What else can the Seahawks actually do?

May 31st, 2020 | Written by Rob Staton

The Seahawks need more from L.J. Collier in 2020

A lot of people are still holding out hope the Seahawks can make another pass rush signing before training camp. But how likely is it?

The answer is — not very likely.

With Carlos Hyde’s $2.75m cap hit now on the books, Spotrac has Seattle at $13,810,312 in cap space. Over the cap projects $13,985,255.

Most of it is already accounted for in terms of the rookie class, injured reserve and other bits and pieces. That takes up about $8m.

Realistically the Seahawks have between $5-6m to spend. They still have to replace Al Woods. It would be staggering if they went into next season with only Jarran Reed, Poona Ford, Bryan Mone and Demarcus Christmas at defensive tackle. A signing will be made and it might take up most of the remaining cap room.

For those hoping they still have the flexibility to sign Jadeveon Clowney or Everson Griffen — they don’t. There’s only one semi-realistic scenario where I can see it (and I’ll come back to that later).

They’ve used nearly $60m on additions and retentions this year. They’ll go beyond $60m when they sign a defensive tackle.

The Seahawks have chipped away and chipped away. Now, their roster is pretty much set. This is what we have to judge their off-season by.

It’s often suggested that the Seahawks can cut players to create extra room. This is technically true — but it’s highly questionable whether it’s likely.

Take K.J. Wright for example. Had the Seahawks decided to part ways at the start of the off-season, they would’ve saved $7.5m in cap space. Due to the terms in his contract, they would now only save $6.5m.

You might suggest it’s only a million dollars’ difference. Yet surely if you were going to part with Wright this off-season, you’d do it when it was most financially beneficial? Wright’s sizeable $10m cap hit wasn’t hidden in the shadows.

Furthermore, it’d be quite the thing to do to a player who has given so much to the Seahawks. Cutting him now would severely limit his ability to latch on somewhere else. It’d likely go down poorly with key players on the roster, such as Bobby Wagner. It’s just not the type of thing this franchise does.

If they were going to move on from Wright, it would’ve happened (at the latest) the day after the draft when they cut Justin Britt and D.J. Fluker.

They are prepared to retain Wright and are destined to use $25m of their 2020 cap space on two linebackers, to go along with the first round pick they used on Jordyn Brooks.

The Seahawks can trim their roster in other ways to free up room. Again though, it doesn’t seem very likely.

If Clowney or Griffen were signed, the obvious thing to do would be to cut Branden Jackson and save $2.1m. Yet it’s only $2.1m. It’s not a significant enough amount to make a move realistic.

People have touted the idea of parting with several of the players they’ve already retained — such as Jacob Hollister, David Moore, Joey Hunt and Luke Willson.

They’re not going to cut Hunt and lose a valued backup center. The more likely cut would be Ethan Pocic, saving $1m. Hunt has been somewhat reliable, they trust him and Pocic has not shown anything in three years.

Clearly the Seahawks value Hollister, otherwise they wouldn’t have given him the second round tender and secured his services for an eye watering $3.259m. They could’ve given him the original round tender, which was cheaper, and still retained the ability to match any offer he received. They didn’t — they basically hung a ‘hands off’ sign around his neck.

Rather than see him as a likely sacrifice this summer, I think it’s more likely that they simply value what he offers. He’s a different kind of target to the other tight ends on the roster. Whether he has upside or not — there was some chemistry with Russell Wilson in 2019 and he made some significant plays. Enough, it seems, to want to give him a second year in the offense.

At the very least he seems destined to be with the team in camp. If the other TE’s charge ahead and he struggles in the competition, all bets are off. But at this stage he’s much more likely to be a featured aspect of the offense than trade or cut fodder.

Someone like David Moore would be more expendable if they re-sign Josh Gordon. However, the overall saving wouldn’t be much even if Gordon agrees to a veteran minimum deal. Luke Willson’s contract is only $887,500.

I don’t think it’s likely any of these players will be shifted to create room.

There’s only really one scenario where they can fit in a Clowney or Griffen.

