. So they got it done.

However, there seems to be some consternation purely because Paul Richardson received a smaller contract from the Redskins ($8m per year).

You can always rely on Seahawks twitter to find something to moan about.

For me it’s an unnecessary qualm. The Seahawks weren’t going to pay both players. They’re already paying Doug Baldwin $11.5m a year. They recently paid Duane Brown and Justin Britt. Russell Wilson is going to get a mega deal soon. The promise of David Moore also likely gives the Seahawks confidence they can progress without having to pay three receivers good money.

They preferred to pay Lockett. His return value was likely a factor, as was his production. Richardson has a long history of injuries while Lockett has experienced a broken leg (and seemingly made a good recovery).

The difference in salary is $2.6m. It’s not insignificant but it’s also not exactly back-breaking. If they preferred Lockett, it’s not a restrictive amount.

It feels like sometimes there’s a tendency to over-analyse every decision. Every spare million is accounted for. That’s understandable to an extent. Yet increasingly it feels like we’re surrounded by self-trained experts, pontificating as if they have all the answers. The obsession about the running game being a case in point.

Sometimes it’s OK to reflect on a contract and accept the Seahawks kept a player they really like. It’s possible you think Paul Richardson is a better player. The Seahawks clearly felt otherwise. I’m not sure they’ll ever regret the $2.6m per year difference they spent to keep the player they wanted.

And while we’re on the topic — it was noticeable that some people found reason to criticise the decision to trade a 6th round pick for Brett Hundley.

Perhaps the PCJS era has given us fans a warped sense of what a late round pick is. They’ve had so much success, even recently (Chris Carson, David Moore, Michael Dickson). A bit of context is also required on the Hundley trade, however.

1. The Seahawks clearly didn’t see any upside in keeping Austin Davis on a salary worth nearly $1m.

2. Alex McGough has flashed some talent but also looks incredibly raw and ill-prepared to play a half of regular season football, let alone a stretch of games. He needs time. Is he likely to be claimed by another team if he’s cut? No. Should the Seahawks find it relatively straight forward to stash him on the practise squad? Yes. If he is claimed by someone else is it the end of the world? Absolutely not.

3. Brett Hundley isn’t particularly good. However, he has proper game experience. If he’s needed to come into a game and get Seattle over the line, that experience could be important. He’s both superior to Davis and better prepared than Alex McGough. For the price of a sixth rounder, Seattle brought in a backup they’re more comfortable with for 2018. They also get to take a look at Hundley to see if he’s someone they view as a possible long term backup option.

Both the Lockett extension and the Hundley trade should be viewed as decent moves. Neither will be as impactful as say a Khalil Mack trade. Neither is worthy of any negative reaction either.

For some reason we seem to live in a time where people can’t just say, ‘OK, cool’. Everything is either extremely good or worthy of a string of passive aggressive tweets.

Social media has changed our culture forever. Not in a good way.

Finally a quick point on a possible Khalil Mack trade. It won’t be cheap. Forget any prospect of trading Earl Thomas and Frank Clark for Mack. It’s going to take picks. Here’s a deal I would do for a true generational talent:

Raiders receive:

2019 first round pick
2020 first round pick

Seahawks receive:

Khalil Mack
2020 third round pick

It’s expensive but Mack makes Seattle a contender this year. Here’s why:


You can now support Seahawks Draft Blog via Patreon by clicking the tab below.

Become a Patron!

93 Responses to “Thoughts on the Lockett deal & Hundley trade”

  1. Seriously, just watch a couple highlight reels of Lockett and everyone will be fine. We tend to forget a guy’s talent when his game-changing plays aren’t right in front of us.

    • Rob Staton says:

      He’s an excellent receiver

      • Joel says:

        He can also make big plays as a running back. He offers far more versatility than Richardson. Richardson had a wider catch radius and could high point the ball, two things Lockett lacks, but Lockett can make contested catches, take a hit, and add a lot of YAC. I think part of the fascination with Richardon is that he liked to turn receptions into circus catches. People tend to get excited by highlight reel body control like that.

          • Isaac says:

            With Lockett you see him get separation from his defender. His catches aren’t just him jumping over someone. He actually runs a route gets open and is rewarded for it. This leads him to get more YAC. I would love to see someone break down Kearse and Richardson vs Lockett. What were they asked to do? Who did it better?

