Were the Seahawks right to trade Frank Clark?

May 14th, 2020 | Written by Rob Staton

The Seahawks entered the 2019 off-season facing a huge dilemma.

One way or another they had to sort out Russell Wilson’s future. Three other players were also approaching the final year of their contracts — Bobby Wagner, Jarran Reed and, thanks to the franchise tag, Frank Clark.

The intention was clearly to try and keep all four. When asked about Clark at the combine, both Pete Carroll and John Schneider said they expected him in Seattle. Carroll in particular said multiple times, quite firmly, that Clark would be with the team in 2019.

It felt like they were keen to get him signed to a deal worth about $18m per year — the amount of the tag. The game-changer was Demarcus Lawrence’s contract in Dallas. A stalemate was abruptly ended when the Cowboys agreed to pay him $21m a year. Suddenly a player with production but not the quality of Khalil Mack or Aaron Donald was earning elite money. Now Clark could realistically ask for the same.

Nobody can really complain about the Seahawks deciding they were better off seeing what else was out there. $21m is a lot of money. Only four defensive linemen are paid more — Donald, Mack, Lawrence and now DeForest Buckner. Seattle had to make a call on whether Clark’s 32 sacks in three seasons, including 13 in 2018, warranted a placing among the leagues elite. Clearly they decided it wasn’t enough.

They made a trade for a late first round pick and a second round pick. Those players ended up being, ultimately, L.J. Collier and Damien Lewis.

The thought process and logic was perfectly plausible — especially when Wilson and Wagner signed their contracts. Had they signed Clark to the deal he received in Kansas City, here are the cumulative cap hits for all three players per year for the following four seasons:

2019 — $48.5m
2020 — $65.05m
2021 — $74.95m
2022 — $83.65m

On paper, that’s hard to accept. Yet there are some other things to consider.

For starters, Clark’s cap hit in 2020 is $19.3m. The Seahawks are spending $19.1m of their cap space on K.J. Wright, Bruce Irvin and Jacob Hollister. You could argue they’d be better off with Clark — especially with the depth they’ve got at tight end and having just spent a first round pick on a linebacker.

The $74.95m hit is incredibly steep in 2021. However, the Seahawks are currently slated to have about $63m in available cap space at the end of this season. They could tolerate Clark’s cap hit of $25.8m. It’d also be their final year without an ‘out’ in the contract. The Chiefs can’t cut or trade Clark until 2022 due to the dead-money on the deal. Having between $30-40m to spend wouldn’t have prevented Seattle from filling out the depth on their roster. They would’ve also had two full draft classes by then (2020 & 2021).

By 2022 the Seahawks would have a lot of freedom and flexibility. If a 29-year-old Clark was no longer providing a high level of performance they could cut or trade him and save $13.4m. They could also cut or trade Wagner and save a further $17m. If they needed money, they could find it.

The other thing to consider are the extensions the Seahawks might want to do that’ll eat into future cap space. Chris Carson and Shaquill Griffin are the two big names who are out of contract at the end of the 2020 season. Neither player has shown they warrant a big extension at this stage.

Clearly this was a choice by Seattle not to go beyond their limit for Clark — which, as noted, was seemingly set at the franchise tag limit of $18m.

But how did that unwillingness to stretch to another $3m per year impact the roster reset overall?

This is the big question and one that warrants some consideration moving forward.

When the Seahawks refreshed their roster in 2018 it was an attempt to establish a new core and identify the players they would build around moving forward. The 2018 team were competitive and often exciting if somewhat flawed. They still recorded impressive home wins against Kansas City, Green Bay and Minnesota. They gave the Rams two almighty battles. They finished 10-6 but it could’ve easily been more. Two disappointing road losses to start the year put them behind the eight-ball and they shouldn’t have lost on the road in San Francisco. 11-13 wins was possible and would’ve felt more authentic than perhaps even last season.

They had their big beasts — Wilson, Wagner, Carson, Duane Brown, Tyler Lockett and two defensive linemen (Clark and Reed) who delivered 23.5 sacks. The path to future success was clear. Build around that group. It was going to be tricky in 2019 because they only had four draft picks and limited cap space.

That in part was probably another inspiration for trading Clark — to get another pick and free up some cash. Yet by dealing him the Seahawks were doing the opposite of building at the exact time they needed to be adding not subtracting.

The 2019 draft class was rich in defensive linemen. It felt like an ideal opportunity, even with only four picks, to add to what they had. That too probably gave the Seahawks false hope that they could deal Clark and handle the loss. As it happens — the rush on the position caught them out when both Rashan Gary and Brian Burns went quickly. They traded out of range for their secondary targets and seemingly settled on L.J. Collier to avoid missing out on the defensive linemen altogether.

That could end up being the defining moment of the reset, unfortunately. That’s the negative way of looking at it anyway. Since that trade, the Seahawks went from relying on Frank Clark for a pass rush to having nobody who could deliver a pass rush. The Jadeveon Clowney trade bailed them out before the 2019 season — but they were unwilling, so far, to commit to bringing him back too.

If he doesn’t return, he’ll have cost a third round pick for one season.

Instead of building and growing the unit, the Seahawks smashed a big hole into their pass rush. They’ve since been scrambling to find solutions. Ansah, Clowney — now trading up for Darrell Taylor and signing Benson Mayowa and Bruce Irvin. They’re trying to find answers instead of building. In 2019, the lack of pass rush was crippling. There’s a danger the same issue will prevent them from succeeding in 2020 too.

Removing Clark created a big problem — one that they’ve struggled to solve.

Again — the logic behind the trade was perfectly understandable at the time. In hindsight, especially if they don’t return to a Super Bowl in the next couple of years, we’ll wonder if their unwillingness to go from $18m to $21m a year was costly. Especially if their future answers to the problem have a similar lack of success as Ansah and Collier in 2019.

Sometimes you just have to pay the going rate for a good player.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing though. Nobody makes a decision to get it wrong. If a decision is logical — and Seattle trading Clark was — then you have to temper any criticism. You can also, however, discuss that decision and question whether it was the right move after all. As of today, it’s hard to argue the Seahawks are in a better position for dealing Clark.