Firstly, it would mean cutting Branden Jackson and using his $2.1m salary on a defensive tackle. Is someone like Snacks Harrison or Brandon Mebane willing to play for as little as $2.1m? That’s questionable.

It would leave about $5-6m to spend on a pass rusher. Either Clowney or Griffen would then need to be willing to play for that sum of money or they’d have to be willing to sign a multi-year deal with a low year-one cap hit.

That’s basically the only realistic scenario — short of hacking away at the depth they’ve invested so much in this off-season.

On Clowney — it’s possible you can get him on a three or four year agreement with a cap hit as low as $6m in year one. Frank Clark’s cap hit last year was $6.5m after all, despite his massive new contract in Kansas City. It’d mean the Seahawks committing big money to Clowney down the line though — which we already know they’re unwilling to do.

For Griffen — he turns 33 in December. A long term contract seems unlikely unless it’s heavily weighted in favour of the team. It’s unclear what his market is. He might be willing to play for as little as $5m, depending on what other interest he’s receiving.

This could’ve been a very different off-season. I still believe that the Seahawks thought they’d be able to find some common ground with Clowney earlier in the process and get a deal done. My guess is once he determined he was being undervalued and set up the stalemate that remains in place, they were somewhat caught off-guard.

I don’t think they really had a Plan B of any great substance. I don’t think they invested much time in negotiating with the Robert Quinn’s and Dante Fowler’s. I think Jarran Reed and Clowney were the early priorities, plus some O-line reinforcements, and then you let the rest of free agency come to you.

Instead they were left waiting for Clowney. Which they did. They waited. But with no end in sight they’ve been forced to fill their remaining holes, chipping away.

Some will blame Clowney. Some will blame the team for not simply moving on earlier and signing other players. Either way, there simply isn’t the money available to add another pass rusher barring a dramatic turn of events.

If that’s the case, they’re relying on Benson Mayowa, Bruce Irvin, L.J. Collier, Rasheem Green, Jarran Reed and two rookies to try and turn one of the NFL’s worst pass rush units into a non-liability.

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

Become a Patron!

180 Responses to “What else can the Seahawks actually do?”

  1. We need to root for Britt, T2, Dickson and Jones to sign somwhere else…because if none of them sign for another team before season starts, this 5-6 mil becomes 2-3mil.

  2. cha says:

    It never occurred to me that we would be at this stage of the season and the DL in this shape.

    Throwing massive depth at the OL and so little at the DL is a concept I just can’t grasp.

    The Hawks really do appear to be banking on strong seasons from Green and Collier this year.

    • Rob Staton says:

      I don’t think they’re banking on that at all.

      I think they’re banking on Mayowa and Irvin and hoping they can nudge and nurdle their way to a pass rush.

      • cha says:

        I suppose strong wasn’t a proper expression. I meant to say something more like solid. They’re going to be splitting most of the snaps at 5T and will probably have some snaps at 3T at times, and I suppose the front office is viewing their place as “not a total disaster” at those spots.

      • JNSeahawks says:

        Not banking on them at all? They’ve invested early round picks in them, talked them up in the media, and they’ve chosen not to add a veteran (to this point) as competition at their position along the DL. Am I missing something?

        • Rob Staton says:

          1. They also signed two edge rushers, then drafted two more, and called re-signing Clowney a priority. What a ringing endorsement.

          2. They drafted Green two years ago in the middle of the draft. They’re not remotely tied to him.

          3. Collier was a healthy scratch many times last season, behind Branden Jackson.

          4. They have not shown to warrant any faith whatsoever with their play. They have to prove they deserve to be in the NFL. Nobody is banking on them.

          5. Pete would talk up Indiana Jones 4 if it played for the Seahawks.

          • JNSeahawks says:

            1. They haven’t signed anybody at 5T. They’d be remiss if they didn’t say they wanted Clowney back. He’s one of the best D-linemen in the league. But they’re clearly not desperate to sign him, which also says something.
            2. Green is 23 years old. He’s still a baby. He showed improvements in his second year, and there’s no reason to think he can’t continue to improve.
            3. Collier essentially was redshirted. He was a rookie. He isn’t the first young Seahawk to receive that treatment.
            4. They’re the Seahawks only legitimate 5T. Whether it’s wise or not is up for debate, but the Seahawks are clearly banking on them.
            5. True

            • Rob Staton says:

              All of this just says they’re on the roster. Nothing about it says they’re ‘banking’ on them.