            I also wonder if they saw Lockett as a better fit for Schottenheimers offense vs Richardson. In my opinion guys that the hawks have let go needed to be let go. Whether it was due to past injuries, poor production, or just not being a good fit in the locker room (Sherman, Bennett, etc.)

        • STTBM says:

          Lockett also has a knack for holding onto the ball when hit hard. Richardson did not have the same ability.

          People seem to forget Lockett often getting open on deep routes and Wilson flat missing him. Happened at least six times a year the last two years. The guy is a star in the making. All we need is a bit more aggression on offense, and Wilson to learn to hit Lockett in stride deep. Remember, Lockett broke his leg on a deep pass that should have been a TD–but he had to wait on RW’s throw, the DB caught up and the rest is history…

          Both WR’s got paid on the future, not their past stats. I don’t think we’ll miss Richardson much.

  2. Matt says:

    Really good write up, Rob. While I certainly don’t love the Lockett deal; I totally get it. Add to this that Lockett is a fantastic person/teammate and I’d rather see them dump money on guys like that.

    You made a brief but potent point regarding “self-trained experts.” Perhaps this isn’t an appropriate commentary for a football blog, but I’ve noticed that this trend is happening everywhere. And awful lot of folks think having a Twitter handle and a incestuous group of followers makes them experts on .

    One of the many reasons I love this blog is that there are a ton of awesome commenters who are passionate (and detailed) about their opinions, and 95% don’t proclaim to have “the answer.”

    Anyways, just consider that little tangent to be a compliment to you and the community you have developed over here. This is literally the only blog I will now come to for Seahawks information because you not only provide unbelievable insight, but foster a community of healthy discussions. We probably only disagree about 20% of things-Seahawks but I’ve never interpreted your differences as “I’m right, you’re wrong.”

    Cheers Rob. And here’s to a really fun season. I haven’t been this excited about this team for almost 4 years now.

  3. glor says:

    When I first look at those number for Mack.. it is scary, especially with all the talk about this being a really deep draft for d-linemen.. if we can somehow unload earl and get a late 2nd or early 3rd, then at least we would have a shot at drafting someone from this class. When you look at what we have gotten from our first round picks over the past 5 years.. I say give them away and lets get Mack 🙂

    • Rob Staton says:

      It is a very good class for DL. But you won’t get a player like Mack and the best pass rushers will go very early next year.

      • Isaac says:

        With Mack you get a proven product on the field. The draft picks take time to develop. Especially defensive ends, wide receivers, offensive lineman right after that. Not many guys are plug and play ready anymore.

        • GoHawksDani says:

          Yeah, it’s true, they need time to develop. But they don’t cost ~20m APY either.
          We likely won’t have like 4-5 picks in the top 100 and we have some needs (CB, not sure about FS, DE, not sure about WILL if we don’t extend KJ, we’ll need a K soon (although that’s not top100 pick), quality OG would be nice too, maybe a TE too).
          I could easily spend 6 top 50 draft picks for potential starters. OK, Queem and/or T2 might work out, and Flowers might be a good RCB, but I doubt all of them will work and prove to be a quality starter in the next 2-3 years.
          So yeah…selling (draft) house and pumping a ton of cash to a single defender who might not even work out as well for our system is a bit scary for me.
          And yeah, Mack is awesome, but is he the absolute best of his position? Is he like ETIII was when he was younger?
          To me more or less wrecking next year’s draft and make it much tougher to find talent in the 2020 draft while spending 20m on a guy is a bit too much. Mack would need to get 14+ sack and have 4+ FF, 30+ TFL and help to get at least 2-3 INT so I could say: “Yeah, that was a really-really good deal”

          I’d be fine with a trade like this:

          ETIII + 2019 first + 2020 first + 2020 third + 2020 fourth
          for
          Mack + 2019 second + 2020 second

          Basically “trade back twice” and give up a third and a fourth and Earl for Mack.
          It’s probably not enough, but much more than this and it’s just way too risky

      • Pedestrian says:

        Would be really tough to have to wait until round 4 for your first pick

        • Rob Staton says:

          They’d only have to wait until R3. They still own their 2019 third rounder.

          And with Mack, the first round pick might be #32 anyway.

          • Isaac says:

            Now rob!!! I know your excited about the potential of that move but it’s gonna take a few more quality players to get to #32 this year. I love the optimism though.