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

Become a Patron!

222 Responses to “Were the Seahawks right to trade Frank Clark?”

  1. cha says:

    There’s a trend that has developed recently. Teams trading their star players for high picks, then taking players in similar positions with high picks to fill the gap created – often times, with the very picked gained by trading the star. Will be very interesting to see if this works out for them, and if it influences teams in future years who have top players ready to get that first big contract.

    Seahawks – Traded Clark, Drafted Collier
    Jags – Traded Ramsey, Drafted Henderson
    Dolphins – Traded Tunsil, Drafted Austin Jackson
    Niners – Traded Bucker, Drafted Kinlaw
    Vikings – Traded Diggs, Drafted J Jefferson
    Rams – Traded Cooks, Drafted V Jefferson

    • TomLPDX says:

      This is a good thought, Cha. Trade the high salaried player for a rookie with the same potential, saving the team a LOT of money if it works out and enabling them to also add at other positions. We can see that with the Frank Clark trade, which I thought was genius at the time…unfortunately the guys we were targeting got picked before our time and we were stuck with the leftovers and foiling our ultimate plan.

  2. From this perspective that trade was a mistake (especially with Collier pick)…

    From perspective before 2019 draft, it was more than reasonable trade…

  3. Silly Billy says:

    While yes, “Those players ended up being, ultimately, L.J. Collier and Damien Lewis” for Frank Clark, that additional 1st rounder gave the Hawks way more flexibility in 2019. From what i recall we started 2019 with 5 picks, and ended with 11.

    Picking their #1 priority DE @ 29 allowed them to turn #21 into Ugo, BBK, Blair, and DK. No way we could do that without the FC Trade.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Of course they could. They could’ve done all that, just minus one of Collier or Blair.

    • Ashish says:

      I agree, there is no way to say we did it right or wrong. L.J did not start strong that is one of the reason people questioning the decision. Let say L J does not work out well, even that does not prove that decision was wrong because we picked wrong guy. So GM/scout is at the fault. I trust PC and he will get more out of LJ and Green.
      McDowell is the root cause of this debacle. His reckless cost hawks to trade 2nd round for Richardson and so on we know the story. That pick caused us to trap in future draft stock and we are catching up till now. I hope we are able to sign Clowney.

      • TomLPDX says:

        Honestly, I’ve stopped pinning my hopes on Clowney. He isn’t the ultimate answer, just a stop-gap to get us through the year. What I like about this article the most is that the Seahawks made calculated moves and were ultimately defeated by move by other teams with their own savvy and selections – these guys aren’t dummies and they are all vying for the same thing. Collier was not our primary target and instead was the consolation prize, and so far hasn’t worked out – move on and take your lumps, but learn from those lumps and make better decisions the next time…case in point: DK Metcalf. That was a good move and they took it.

      • BobbyK says:

        Granted, nobody could have predicted an ATV accident but the GM was absolutely reckless for taking a player who was proven to be reckless. The character flags waving from that guy. And look at the arrests he’d had since the ATV incident. You can’t blame the player when the GM knew full well what that player was all about as a person.

  4. Denver Hawker says:

    It’s a strong case and narrative that I think needs more seasoning.

    Clark didn’t have a $21MM season last year. He came on strong end of season in the playoffs and was a key cog in that championship so the Chiefs are happy, but I don’t think he played to his contract. He may not this year either. That said, clearly Collier didn’t play to his pedigree either.

    It might be that trading Clark wasn’t wrong, it was grabbing Collier to replace. Had they taken Sweat at 21 and traded back from 29 to gather up picks, they would have still been able to get Metcalf.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Clark was injured, still finished the year with eight sacks and won a Super Bowl — where he played a massive part in the playoffs.

  5. DC says:

    It’s water under the bridge & all… but imagine a 2019 squad that had retained Clark and still added Clowney. I’d have LOVED to see that duo working the edges

  6. Gohawks5151 says:

    To me its not really written yet. They felt they needed more picks. They traded #21 to maximize the return and it seems the board didn’t fall like they thought. Everyone makes a big deal that they looked disappointed when they picked LJ. Maybe they thought Sweat would last. Its possible Savage and Abrams were the target since they took Blair in rd 2. If that happens maybe they take Tristen Hill in rd 2 and still have ammo to get DK. It seems bad because LJ id the direct replacement for Frank. No matter how you skin it they turned 4 picks into 11 and they feel like they drafted future starters at DE, S, WR, LB and nickel (LJ, Blair, DK, Barton and Amadi). Would keeping Frank help them to move on like that? I don’t know

  7. Jhams says:

    I’ve never really liked or trusted Clark, and I was happy they got rid of him just in general. If Collier worked out better everyone would be singing the praises of the trade. Judging the strategy based on one rookie’s performance in his first season seems unwise.

    As Rob has said repeatedly, if they had got Clowney and Griffen no one could complain even if it didn’t work out. I kind of feel that way about the Clark trade. Regardless of how Collier turns out I think it was the right move.

  8. Seahawk65 says:

    Collier was never a direct replacement for Clark. No matter how he does this year, he won’t make up for the speed rush Clark could supply. But Taylor might, if not this year, by year two. The point is the Seahawks will continue searching until they find the right combination. Until then, Mayowa and Irvin might provide just enough to make us glad we’re not paying $20 mil-plus to Clark or Clowney.

  9. Big Mike says:

    Well written and even handed article Rob. In hindsight Collier is the monkey wrench in all of this. Had they drafted a guy that contributed at all last year and showed signs of promise it would be easier to swallow the trade.

    • James C says:

      This is exactly it. The sting of Collier not even seeing the field really affects how we view the trade.

  10. BC_Hawk says:

    Thanks for the article Rob; I couldn’t agree more.

    At the time, the trade was the right fit, thinking we could find Clarks replacement in RND 1 on a rookie salary for 5 years; use the other 1st to acquire more picks and replenish the lineup. Like you, I feel like they missed their guy, and settled on LJ.

    What really hurt in this whole scenario, is the Trade for Clowney. We not only gave up a 3rd, but also a fine prospect DE in Martin. So, if Clowney does walk, he leaves 2 holes that would still be occupied had we signed Clark. Clowney, IMHO, is the make or break for this year, much as a rushing mate for him last year would have been. Looking back, I would have loved to see what a Clark-Clowney pairing could have done.