              They both have to prove they even belong on a NFL roster. That’s the extent of their situations.

              • Tom says:

                Just commenting on a previous comment that there is little accountability for Scnieder and Carol. All though the Seahawks don’t have a typical NFL owner organizational chart, Chuck Arnold is the President of the Seahawks, and provides oversight and accountability to Schneider and Carrol. There is some accountability, granted I don’t know what that relational dynamic looks like.

                • Tom says:

                  Sorry, this post should have been to the topic right below this one. sorry for the confusion.

                • Rob Staton says:

                  I can’t imagine in a million years he’ll feel capable of telling Pete Carroll and John Schneider what to do.

                  • Tom says:

                    He may not have the expertise to tell John and Pete how to do their jobs, but he could hold them accountable to producing results, and set expectations for them. Although I would imagine that if he has earned his way to being the president of the Seahawks, then he has to have a decent amount of knowledge of football, and the day to day operations of the organization he is leading, all though to your point Rob, his profile (Found here: https://www.seahawks.com/team/front-office-roster/chuck-arnold) does not say anything about being on the football operations side of the business, but primarily dealing with ticket sales and revenue creation. I still can’t imagine that a CEO of the Seahawks would not be heavily invested in having a quality team on the field to help sell tickets. I will concede that you may have a point that John and Pete would know more about roster management, and be able to have more autonomy than they should.

                  • Rob Staton says:

                    I’m telling you now.

                    Nobody is telling Pete or John what to do with coaches, scouts, personnel.

                    They have carte Blanche.

                    And they deserve it. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be criticised. And it does mean the Seahawks don’t have a proper ownership structure in place.

  3. Donny Henson says:

    You think if this draft class doesn’t pan out, you think changes will be made in the scouting department?

    • Rob Staton says:

      Nope.

      The team hasn’t even got a proper ownership structure. Who would be telling John and Pete to do that?

      • Tom says:

        Rob,

        Do you think that this structure will ever change with Paul Allen’s sister owning the team, or does there need to be a new owner that changes this dynamic? Owners really set the tone for a team, I would hate to see us throw the baby out with the bath water because we wanted Pete and John to have more accountability to provide a better team. A new owner could make things worse, not better.

        • TomLPDX says:

          The team is owned by the Paul Allen Trust and Jody Allen is the chair of that trust. John S said last year that he reports to Jody, not the CEO or anyone else. Same for Pete. I’m sure that Jody holds them accountable for their decisions and from the comments that John/Pete have made over the past year, she is involved and engaged to the point where she is fully aware and lets her people do their job. Chuck Arnold is in charge of business operations and John/Pete in charge of the team personnel.

        • Rob Staton says:

          In order for things to change they will need new ownership.

          • Donny Henson says:

            And there is no one rich enough in the Pacific northwest to purchase the Seahawks except Bill Gates, but I doubt he would be interested. If Steve Ballamer moved the Clippers to Seattle when he made the initial purchase, he could have been another option.

  4. Henry Taylor says:

    They can also restructure Wilson’s contract, not an ideal scenario because it makes his very large future cap hits even larger, but none of this is ideal.

  5. Seahawk65 says:

    I can’t believe the Seahawks were caught totally off guard by Clowney. Rob said, “somewhat off guard.” That might be true. They must have known what Clowney was looking for and knew they were much lower, and realized it could lead to him signing elsewhere or a stalemate. I’m guessing they worked through various scenarios and decided against Fowler or Quinn. I’m guessing they followed their Plan B, sign two lower level vets and draft a rookie (or two). Perhaps they considered linebacker a greater need than DL all along. Maybe they never considered the pass rush to be as dire as fans have. I don’t know. I’m trying to read the signs, and to me, the action of the team shows their evaluation of the situation is different than ours. They’ll be judged by whether it works or not.