  4. Chris says:

    No sale.

    That’s too much money for a guy that has yet to show he’s anything more than a 3rd receiver.

    In your analysis you should not only cherry pick other receivers being paid MORE that are comparable, but also look at other comparable receivers being paid less. By ignoring the other side, it looked like a biased argument.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Chris, with respect, you ruin your own argument when you suggest he’s not shown to be any more than a #3 receiver.

      As for the comparable receivers earning less — here’s the data you’re looking for:

      Golden Tate — $6m average but signed his contract four years ago, is in the final year of that contract and his cap hit this year is $9.3m. He is due an extension and will likely get more than $10.6m on average.

      Robert Woods — $6.8m average but was signed after a very disappointing time in Buffalo. His deal was considered an overpay upon signing and he’s since benefitted from an admittedly excellent passing offense in LA. We can only imagine what Lockett or Baldwin would achieve in LA’s scheme.

      Adam Thielen — $4.8m average. Congrats to the Vikings for securing his signature pre-2017 just before he broke out. He is possibly the most underpaid receiver in the league and due to Minnesota’s foresight, he is tied to them until 2020. He may hold out in the future if he doesn’t get a rise. Don’t think this is relevant because there’s no way on earth the Seahawks were going to emulate this contract. If they can afford it, I suspect the Vikings will reward Thielen in the future.

      That’s it for relevant cheaper deals. Everyone else is on a rookie contract. It doesn’t change anything written in my post.

      There was no cherry picking. It’s simply not worth noting.

      • Georgia Hawk says:

        Even with those players Rob, you haven’t didn’t mention his value as a returner. Not only was he the top rated returner in the NFL last year, by a not insignificant amount, but it gets him on the field that much more than someone like Woods or Tate.

        We get far more value on a per touch basis than these other guys of “comparable” contracts.

        I’m happy with the signing and glad its one less thing to worry about going into the season.

      • Gohawks5151 says:

        Just to play devills advocate, Marquis Lee signed at around 7 mil annually this offseason. He is a #3 receiver type with receiving numbers very similar to Tyler’s. He is also an oft injured guy in his first few years like Tyler. Is Tyler’s return ability worth potentially 4 mil a year? Even with the presence of Penny, Moore and JD?

        • Rob Staton says:

          The Jags paid Marqise Lee to be their #1 this year, not the #3. And his average is $8.5m a year not $7m.

          • Gohawks5151 says:

            Ok. Read that wrong up top. But doesn’t that make that more of an over pay since we are paying a #2/3 more than a #1? And if his special teams value decreases with more able returners doesn’t it diminish the deal? I know it is only 1.5 or so million but people have quibbled about paying other players “over their value”. Also we are a team that has been right up against the cap for a couple years now. Like I said, just trying to see things from the other side.

  5. Stephen Pitell says:

    Well said, but that might be just because I totally agree with you.

  6. C-Dog says:

    I would honestly take that deal of two firsts for Mack and a 2020 third in a heart beat. I would also try to hang onto Clark, and book end the two, and see if Green fills into more of a pass rushing 3-tech role. I think Bobby Wagner would probably enjoy playing behind that on third downs.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Mack + Clark + Green = Super Bowl winning potential DL

      • FresnoHawk says:

        I’ve been thinking about Mack for weeks but made a mistake thinking Oakland will have to eat the 13 million. Now that I know Oakland won’t eat the $$ and waking up twice last night thinking about Mack+Green+ possibility of Clark I think it would be wise to go after Mack and pay the price 2 1st even 2 1st + player. At this point we cannot be sure Clark will work out so we need Mack but if Clark does work out = Superbowl DL for sure this year. Do we sign Clark this year or next? I think that is up to Clark how he performs! Furthermore the Lockett deal was important to me because he is the safer play between him & Clark and its comforting to know that Pete & John view Lockett as one of the best WR’s in the league. If we keep Reynolds it is my OPINION that Baldwin’s days are numbered!

      • Pedestrian says:

        Would be really exciting to see for sure!

        Does signing Mack to an extension mean you can’t pay KJ Wright? Frank Clark is looking for a new deal. Wilson will need a new contract and looking to top Rodgers. Soon Wagner will need a new deal. Jarran Reed will be in a contract year next season. Some tough decisions ahead for sure.