    Here’s to hoping Clowney resigns and Taylor can perform in year 1…..

  11. cha says:

    Rob, do you think the Seahawks’ thinking was more that they didn’t want to pay the $ for Clark, or that their roster didn’t indicate they felt now was the time to push all their chips into the middle of the table and make a run?

    They had to know that trading Clark, even for a first round pick and change, was going to set them back. Very few rookies come in and make an impact their first year. Ziggy was a prayer thrown up with half a shoulder. And Clowney coming in at training camp could never have been foreseen.

    • Rob Staton says:

      As the article notes, I think they set a value for Clark and when the market surpassed that value they opted to be open minded about a trade.

  12. mishima says:

    Trading Clark was good process.

    IMO, the inability to add talent through the draft and free agency has been the problem. Best / past 8 drafts: Clark (gone), Reed, Griffin. Player evaluation and development improve.

    Only trades and overpays are keeping the unit maybe league average.

    • mishima says:

      *need to improve*

    • dcd2 says:

      This is a more succinct wording of my thoughts as well. Fine with the process, but disappointed with the end result thus far.

    • Darnell says:

      There’s a lot more good to show from the previous 8 drafts than just the guys you named. Lockett, Metcalf, Dissly, Carson, Duane for a 2, Dunbar for a 5, Diggs for a 5, Dickson.

      • mishima says:

        Should of clarified: defense.

        “…trades…keeping the unit maybe league average:” Richardson, Dunbar, Diggs, Clowney, etc.:

        Besides Wagner, is there a top 10 player at his position on defense?

    • Matt says:

      Totally agree…trading Clark was a very good process. My problem is that this very good process was completely offset by a very poor process in drafting Collier. Yes – that’s with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time – I didn’t like the Collier pick because he was never going to be a true pass rusher in the NFL. He was an older prospect with an extremely limited athletic profile. He would have to defy major odds to be anything more than a base down player who can provide a handful of sacks. I’d contend that this is not a R1 player. I’d rather swing and miss on someone you think can be a difference maker over settling for a middling talent with a limited profile.

      *Many people poo-poo the McDowell pick. I thought that was great process. They target an extremely high-ceiling player at a critical position. He ultimately was a knucklehead and ruined his career and subsequently set the Seahawks back. Of course, the reason he fell was bc he was a character concern. Where the Seahawks pick in the draft, concessions have to be made. I think this club does better when they “bet big” rather than play it safe.

      Again – great process trading Clark completely mitigated by bad process in the draft with Collier.

  13. dcd2 says:

    This to me is one where the ‘process’ was sound, but the execution was not. As the article mentions, we could have made it work, but we were up against the cap for sure. RW just got a record-setting deal, on the heels of Bobby doing the same and Reed to deal with too.

    Let’s say last year that Sweat falls two more spots and we take him over LJ. We’ve got a 8 sack guy who looks the part. Take Okereke at #88 over Barton and all of a sudden this looks like an amazing trade. We swap Frank for a promising pass rusher, a great looking LB & the other moves they made; DK, Ugo, etc.

    Now who’s to know if they would have taken Sweat, had he been there. They passed on Okereke for Barton, and one looked the part as a rookie. One did not.

    There are a lot of ways that the Clark deal could work out, namely Collier, Blair and Barton emerging. They don’t look particularly likely IMO. What COULD HAVE been done with the capital and cap space from the Clark deal made sense at the time.

    The trade itself, with negotiations stalled and few suitors was great. The working of trades to move back, move up and spin a handful of picks into almost a dozen was fantastic. The way the board fell (perhaps) and the choices made when on the clock seem the fatal flaw. It could still work out, but Collier has stumbled mightily, out of the gate.

    LJ and Damien are our direct compensation for Frank, along with some cap space. So far the cap space seems squandered and the pick(s) questionable. Ultimately it will be their success or failure that deems the Clark trade a success or failure in time.

    • dcd2 says:

      Bah, where’s my edit button!? Started writing this. Stopped to eat lunch. Came back to finish and it seems all over the place. Hopefully it makes some sense.

      • Big Mike says:

        No worries. Made sense to me.
        I’ve said a couple times and I’ll stand by it, I think Lewis will be Pro Bowl level. That comes from watching him on film as well as some kind of gut instinct. Collier OTOH, I have little hope for much of anything. When a first rounder is a healthy scratch for half the games he’s physically able to play, that is a very bad sign, TC or no TC.
        If Lewis turns out to be that good, it’ll mitigate some of the angst we’re feeling about the trade at the present. That won’t help the D but hopefully Taylor and Robinson will, at least eventually.

        • dcd2 says:

          That really is it in a nutshell. If Collier had done what Sweat did last year (which I was trying to get at) I think we all would have said – good deal. A promising pass-rusher and the best G in this draft, plus the cap space makes sense.

          The fact that Collier has been so disappointing means Lewis will need to be amazing to spin it in a positive light, in the short term.

      • Simo says:

        It makes perfect (almost) sense! Fans can certainly understand why PC/JS traded Clark, whether it’s because they weren’t going to pay him more than $18m or they just need more draft capital and cap flexibility.

        The rub for us fans tends to be in the return for the Clark trade, and for me specifically in the pass rush department. We lost a dynamic pass rusher in his prime and replaced him with a DE who by all accounts produced next to nothing in his rookie year, and who lacks athleticism and twitch.

        Now if Damien Lewis becomes a perennial all-pro guard in a year or two, this trade will look much better to most of us fans!