    • Rob Staton says:

      If they felt they had the best offer by far, it’s not unrealistic to believe they simply thought after a few days of reflection he would accept it. It’s not often a player just says no and essentially takes himself off the market.

      • Seahawk65 says:

        Agreed. They gave him some time before they moved forward. You are also right that no one could have seen Clowney just take himself off the market. Unusual strategy on his part to say the least. But I give the Hawks some credit for waiting him out a bit, and then moving on when it was clear he wasn’t signing. Last year, we only had one effective pass rusher. At least now we have a rotation of four, plus two young guys who can play 5 technigue. It’s not perfect, but it’s not entirely bleak.

        • Betaparticle says:

          Agreed, and more specifically, it’s not as bleak as last season.

          Last season we had one borderline great player at edge, and Clowney blocked our second best pass rusher(Green) from seeing the field because they played the same position. Mayowa, Irvin, and Taylor are all better than Ansah or Griffin. The team will certainly lose ground at 5t, but they gain far more ground at Leo and in subpackage pass rush specialists.

          Some will accuse me of smoking hopium, and I admit I’m an optimist, but I don’t I don’t see how this DL could possibly be worse than last year at creation pressure… Green managed more sacks than anyone on the team last year and only his second year in the league, playing back up to Clowney, and looks to continue to develop as most day 2 draft picks will in their third year. Mayowa and Irvin both had twice as many sacks as anyone else on the Seahawks last year, and they specialized in the sub package roles. Our base 4DL may not cray more pass rush, but our subpackage looks improved.

          I think they’ve also managed to maximize cap flexibility next season, which might be an amazing move given the economic turmoil that could carry over into 2021.

          • Rob Staton says:

            I’d certainly be one of those people accusing you of smoking something.

            You’re completely overestimating Green’s impact. The phrase, ‘Clowney blocked our second best pass rusher (Green) from seeing the field’ made me spit coffee out. A ham sandwich would’ve been better than Ziggy Ansah last year. Those players listed might be better but whether any of them are a difference maker is highly questionable — you’re talking about two journeymen and a rookie.

            The Seahawks’ defense relies on rushing with four. They are not a heavy blitzing, different formation defense. They’re never going to be either under Pete Carroll. While I admire your attempt to sugarcoat this situation, the fact is that Green-Reed-Ford-Mayowa is not good enough as a basic four-man rush. And if they can’t create pressure on early downs — you’re barely ever going to be in your sub-package.

            As for the economic turmoil ahead… the NFL is not your local restaurant. They’re talking about the cap being a bit smaller next year. It’s hardly a major economical crash. Although increasingly it seems like the go-to excuse for apologists covering the teams’ inability to properly address their glaring D-line need.

            • Betaparticle says:

              It’s not a major economical crash?

              I respectfully disagree. I can understand looking at business news and having that perspective, but I think there’s a very reasonable argument that governments and news organizations are not bluntly stating the severity of the economic crisis.

              Never in the history of industrialized society has anything remotely like this happened.

              Global Manufacturing has stopped for 2 months, and has not turned the back on. Travel has been at less 10% of baseline for 2 months, and it shows no signs of recovery. We’ve transitioned from pandemic to endemic, meaning of the virus is active everywhere even if the Hospital systems are not being overwhelmed. the US government is completely inept, as most of the career civil servants with excellent qualifications have been dismissed in the past 3 years. the British government is nearly as inept, albeit with a better National Health Service. Even if a vaccine is proven to work in the next six to nine, it will take an additional six to nine months to produce and distribute said vaccine.

              Unemployment is up to 25 million people, and is at the highest level since the u-6 unemployment rate we use now attested tracking in 1946. u-6 unemployment in the Great Depression is estimated at 15%. We’re at 14.7% now, one week away from the worst ever, and we’re still not counting all of the people who are not receiving unemployment because the system is so overwhelmed with applicants that it can’t process them all.

              Industrialized societies are also faced with aging populations on fixed incomes and much lower spending habits. if you count demographic shifts since the Great Depression, real unemployment is already far far worse than the worst economic crisis in the last 200 years.