        If you had to choose from the list above of letting a player walk, I’d think that would be Wright? Which would really suck because he’s done everything right and deserves an extension

        • Rob Staton says:

          Not sure on Wright. In fairness to KJ, it probably depends how he plays in 2018 either way.

        • FresnoHawk says:

          Setting RW a side! Mack is a better player than all those players get him worry about the others later! Not putting Bobby down I think Mack will push him to get better.

      • FresnoHawk says:

        + 1,000,000 beginning of a dynasty round 2!

  7. Doug says:

    And about the Mack potential trade… that IS expensive but when you think about the fact that even first rounds picks are not a lock to start let alone have an impact on your team, two first rounders is not too high a price for someone who will enable a huge leap forward for the D Line. Would the inclusion of ET maybe upgrade the pick coming back? Maybe to a 2019 Second?

  8. LLLOGOSSS says:

    I just don’t see Lockett as having proven he’s worth that kind of extension. Not a self-trained expert or a twitter troll, that’s just how I see it. I’m happy to have him, and I typically trust that PCJS are smarter than not only myself, but the rest of the league as well (rightly or wrongly). But that doesn’t always mean it’s true.

    To me, I think they should’ve made Lockett prove a little more before they paid him like a true #2, especially since I see him as a #3 this year behind Brown and perhaps even Marshall. Apparently they don’t see him that way, but it surprises me, as we’ve heard and seen so much from the other two this offseason, whereas word on Lockett has been mum.

    Lockett has always been a guy with promise, but he has yet to deliver on that promise (in great part because of an unfortunate injury). I’m just a little confused as to why you would pay a price that implies that he has delivered on the promise, instead of paying a price that implies he is still somewhat unproven — which he is. Somewhat, at the very least.

    To me, at least Richardson put it together and had a relatively big year. Catches were suppressed, but man did he have a lot of big ones.

    Anyway, I’m happy he’s with the team and I sure hope he makes us look smart.

    • STTBM says:

      I disagree. Richardson drops the ball too often when hit hard, is less durable, had two knee surgeries, didn’t return kicks, and flat disappeared in games late in the year once teams noticed him. He is nowhere near the route runner Lockett is, nor does he offer the YAC Lockett brings.

      I can’t understand your opinion at all, though I respect it.

      • I agree and the stats support us.

        My biggest reason I like Lockett vs. Richardson is that Lockett often got open but Wilson didn’t hit him, while PRich needed highlight reel catches because he didn’t have separation. For most of a game, Wilson will NOT pull the trigger on someone closely guarded, while he will always pull the trigger if someone is clearly open, and Lockett gets open while PRich not so much.

    • joel says:

      Would have preferred we got to see a bit more from Lockett this season before the extension, but I gotta disagree that Brown is better or should be ranked higher on the depth chart. If you have some stats to prove that take, provide them, but if Seattle can get WR3 play out of Jarron Brown then I’d consider that a victory. The Cardinals weren’t exactly stacked at WR this year and they still let him walk.

      Marshall would rank higher on the chart for me…four years ago. He has struggled to stay healthy the last few years, so I was hoping Seattle could limit his snaps and use him more as a RZ weapon. With Baldwin injured, that may not work out as well.

    • Rob Staton says:

      If Lockett played well in a prove it year, you would’ve had to add another $4m to that contract.

      They did this now, when the WR market is at its richest, to make sure they got a guy they liked at a price they were comfortable with.

      We shouldn’t always overanalyse the cost. Paying your #2 receiver as the 21st highest paid receiver in the league isn’t exactly problematic for Seattle.

  9. Pedestrian says:

    I like the points you made, Rob. The Lockett extension was good, fair, and probably the right move. I can also understand their desire for another backup – my preference would have been Teddy Bridgewater since it cost the same pick. But that’s just me and I’m sure Hundley will be serviceable.

    The proposed trade you have there seems close to what it would take to get Mack, and man, I’d really really like to get him on our roster. But two first rounds picks for a non-QB is a lot, and for the seahawks thats more like 4-6 picks since we always trade back. Is Mack better than possibly 6 contributors?

    I usually really like trades and the proponent of adding a piece that could help immediately, but that’s a deal I’d walk away from even though you probably won’t get a player of his caliber… If they could do Frank + Earl + 2020 2nd rd or Earl + a 1st I’d bite, but two first rounds is really 6 players to us and that’s trading away your future when Seahawks have just begun their rebuild. Bad strategy.