  14. Gohawks5151 says:

    Heeeeeeee’s BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Talking about Geno of course…

  15. Big Mike says:

    Best thing about the Geno news is no more having to even consider the puke inducing thought of Cam Newton in a Seahawks uniform.
    (And no, I never thought for one second THAT ego would allow itself to be a backup anywhere)

  16. 2020Hawk says:

    Seattle made the playoffs last year so it wasn’t a terrible trade and if they have a better record this year or perform better in the playoffs then it was a good trade, so I believe it’s too early to determine if it was a good or bad trade. It doesn’t matter what Clark does in KC. What matters is how Seattle performs overall without Clark & a 19 million cap hit. Losing an expensive player like Clark will impact how our offense will perform because it affects cap space & roster spots. If we need to carry 2 players to make up or surpass Clark’s production it might be worth it, it might not. If we give up more 2 TD’s to our opponents defense, our defense allows 10 more offensive plays, our defense allows our opponents offense 8 more minutes of offensive possession but losing Clark allows us to add an offensive player that allows our offense to produce 3 more TD’s against our opponents defense, our offense has 13 more offensive plays, and our offense possess the ball 10 more minutes. Then…. You can use different variables to support your argument but the only unit of measurement that matters is wins & losses. The wins & losses determine Seattles strategy’s & tactics not opinions outside the organization, a big lesson Seattle learned when they lost the locker room to the social justice media pundits.

    • Rob Staton says:

      1. The success or failure of the trade cannot be determined simply on whether the team makes the playoffs. They’re always going to be in a shot for the playoffs with Russell Wilson at quarterback. The key is whether their pass rush is any good (it was abysmal in 2019), whether a bad pass rush prevents them from being anything more than a mere ‘make up the numbers’ playoff side (that was the case in 2019) and whether it prevents them from actually winning a Super Bowl.

      2. Of course it matters what he does in Kansas City.

      3. What does this even mean? “The wins & losses determine Seattles strategy’s & tactics not opinions outside the organization

  17. Ukhawk says:

    No!!

  18. Tonners says:

    I know it is a bit unrelated, but I have always been curious to see what Jacob Martin would’ve turned out like in Seattle had he not been in the Clowney trade. I feel like he could’ve turned into a good value situational pass rusher.

    • Seahawk65 says:

      I think Martin would have helped last season. At least he flashed speed and energy as a situational pass rusher. He was seen as a throw-in, but we missed having someone like him. We were so desperate we used S. Griffin in that spot.

      • smitty1547 says:

        I’m from Houston, and the couple of games I saw of there’s he looked good, pretty sure he had more sacks that Clowney (3.5)

  19. DDF says:

    Pick 64 this year was spun into picks 69 and 148. We took Damien Lewis with 69 but also got Alton Robinson with 148. It’s probably fair to include Robinson on balance sheet of that trade.

  20. hawkfanforetenity says:

    Thanks for the well laid out article Rob. I think we tend to focus more on the results of the decision rather than the process that lead to it. Was there a sound, logical basis for the decisions they made? It seems like there was. Is it fair to judge a decision on the end result? It definitely appears that we often do. Yet it feels like so many of the decisions in roster building are gambles. Maybe the measure of a good front office should be how logical, intelligent and well calculated those gambles are.

    Certainly the Seahawks have made some big gambles recently that haven’t turned out, and it’s fair to judge them on those. Yet there seems like a bias in this. When a team makes a gamble and it pays off, they are labelled geniuses. When they take a gamble and it fails, they get criticized for it.

    In the 2017 draft the Saints gambled on a CB with a history of hamstring injuries in college, Marshon Lattimore. They also took a right tackle who had just had hip surgery in Ryan Ramczyk, and a RB with off the field red flags in Alvin Kamara. That’s an amazing draft, and all three could be in the argument for best at their position. But they were all gambles, to some extent, though none of them were at a Malik McDowell level of risk. The Saints get an A+ in every draft review, yet if Lattimore’s hamstring had carried over to the NFL, if Ramczyk hadn’t come back with no issues from his surgery, and if Kamara’s red flags had resurfaced, they would be blasted for taking the chance on them.

    I guess my point is when a team makes an intelligent, calculated gamble, whether it fails or succeeds we should remember that in the end all these decisions are gambles. We can just hope that more of them turn out then fail, and that there’s a logical intelligent approach behind them.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think recently the Seahawks have been a lot more risk averse though. Their gambles are more decisions without a clear answer and I’m not sure we can describe them as gambles per se — that’s really just making a decision when it needs to be made. Certainly the 2013-17 Seahawks were a lot more pro-active and took more chances. At the moment they seem to be going about things in a much more conservative manner.

      • mishima says:

        Thoughts on why?

        • TomLPDX says:

          My feeling is that the moves have been more measured,meaning they are looking more than one or two years ahead. Brooks being the primary example. That was totally “planning for the future” as far as I’m concerned, and a good pick.

        • dcd2 says:

          I think they are looking for personalities that are closer to RW and Bobby than ET & Sherm. They have taken one guy with character questions in the last 4 drafts – Malik – and it flamed out in spectacular fashion.

          Maybe the fallout from Sherman/ET/Bennett is something they think they can avoid by taking a different personality type? In fact, maybe that’s part of why they dealt Frank. He’s really the last last guy on the roster that had character concerns.

          It really does seem to be as much about risk mitigation as anything. John pointed out over and over how Penny had the highest grade that the medical staff had ever given out. Clearly that was one of the most important factors in the decision to take him over Chubb, etc. This year, they talked about how Brooks ‘blew them away in the interview’. Lat year, you could see the rapport DK and Pete had in that first meeting (Pete taking his shirt off). The fact that he was an absolute physical specimen made it worth a trade-up.

        • Sea Mode says:

          Got burned too many times and now they are paying the price down the line. Harvin, Graham, McDowell (if it wasn’t a stupid accident right off the bat, something was gonna happen with that dude sooner or later…), Richardson.

          Once the LOB and pass rush fell apart, and Baldwin retired, they decided to reset, oust the bad apples in the locker room, and swallow all the dead cap, accumulate some picks, and bet on themselves in the draft again. They did all that that quite well except for the very last one so far.