              Consumer spending accounts for 70% of the u.s. GDP. the recent stock market crash and rebound still has a net loss of 14 trillion dollars compared to annual US GDP of 23 trillion dollars. Advertising dollars are completely dependent on consumer spending. with massive unemployment, massive bosses in savings through the stock market, and a completely halted economy, I think it’s fair to say there’s going to be restricted consumer spending in the short and intermediate term. If there’s severely restricted consumer spending, there is less return on investment when corporations advertise. If there’s severely restricted consumer spending, corporations have less budget to spend on Advertising. the vast majority of NFL revenue is from advertising.

              The next two largest sources of NFL revenue are branded merchandise and Stadium revenues including concessions. Recession will bring decreased conspicuous spending on branded merchandise, fans will stick to their old jerseys rather than buy new jerseys, and when they do buy new merchandise, there will be a shift from higher price to lower price merchandise which has a lower margin. Ticket prices may not drop, but the average Joe is going to spend a lot less on overpriced Stadium concessions, drinking more cheap beer outside the stadium before the game rather than $12 pints inside the stadium, bringing homemade snacks for his family rather than paying $60 for 4 bratwurst. Merchandising Stadium revenues look to significantly decrease.

              Maybe the NFL fines new revenue streams, but over the next 6 to 12 months while the next NFL contract is negotiated, many NFL fans are or will be facing the decision between conspicuous spending on NFL or food, medicine, and shelter security.

              There’s a best case scenario where NFL revenues are minimally dented, there’s a worse-case scenario where we have a significant three to five-year economic downturn where corporations cut advertising budgets to remain solvent and conspicuous consumption dries up and the NFL experiences a 20-30% decline in revenue. There’s a worst case scenario that’s even worse. I think a 10% decrease in the salary cap would be on the positive side of the possible outcome distribution curve.

              it’s a little ironic isn’t it that I’m so much more optimistic about the team, and the defense, than you are, but I am so much more pessimistic about the economy?

              🙄

              Cheers!

              • Rob Staton says:

                No, you’ve misunderstood.

                I wasn’t talking about the global economy. I was talking strictly about the NFL.

                The NFL might not even have to delay the season and they’re optimistic in having fans in the stadiums. The economic is comparatively minimal. They’re talking about lowering the cap by a few million. That’s it.

  6. Strategicdust says:

    Not only has the defensive line problems been completely unaddressed, the depth is incredibly thin if injuries occur ( and we all know they do). Too much belief in the role players and untested rookies if this is the plan. It feels like the Hawks are going to be pushed into some bad salary cap decisions this year based off their mismanagement of the offseason.

  7. Tom says:

    You should have provided the option the team has to update Russel Wilson’s contract by converting some money to signing bonus, which will free up cap space this year. They have done this before.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Oh I should have, should I?

      • HoBro says:

        It’ not an entirely outrageous suggestion, is it? According to OTC, his salary this year is $18 million. Converting that to a bonus would free $13.5 million in cap space this year if I understand the rules correctly (and I may not); added to the $5-6 million you reference in the article, that would give them a total of close to $20 million. The uncertainty about next year’s cap may well dissuade them from doing so, but isn’t it an option?

        • Rob Staton says:

          Presumably this leads to an obscene Wilson cap hit down the line.

          • Tom says:

            Please forgive my rudeness in my earlier post, it wasn’t intended as if I know more. I was just trying to point out that it is an option. The cap can be manipulated if your willing to accept the greater cost down the line ( think of buying things on credit, for the ability to have it now). I don’t think they would cut Brandon Jackson. He’s young and still developing with reasonable promise. The hawks have always been opportunistic, if Clowney and/or Griffin can be had for a good price, then the hawks will strike. The hawks are always competing, which means looking for an advantage. For example; No one else in the league was looking for long corners, so the hawks could get them in the middle rounds of the draft because they weren’t valued, now the nfl values this type of corner, so the hawks need to identify a new advantage where the nfl undervalues a type of position, and the hawks can capitalize. This is just good business. The hawks don’t see value in investing a lot of capital in the D line, but if a deal comes along, they will strike. The d line market is over valued in the hawks view. There has to be a reason we don’t know.