    • STTBM says:

      Cost the same pick?! Saints gave up a third for Bridgewater, we only gave a sixth for Hundley.

      I like Bridgewater a lot, and I bet Seattle does too, but they weren’t going to give up a third for him. Plus, he likely won’t stay anywhere as a backup past this year so he’d be a one-year guy for a third. Kinda pricey…

    • Rob Staton says:

      Bridgewater cost a R3. Hundley cost a R6.

      The deal for Mack I proposed is really one R1 pick and a swap of R1 & R3 picks.

      • Pedestrian says:

        My mistake, I thought I heard on NFL network they traded Bridgewater for a 6th. Guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention.

        Rob, I agree if you can turn one of those 1s into a 2019 2nd or 3rd that makes it much easier to swallow. But what are your thoughts in terms of really you’re giving up 4-6 picks just due to the way pete and john trade back with their first each year?

      • FresnoHawk says:

        Rob your proposed deal is a shrewd one wouldn’t hesitate to offer it. According to Twitter Pundits on NFL Total Access (God I love your nick name Twitter Pundits) Raiders received calls from several teams, one team offered a player for Mack and another team offered a 1st round pick plus an additional high pick. What does an addition high pick = I have no clue. Best guess 2nd round.

  10. AlaskaHawk says:

    I think it is okay to question adding Hundley – a week before there will be a bunch of backup quarterbacks cut. Is PC really saying that this is the only backup he will consider? That Hundley is so good that the Seahawks need to spend a future draft pick now?? What value does he have compared to all the names we will hear on Saturday? And what is so special about being able to pick him= do you really think that the other teams that are about to cut 30 plus players are going to snatch him away from us? And that no other QB can possibly compare?

    Rob – You said it yourself. “Brett Hundley isn’t particularly good.” That’s a ringing endorsement. My hot take is they should have waited a week and seen who else is available. As for the 6th round pick, it’s just another draft pick thrown away, like so many others that the Seahawks have used.

    On the Lockett extension = as long as he is healthy it is a decent deal in todays market. Looking back, the one player I wish they had retained was Golden Tate. At the time he was dueling with Baldwin for most yardage per year, kind of co-leaders on the receiving team. I think the two would have formed a permanent backbone for the receivers. And all for another 6 million a year – at that time (my how the receiver market has grown!) But that was not meant to be. Opportunities lost = draft picks traded away. Here we stand many years later = but on the bright side, this is the best receiving corp I can remember with the current crew.

    • Rob Staton says:

      You’re overthinking the situation.

      1. Which more appealing QB’s are being cut this week? I’m struggling to think of any with Hundley’s experience.

      2. Spending a R6 to make sure you get the guy you want is understandable and logical.

      3. We’re talking about a backup QB. None of them are particularly good.

  11. Volume12 says:

    Great moves. Especially the Lockett one. In all likelihood we’re looking at Baldwin’s eventual replacement. There ain’t gonna be much of a drop off, if at all, from one to the other.

  12. Volume12 says:

    Seattle seems interested in someone on this BC squad.

    As a sidenote, Ole Miss TE Dawson Knox might just be the next Evan Engram. What a talent.

    • icb12 says:

      Whats not to like about BC this year…

      Zach Allen is a stud.
      The TE Sweeney is very intriguing. The end of last season he was putting it together.
      Both Safeties are studs, Denis and Harris (Harris can HIT)
      Strachan at Linebacker is very underrated player IMO
      Lindstrom is a very good OLinemen. Probably a guard at the next level.

      And if none of that strikes your fancy– watching AJ Dillon Truck some fools should get you excited to watch BC.

  13. Nick says:

    While I am intrigued by Mack’s value (and the trade you proposed, Rob), it seems too expensive. Especially when you consider that this year we are in store for an excellent 1st round D-lineman. Who we would have under club control for five years (and on a relatively cheap contract).

    If this coming draft didn’t have good D-line talent, I’d be much more on the Mack idea. But as it stands, it would seem a little too steep of a cost.

    • Rob Staton says:

      The problem is — while admittedly it’s a good DL class next year — DL is also one of the single hardest areas to project to the next level. It’s such a crapshoot. There have been so many DL busts — largely because so many guys in college win with their extreme speed or explosive athleticism. When that’s not enough at the next level, they struggle.