      • Pearedu says:

        Rob, they are more risk averse because they missed badly with the Harvin , Graham, Richardson trades, how they passed on trading Sherman in ’16 and ’17 only to cut him in ’18 , how they rejected a 2nd for earl thomas and then letting him walk for a mere 3rd compensatory when they knew they were not going to extend him.
        They calmed down after all of that many misses.
        Also it didnt help that their ’13 , ’14 draft classes were total SHIT and nobody remains from those draft classes (luke willson doesnt count). ’16 + ’17 draft classes were also really bad contemplating they had 9 (NINE) day 2 picks and missed on almost all of them.
        If you remove Russell Wilson from the 2020 seahawks roster they are a sub 5 win team.
        I guess in an evil way if RW gets injured like tom brady did in ’08 Seattle could be in play for a top 5 pick in 2021.
        The 2 years the seahawks were strong and deep upfront both oline and dline they went to the superbowl.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Learning from prior errors shouldn’t mean a complete retraction from the ‘go for it’ attitude that helped win a Championship. Look at the Niners and Chiefs. They aren’t being conservative.

  21. jopa726 says:

    Quinton Dunbar Accused Of Armed Robbery, Warrants Issued

  22. John_s says:

    Quinten Dunbar arrested for robbery with DeAndre Baker

    Ooofff. What was your favorite Dunbar Seahawks moment?

  23. Aaron says:

    Well S#!&…Quinton Dunbar accused of armed robbery according to TMZ. That’s great, just spectacular *dies internally*

  24. Rob Staton says:

    On the plus side… $3.4m in extra cap space.

    Can’t wait to add a few more offensive linemen!

    • TomLPDX says:

      Seriously. Come on Rob, that was just a bit too callous,.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Dunbar literally did a press conference with the media today. Incredible.

      • Rob Staton says:

        The good news is… at least the pass rush is fixed and everything to take some pressure off the secondary. Phew-ee, imagine if they didn’t have a pass rush? Thank goodness they got that sorted… 👀👀👀

        • Aaron says:

          😂😅🥺😭

          What a week. From the trolling high of @everyonelovesnudz to this crap!

          • Rob Staton says:

            It makes you wonder what’s next.

            I’m going to go with B.J. Finney retires to become a Buddhist monk or Jarran Reed suffers a jaw injury eating a big sandwich.

            • Justin Mullikin says:

              “Jarran Reed suffers a jaw injury eating a big sandwich.” This made me laugh really hard. I now consider myself big sandwich adverse. 6 feet away at all times. Lol

              • Rob Staton says:

                Please social distance from that sandwich, sir. It’s for your own good.

                And next time wear a mask.

                ‘To eat a big sandwich??’

                Yes.

                • EranUngar says:

                  At least the Seahawks are ready for the new Corona regulations. Their pass rushers practiced social distance from opposing QBs all season long…

        • TomLPDX says:

          Rob, I love you, man…but this isn’t the time for the ultra snark. This really sucks since we were counting on him to be a better version of Flowers, but that is a selfish thought too on my part. I hope Quinton is able to get his shit together (but I doubt it).

          • Rob Staton says:

            I’m trying to inject some cynical humour to proceedings Tom.

            And unfortunately for anyone who isn’t a fan of it… well… there’s more on the way so you better get ready.

            • dcd2 says:

              Where’s a GIF of a Yorkshire Terrier pissing on John’s sandwich and then barking at him to let him know, when you need it?

              Seriously though, how can you not make light of this ridiculousness?

              We also named Dunbar the starter this morning – sight unseen – so Flowers’ confidence is likely soaring.

            • TomLPDX says:

              Actually, I don’t. Like I said, I love what you’ve given us for a long, long time and I think you are an awesome, balanced reporter of what you see for our team. I implore you to rise above it. This situation really sucks and is just a culmination of the tolerance we have as fans, but to each his own.

    • Aaron says:

      3.4 mil extra for Clowney to stay. Dude just a presser today…TODAY!!! Is this real life???

      • Rob Staton says:

        I’m almost impressed that he was so blasé during that press conference. As if nothing was going on.

        You know… armed robbery, quick bite to eat, seven hours sleep, press conference…

        Pretty mundane, nothing out of the ordinary there.

    • mishima says:

      Hope Tye Smith has learned the step-kick.

      Always compete! / Win forever!

      Fun fact: The Seahawks have selected only 2 CBs over the last 5 years/drafts: Griffin and Flowers.

    • BruceN says:

      Or may be a few more TEs.

      Seriously, what a cluster f…. may be he will only get a 4 game suspension (right…)
      Not sure what was he thinking. He just cost himself a few millions since he was about to cash in next year after a good year.

  25. Rob Staton says:

    The good news for the Seahawks is there’s another off-season in 2021.

  26. Schism says:

    Went into the off-season with so much optimism, and everything has just gone to total pot. But I’m sure we’ll add a backup guard and be sorted.

  27. William C says:

    Definitely the worst offseason of the PCJS era

  28. Ralphy says:

    Quinton Dunbar wanted for four counts of armed robbery.

  29. D-OZ says:

    Dunbar collecting watches and jewelry at party. Baker brandishing a pistol. WTH

  30. Volume12 says:

    Seems bad.

  31. Rob Staton says:

    Get ready for lots of suggestions on who they’ll sign when they inevitably cut Quinton Dunbar.

    Quick reminder…

    Logan Ryan — far too expensive, 31 3⁄8 inch arms.

    Dre Kirkpatrick — 30 5⁄8 inch arms.

    The Seahawks aren’t going to throw out their ideals. They started Flowers a year ago and will have to start him again in 2020. Whoever they bring in will be someone, if anyone, who fits them.

  32. Volume12 says:

    Stack defense bay-beeeee! 3-5-3.

    • Rob Staton says:

      We’re just going to line up 11 of the offensive lineman in a great big line on defense.

      It’s called the great wall of… Seattle.

  33. All I see is 12s says:

    Being reactionary here I know. The disappointment I have over the Dunbar incident makes me all the more infuriated of the 2017 draft. Man, did they ever just blow it.
    Missing on five of the 1st six pics in an absolutely loaded draft. This team could be so loaded now had they just listened to Rob.

  34. Rob Staton says:

    It’s incredible how, at no point during this off-season, have they been able to create any energy or excitement. It’s just been a series of moves and incidents that raise more questions than answers.

    • Volume12 says:

      Wonder if they’re kicking themselves for not trading for Minkah last year. That secondary is gonna get a massive overhaul next off-season.

      • Rob Staton says:

        They couldn’t trade for Minkah.