      For me you’ll need to be in the top-10 to get a really good pass rusher next year, possibly top-15. What if the Seahawks finish 9-7 again? You’ll neither get Khalil Mack or one of the great DL’s. Trading for Mack eliminates that dilemma. It also makes you an instant contender (IMO).

      Plus DL’s often take time to develop. See Frank Clark. He had everything physically. Took him a year or two to reach a certain level and even now he’s not the finished article. Mack is an instant terror.

      • Pedestrian says:

        Very convincing points Rob. I’m sold! Actually I’ll be just fine either trading for Mack or not (with your proposition).

      • FresnoHawk says:

        When I learned Mack was a high character guy I was sold. If Oakland is stupid enough to let him go we should get him immediately. I can see why Gruden is doubting his team and wants to bring in his own guys. I saw Carr throw a couple of long passes it looks like his arm strength is in question to me but I could be wrong. Gruden has 10 years so if he can pick up a couple of 1st round picks now that might be something to build on. Either way I’m just wondering if Gruden has balls I know Pete & John got balls!

    • SoCal12 says:

      Yeah giving up firsts for Mack is already an idea I’m not too comfortable with, but also having to pay him $20 million a year on top of that makes the deal not very viable in my eyes. We’re already looking at having to offer $30+ mill to Russ soon on top of potentially extending Frank somewhere in the $15-20 mill range. Just doesn’t seem like we have much room to work with Mack here.

      Would much rather draft and develop a guy this year. We have a super young defense with potential right now and I think we need to plan long term with them.

  14. Pedestrian says:

    Rob, I agree many people are too opinionated and think they know better. That is somewhat the territory of what it is to be a fan – but some can take it too far or are repeating themselves trying to get people to listen to them.

    I like to discuss ideas with fellow fans, and sometimes those ideas are way out there. But that’s the excitement of the NFL, the blockbuster deals, the players they let walk, development of players. The point I guess is you should be able to entertain an idea without intending to act on each one or dismiss it. It should be casual and exploratory.

    Also when your team has had as much success as ours, you shouldn’t have such strong opinions as though you know better. Browns fans on the other hand… might know better and am glad every season Jimmy Haslam doesn’t own the Seahawks.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think the problem in Seattle is there are a few too many legends in their own lunch breaks.

      • Ashish says:

        What are the chances that Mack will be free agent next year? will not be a good idea to bid to sign in as a FA next year? Any team ready to trade has to give two 1st rounder and a hefty contract (cap space to sign) both conditions filter out of many teams out of 31. Not counting teams like LA RAMS having Donald and Suh or Chargers (Bosa and Engram).

        @Rob with due respect adding Mack to Seahawk’s rebuilding or retooling phase may not increase chance for SB compare to last year.

        I would rather wait and see, S. Richardson trade didn’t workout as we expected was worth a try no regrets plus ignoring Graham who did lot better than Harvin.

        • Rob Staton says:

          I think there’s virtually no chance Mack will be a FA next year. He will be traded, re-signed or franchised. One way or another the Raiders aren’t letting him walk out the door for a third round comp pick.

          Mack is one of the best five defensive players in the league. He would significantly increase their chances of making a SB this year.

  15. Isaac says:

    Something we haven’t talked about is the potential contract of Mack and Wilson chewing up all of our cap space. Is that worth the two firsts?

    • Rob Staton says:

      Seahawks currently have the fourth most available cap space for 2019 and over $100m in 2020. Even if Mack had a $22M cap hit in 2019, they’d have over $30m to spend and $80m the following year. That’s not taking into account the likely continuing rise of the cap either or any money rolled over.

  16. DC says:

    I would LOVE to add Mack or Lawrence… as free agents in 2019. You’re gonna have to pay them heaps of dough regardless of how they are attained. Then your biggest roster hole is covered and you can spend that high pick on the big playmaking WR that Pete covets.

  17. GerryG says:

    Agree on social media, it is awful and is a downfall of our current social norms and culture.

    I’d love Mack on this team, would love to get a 2019 2nd back instead of a 2020 3rd even if we had throw something else in.

  18. Pran says:

    Hundley – FA 2019. Worst case helps in comp picks.
    Lockett – Fair deal, shows the confidence that he is due for a breakout. Worst case it is a deal that can be traded easily.

  19. Ishmael says:

    Adams has 22 receiving TDs in the last two seasons, Locket has… 3. That’s easily worth 3.4 million a season. I think it’s a bit of an overpay for Lockett, but far from egregious. Would definitely rather pay him $10 million than the 8 for Richardson.

    I like the Hundley deal a lot more. He’s a QB you can survive with, Davis or McGough – no chance.

    Mack’s a pretty fascinating possibility. Would fit into the stars and scrubs approach Seattle have taken over the last few years. I kind of see where the Raiders are coming from, they’ve been absolutely trash on defence even with him so is he really worth 20+ million? Not many players like him around though.

  20. BobbyK says:

    If anyone thinks two #1 picks are too rich for Mack, a generational talent, think of it this way… would you trade Penny and Ifedi for Mack and his monster contract? That’s our last two #1 picks and could easily be our two next #1 pick quality players. The previous #1 was James Carpenter.

  21. BobbyK says:

    Or come to think of it (I forgot Irvin was taken after Carp), would anyone trade the best two of our last four 1st round picks for the right to get Mack? That’s pretty much what it boils down to.

    OBTW – This was the Seahawks draft we’ve been waiting for since ’12. I’m even jacked about Jacob Martin.

  22. CHawk Talker Eric says:

    Excuse me while I salivate over the prospect of a starting DL consisting of:

    Mack — Green — Reed — Clark

    Backed up up by a LB corps of:

    Mingo — Wagner — Wright

    With Naz, QJeff, Poona, Martin & Griffin rotating in.

    On paper at least, that’s a SB-winning front 7

    On Lockett & Hundley: Both are good moves for the team. Lockett is a highly versatile OW who can line up outside or in the slot, has great chemistry with RW especially in scramble mode, is tough & gritty, fights for YAC, and of course one of the premier KR/PR in the League. His deal is eminently reasonable compared to similar WRs. At the risk of being a tad superficial, Hundley is essentially Tarvaris Jackson 2.0 – similar size, athleticism and play style. He is significantly more game ready than either Davis or McGough. If heaven forbid RW misses a couple of games, Hundley has the chops to hold the fort, especially with a resurgent run game. I don’t think I could say the same about either Davis or McGough. A R6 pick for that kind of insurance is relatively cheap.

  23. FresnoHawk says:

    Sabotage the Raiders plane I don’t care what they do but do not let the Raiders leave Seattle without a trade for Mack! If we can’t get a high pick for ET this is our best chance at acquiring a player of Mack’s caliber! A ProBowl DE will shield the weak spots on our Defense. “Just Do It”!

  24. FresnoHawk says:

    If we get Mack the look on the Twitter pundits faces will be priceless! I would love to watch those chumps stutter through the breaking news. Please Lord make it happen!

  25. Naks says:

    I think people forget how important a quality returner is, especially one that is also a very good receiver. Remember when we had to pick up devin Hester and use a roster space? Or when we had Baldwin, Sherman and Thomas all trying to return punts/kicks. I really liked the penny pick this year because not only was he a good back, but he’s also a great returner. There’s huge value in players that are good special teams players and position players. You basically fill 2 positions in 1, so it’s unfair to compare them to players that are only wr.

  26. ZHawk says:

    You know, I was thinking… I see some Davante Adams in David Moore.

  27. rns says:

    The other thing to remember is this is an extension so his salary for this year will likely be restructured to include money from the new contract. His cap number for 2018 is 2.1 million so this deal more like a 4 year contract for 34 million. Which is pretty close to Richardson’s APY.

  28. KD says:

    So is this whole talk about trading for Mack a legit possibility that is actually being talked about or is it mostly day dreaming?

    • Rob Staton says:

      Well, some teams are talking to Oakland about a possible deal.

    • Hawktalker##1 says:

      If it’s a dream, PLEASE, don’t wake me!!!! I’m very happy at the moment!!!

    • Mac says:

      It’s fake-ish news, garbage sports journalism with clickbait titles.
      If they did trade him, they’d have to get at least two firsts but I don’t think they have any immediate intent on trading him. Everyone is on the block for the right price but until direct statements come out it’s difficult to recognize the validity.

      I liked the Tyler Lockett contract but I think we could of offered him a bit less.