        Pittsburgh traded for him at a time when everyone was anticipating they were going to have a top five pick with Big Ben injured.

        There was nothing the Seahawks could offer to usurp that.

        • Volume12 says:

          They definitely could’ve. A 1st, a 5th, and something like a 3rd next year would’ve sweetened the pot.

          He changed that scheme in Pittsburgh.

          • Rob Staton says:

            No they couldn’t. This is fanciful V12.

            I’m not sure you remember the immediate reaction to the trade. The Steelers had collapsed. There was talk that they were giving up a top-five QB pick in the trade.

            There was absolutely no way on earth Miami were going to turn that down in favour of a late first rounder, sweetened by a third rounder in 2021. Absolutely no way.

      • All I see is 12s says:

        I do hope they’re kicking themselves for drafting hill and Thomson when they easily could’ve had Eddie Jackson and Kittle. I remember members of this blog screaming for those players. There’s no reason we should having to be relying on an undrafted free agent trade from Washington.

      • mishima says:

        Needs one, but I could also see Carroll extending Griffin and re-committing to Flowers. Dude’s getting clingy with what little talent there is.

        Usually they plan ahead, but was surprised that Dunbar was all they did, this off-season.

    • hawkfanforetenity says:

      Exactly this. No sign of a clear plan moving forward. Nothing that promotes confidence and a vision.

  35. LLLOGOSSS says:

    … is it really “the Titanic,” after all?

  36. Gaux Hawks says:

    well, my day just got worse.

  37. pdway says:

    unf-ckingbelievable . . .

  38. Devin says:

    In his press conference today Dunbar made a point to say that he’s glad to be out of Washington and finally feels “wanted” ….. nice

  39. smitty1547 says:

    Dunbar, so frustrating to watch these guys piss away such opportunities and talent

  40. All I see is 12s says:

    Geez, I can just imagine Pete or John now at the end of a 10 and six season discussing how Dunbar was a big part of their plans and if it hadn’t happened everything would’ve been different… ala McDowell…

  41. Volume12 says:

    Hustled outta some $ at a ‘Rona party, came back w/ an AK and straight robbed those same people. 😬

  42. Trevor says:

    The amount of stupidity is infinite it seems when professional athletes have too much time on their hands. Bunch of millionaires who can’t just chill out and keep their shit together for a couple of months. Instead they have to be having 3somes with their brother and robbing guys at gunpoint do keep that competitive edge. Amazing really.

  43. Paul Cook says:

    As regards the Frank Clark trade, in hindsight a big loser. Seemed logical at the time, though.

    As for Dunbar, if this story is true…lololololol…one of the few off season moves that I was really pleased by in a pretty unexciting off season. And Tre Flowers doesn’t have to spend as much time looking over his shoulder.

  44. pdway says:

    maybe Tre Flowers set him up . . .

  45. Paul Cook says:

    I always have to wait until the facts come out. But if what I’ve read is true, even if he didn’t brandish a gun, this was a person of dubious character. How are you to know these things?

    Good riddance. I just hope we can completely negate his CAP hit.

    • Rob Staton says:

      They can get the cap money no problem.

      What they can’t do is upgrade the secondary in any realistic way, to go along with losing (so far) Clowney and replacing him with Mayowa and Irvin.

      But at least we have our WILL of the future.

      • Paul Cook says:

        Good. I’m not familiar with all the fine print of the CBA.

        As you can probably tell, I’m quite uninspired by the off season. I’m not crapping on it, as some of these pick *may* pan out, just not popping corks over it.

  46. KennyBadger says:

    Man I really felt like Dunbar was another shrewd pcjs move. I don’t get their estimations of character- one extreme or the other. Also, this is dumb.

    • Hojo says:

      It was a shrewd PCJS move. There’s no way to predict someone would do something this stupid.

      Decisions should be evaluated based on probability at the time of the decision, not the outcome.

      • KennyBadger says:

        I don’t disagree with you at all but to use Malik McDowell as an example, are character issues being vetted or overlooked?

  47. Gohawks5151 says:

    Last time we had a criminal in the secondary we went to the Superbowl. Take that haters

  48. Alec B says:

    Even when John Schneider wins this offseason, he still loses

    • BobbyK says:

      Unbelievable.

      I was really hoping that Flowers was going to be quality depth; not a subpar to potentially average starter.

  49. Trevor says:

    I think JS did about as well as could be expected last offseason. In hindsight alot of the moves he ways lauded for though at first really did not workout. The Clark trade and Ansah signing most importantly. But still they had a plan and executed.

    This offseason has been a complete and utterly confusing mess. Almost to a Bill Obrien level of confusion when it comes to a plan. The only plan seems to be to gather as many journeymen OL and TE as possible and to have the paid LB corp in the NFL.

    For the firs time in the PC/JS era they seem completely lost and I don’t see a fix at this point that can get this team to the point of being a legit contender.

    I am curious what others think but I truly believe that if you took Russ off the roster that the Hawks have one of the 7 least talented rosters in the league along with Jets, Texans, Dolphins, Falcons and maybe the Raiders, Broncos.

    This team won by being the biggest, fastest and toughest team in the league and now they are the polar opposite of that.

    • BobbyK says:

      It’s so sad. More than ever, they really need Brooks to run like a wild man and make youthful plays all over the field. And they need Taylor and Lewis to make meaningful contributions this year. It’s so important for those three guys (and another pick or two) to do something this year. They used to have so many good players they drafted and they had to prioritize who to keep. Now they don’t have many good/great players to extend and they’re filling in a bunch of clown depth guys who aren’t terrible but eat up valuable cap space on players who are actually good (like Rob said, the 2020 Seahawks would be much better off with Clark at the expense of KJ, Irvin, Hollister). But even guys like Mayowa get $3 million to not even be very good. There’s no way a guy like that is going to shine on a DL that’s not very good. Like Rob’s said before, don’t look at the sack numbers from Mayowa and Irvin last year – look what they combined for the year prior. They’ll fit right in, sadly. I’d love to shut up about how bad I think the overall roster is after #3… I don’t have fun thinking they’re pretty bad overall. I hate it. The only way this can happen is if we get good production from the three day 1-2 rookies and a couple of those others can really outperform their draft status like the good ol’ days. I don’t expect potential HOFers like Kam and Sherm in the fifth rounds because that isn’t realistic, but they need more Maxwell, KJ, even Lane types.

    • Ishmael says:

      It’s funny, the ability to stay afloat has actually harmed them to an extent. They’ve just never been able to properly drop down and get at premium talent. They seem to have tried to go after the same middle-class inefficiency the Pats have tried to mine in recent years. It’s probably your best bet if you’re not willing to tank really.

      I agree with you about Wilson and the rest of the roster, but I do feel it’s a bit of a red herring to an extent – it’s just the price you pay for paying a QB a squillion dollars. You have to pick your poison. If you’re going to pony up then you have to hit in the draft and they just… Haven’t.

      The roster is a mess though. It’s a turned into a really confusing hodgepodge of talent where they’re constantly plugging guys in to try and make something work. They keep saying they want to be the bully, and then going out and drafting nice young men who won’t be too mean to Wilson. It’s almost like a Detroit roster or something. Permanently plugging holes, no ability to execute on vision.

      • BobbyK says:

        Yes. It’s really a mess. This whole Dunbar situation just adds to an already lackluster offseason.

        I don’t blame Wilson making $35 million a year on why the team has limited talent. I look at previous drafts for that. If we didn’t have Wilson, we’d have to have somebody. Jacoby Brissett is bad and he makes $15 million per year. If the Seahawks didn’t have Wilson, it’s not like their starting QB would make a half a million dollars (unless they drafted someone). Even a bum like Teddy Bridgewater signed a 3-year $63 million contract this off-season. I like Teddy and think he’s a great person but he’s not a guy you want playing below average QB for your team at over $20 million. That would be like the Seahawks having Bridgewater at QB with enough left over to have sealed the deal with Clowney. Boom. The Wilson money is spoken for and the Seahawks without Wilson but with Bridgewater/Clowney are a premium draft pick away. With Wilson, they’re a 10-6 team; without they’re looking at a top 5-10 pick.

        • Rob Staton says:

          It’s certainly overhyped that an expensive quarterback hamstrings a team.

          The Seahawks had millions to spend this off-season. They’ve had about 20 draft picks in the last couple of drafts… including starting with three first rounders in 2019 and two second rounders in 2020.

          They could’ve kept all their ‘stars’ (including Clark).

          The key is to draft well and find value in free agency. It’s not unfair to ask whether the Seahawks have done a good enough job building during this reset, despite starting from a strong position at the end of the 2018 season. And with this Dunbar news breaking, it’s fair to say this has been a bad off-season overall.

    • mishima says:

      While still relevant and competitive, the roster is a mess.

      IMO, everything comes down to player evaluation and development. Drafting poorly and not signing talent/value in free agency results in a loss of talent, inevitable decline.

      Problem compounded by bad trades, questionable signings, extensions, draft reaches, etc. Needs multiply faster than fixes.

      If Ifedi (2016), Reed (2016), Griffin (2017) were your best picks at their position over the last 6 years, why be surprised when you have no backup LT, DL depth or your new CB gets arrested?

      Good news: Maybe less Carroll, more Schneider; Metcalf, Blair (best 2 picks, 2019; coincidentally both ‘freaks’), Brooks, Taylor, Lewis (speed, twitch, physicality).

      The Seahawks do culture

      • mishima says:

        *ETA: The Seahawks do culture better than any team, so with a bump in talent, they’ll be back.

  50. jopa726 says:

    Gloom, despair, and agony on me
    Deep, dark depression, excessive misery
    If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all
    Gloom, despair, and agony on me

    https://youtu.be/ZAAKPJEq1Ew

  51. BoiseSeahawk says:

    How expensive would Logan Ryan be???

    Maybe we end up with Ryan and Griffen? if Ryan and Clowney is too $$$$..

    • BoiseSeahawk says:

      Why couldn’t he just steal doughnuts from Top Pot.
      Thats a way more seahawky move.

  52. Saxon says:

    Well this certifies Dunbar as the BAMF the defense has been missing.

  53. Ishmael says:

    The Dunbar story is so hilariously dumb, what do you even say? Going to be interesting to hear the full story when it inevitably comes out.

    As for the Clark trade, my general thought is that every step along the way was perfectly sensible and logical but it just didn’t work out. They seem to be trying to build a more balanced roster that isn’t quite so dependent on a few elite players. Clark is, to my mind, firmly in the camp of very good but not great – and 21 million a year for ‘very good’ is A LOT.

    The problem is, as always, that drafting is really hard, and it’s hard to get it right no matter what your pick is. If Collier had been an animal last year, is anyone questioning the move? Or really if any of the players outside Metcalf from the 2019 draft had popped to fill the talent vacuum that was left?

    I generally think it was the sort of cold-eyed move they should be making, and should have been better about making with regards to players like Earl, but the execution at the end fell short. The one thing that does give me pause, the drafting and talent development over the last few years has been deeply, deeply, ordinary. I guess they have to believe they can fill the talent vacuum, but there’s not a lot of recent evidence for it.

  54. EranUngar says:

    Anybody here thinks its strange for two NFL players to roll into a party, steal a few tens of thousands at gun point without hiding their faces or identity and drive away in their Lamborghini and Mercedes?

    With all the dumb staff young players do, there has to be much more to this story than the arrest warrant details.

    Not that it will mater, but it will be interesting to hear the full story…

    • Rob Staton says:

      I think we already know it…

      They lost 70,000 at a similar party a few days earlier.

      • EranUngar says:

        I know that part but “losing 70K” sounds like a washed version. You may get pissed at losing but two millionaires with millions to lose stealing it back under gun point is not the likely response. Doing it with with your face exposed means you do not expect the other party to press charges.

        I think we’ll find out more soon…

        Still, incredibly and monumentally dumb…

    • Ishmael says:

      Probably a bit more to it, but I’d take a wild swing at the boys getting amongst the Bolivian marching powder beforehand. That, and the 70k they lost a few days earlier, probably wasn’t a stellar combination. Gambling really isn’t for everyone…

      Imagine if you were the Giants though. First round pick on Baker, only for him to suck and then this? Absolute shocker.

  55. Pran says:

    Can we get our rd#5 back.

  56. Jace says:

    Is it just me or do tons of University of Florida players get in trouble or have issues? Aaron Hernandez, Percy, Dunbar.

    • Darnell says:

      What did Percy do to be grouped in with Hernandez and Dunbar. Percy has always been clean off the field and in the community I believe.

      • BobbyK says:

        Choking your position coach and threatening to kill people qualifies him for being grouped with those clowns.

        • drewdawg11 says:

          Cam Newton was kicked off of the Gators for being involved in a laptop theft incident, I believe. Was the heir apparent to Tebow.

  57. UkAlex6674 says:

    Baker gets released by Giants on the back of this. Seahawks sign him 1 years deal. Court case keeps getting postponed. It later comes out that Schneider was the third masked man and he orchestrated the whole thing to get his man.

    • EranUngar says:

      You can’t really believe chubby Schneider was the 3rd masked man on this job.

      It had to be Pete…

      • Sea Mode says:

        Always ComPete!

        Still, this is absolutely stunning:

        NFL Update
        @MySportsUpdate
        ·8h

        Quinton Dunbar this morning to reporters: “You just want to feel wanted at the end of the day…. I just hope to repay them with the way I carry myself as a person.”

  58. Sea Mode says:

    Rob, can we all embed gifs? I know it’s probably disabled so as not to clutter the comments on a regular basis, but it sure feels like a week when you could just leave it open for a while… ET, nudez, now Dunbar, all the while talking about how we didn’t pay Clark and aren’t paying Clowney… 😞

    via GIPHY

    Were the Seahawks right to trade Clark? (in hindsight, of course)

    Short answer: no.

    Long answer: noooooooooo…

  59. Henry Taylor says:

    Maybe this motivates the team to change the narrative with some good news, like finally signing a pass rusher?

  60. GerryG says:

    To be fair to Dunbar, at the time of the trade some were calling Schneider’s acquisition of him for a mere 5th “robbery”. Perhaps he just thought this is the Seahawk way?

    • mishima says:

      I remember thinking, ‘Why so cheap for Dunbar?’ Assumed injuries, but it was just sociopathy. Creep city.

      • BobbyK says:

        I wondered that as well. I thought it might be because he couldn’t stay healthy.

        • mishima says:

          Raises the question: Did they know? Should they have known there were character concerns? Does it matter?

  61. cha says:

    https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/05/14/could-russell-wilson-be-traded-by-the-seahawks/

    Yesterday AM reaction: Well this is what happens when you give Mike Florio enough time to flap his gums.

    Today AM reaction: Sure. Just burn the whole thing down and start over.

    • BobbyK says:

      I’m convinced Russ can play at a high level until he’s 39-40. There are so many times fans get frustrated for him not running more. He’s a QB and a great one at that. Playing QB is so much between the eyes that when Russ can’t scramble the same – he’s still going to be one of the best. I believe he’s got 7-8 more good years left in him and you don’t trade franchise QBs with that much life expectancy remaining.

      And if you did trade away a franchise QB for picks – you don’t let the management who has squandered so many drafts in recent years make those picks to think somehow you’ll be good/great again. It’s not 2012 anymore. It’s almost a decade later.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I purposely didn’t want to get into that Florio thing yesterday but I feel obliged to do so now given Seattle’s media has launched into an overly sensitive reaction to it.

      So there’ll be a little bit at the end of today’s article, which is going up shortly.

    • mishima says:

      Trading Wilson is a non-starter.

      That said, would love a return to attitude/culture/process that won them a Super Bowl.

      Ironically, part of it was a willingness to burn down the past, embrace the future.

      • BobbyK says:

        I agree that trading Wilson is a non-starter. I’ve been a Seahawks fan for almost 40 years and I remember all of the years of first-round busts, stopgaps, etc. It took forever to find a good QB like Hasselbeck and he wasn’t good overnight. So to have a Hall of Fame talent like Wilson is priceless.

        I think they tried burning things down two years ago with the reset when Pete basically fired every coach he had. However, they simply have done a terrible job of drafting players, whereas they had a magical run early in their tenure of drafting. It all comes down to the draft.

  62. Without looking at the stats, tight ends seem to be the most battered and injured players across the NFL, so picking up one that is healthy + capable in free agency must be nigh on impossible. For that reason, I am comfortable with the Seahawks paying Hollister because it is easy to envisage him being needed at some stage – unless there is a Dissley II amongst the rookies.

    • Mike says:

      Not only does it seem to be injury prone, but its also one of the lynchpin positions of successful modern offenses. They are the hammer that running backs used to be, but also fill in blocking and are a catching threat. Teams are killing for the versatile guy that defense never know what he will be doing. I still felt that losing Dissly dramatically changed the offense each year he went down. The niners couldn’t stop talking about how losing kittle was the reason they lost to us last year. It was up there with fixing the lines this year to me, and glad to see it was a big priority. Im guessing we will see some 2 TE sets this year. May even be stockpiling to deal a TE to a desperate team during the season.

      Sadly d-line isnt where i imagined.

  63. David Ashton says:

    Eagerly awaiting Rob analysis on the Dunbar piece!!

    Flowers back in? Or more to come?

  64. Cortez Kennedy says:

    There was logic behind the trade, but they absolutely had to adequately replace Clark with the compensation and they failed. Now we are where we are.

    Damn Cowboys ruin everything

  65. Mike says:

    If you have an outstanding DE, my feeling is you pay the man. I understood the trade at the time, but even then I preferred that we just draft less people that year.

    I feel like paying a ton at QB + an LT for offense, and 2 DEs on defense is where to drop the most cash because 1) they are the most sought after, hard to draft, and often are not available outside of the top 3-5 picks of a draft, and 2) they are all most directly involved with hitting, or not hitting, a QB before the play develops.

    Bobby is special, so i get keeping him, but keeping clark and maybe cutting a player on top of the rookies we got from last year..i think would have served us better. Imagine if it was Clowney + Clark? Cant double team them. Might not be quite Niners d-line level, but we’d be one of the better duos in the league. How much would that have helped against Goff, or Garopolo?