            Again Rob, I apologize if I offended you, just offering up another option.

            • Rob Staton says:

              No offense taken.

            • Kimbo says:

              Why do people pander so obsequiously to mr. Staton? It’s quite gross, really, but he does seem to enjoy it.

              Well, it is his blog 🙂

              • Tom says:

                Pandering to Rob? It’s called being polite, and respectful. Something that seems to be lost in today’s society I guess. Trust me, I wasn’t attempting to pander, as much as making sure my intent was properly understood. I just happened to have been raised correctly.

              • Rob Staton says:

                Kimbo — are you just here to troll or have you got anything constructive to add to the conversation?

        • Tom says:

          I do think that if your going to convert any ones salary to a bonus, the safest bet this team has. If you consider that the new TV revenue monies will be available soon, (granted there is uncertainty with Convid-19, like you lauded to) but you do have to assume that the cap is going to rise. Might make a opportunity to sign Clowney worth the additional risk, as long as the hawks see it as a high value deal from their perspective. They are in a window due to Russels age. They are pressured to take advantage of having Russel, and win now. It will be interesting to see what happens between now and training camp. Schneider always suprises us.

  8. Cortez Kennedy says:

    I hope Darrell Taylor is a sponge

    • Hoggs41 says:

      Ill bet Cliff takes him in the way Kam has done with Blair.

      • Tom says:

        There may not be a financial benefit for Cliff to take him under his wing. I don’t believe there is one for Kam though either. I think we need to be grateful that Kam is willing to mentor someone just because he is a good guy, and cares about the team still. I don’t think that you can assume that all past Seahawks are going to be as amazing as Kam is. I personally would love to see the Seahawks employ Kam as a player / team mentor. He was known as the godfather of the team during their Superbowl runs. he would provide a lot of good leadership.

  9. James Z says:

    PC/JS, it seems, just flat-out mis-read the tea leaves. From the end of last season they made known to the fans and media that re-signing Clowney was THE top priority for the defense. And then they went ahead and didn’t do it! Perhaps they thought by making it public it would be enough to massage his ego sufficiently to sign. Perhaps they thought their locker room culture, coaching philosophy and success over the past 8 years would keep him in the fold, as if they’re one or two of the only desirable teams in the NFL worth getting on with. From a fan’s perspective that they were caught off guard seems about right.

  10. Trevor says:

    Rob I think you have nailed it they Hawks have basically squandered away a ton of cap space and their options are limited.

    I think the best option is

    -Cut Moore, Jackson, Hollister and Willson.

    – Sign Gordon as Wr3

    – Sign a DT like Mebane to a Vet min type deal

    – Sign Everson Griffen to a 2yr/ $15-20 mil deal structured to fit in the cap space available.

    I think this would give the DL to at least be average this year if the veterans can maintain form and the young guys improve a little. Then next year they really need to target DL/ OT early in the draft and via free agency. Sad it had come to this given the hope we all had going into the off season.

  11. Gaux Hawks says:

    …bring in the national guard

  12. Martin says:

    The ownership structure might not be in place but Chuck Arnold is the president. Does he have the clout or wherewithal to make changes? I don’t know. But I for one am getting sick of poor drafting and “always competing” for wildcard spots. Maybe PC/JS are satisfied with just competing. I contrast the Hawks with Green Bay: 1 SB win with a franchise QB and seemingly fixtures at GM (Wolfe) and HC (McCarthy). President makes a bold move and replaces both. They progressed to a spot in the championship round. I’m not saying Arnold should follow suit, just saying changing up after so many years of playoff exits isn’t unheard of.

    • Tom says:

      Martin: I think that even considering replacing Pete and John is a knee jerk reaction. The hawks have one of the best records in football for the last 10 plus years while Pete and John have been at the helm. As fans we may be getting annoyed because they aren’t winning super bowls all the time, but compared to 2/3 of the league, we have it really, really good. Not many other teams have gone to the playoffs as much as we have.(unless your a Patriots fan) I think that the Browns or Dolphins would kill to have John and Pete. We need to be somewhat grateful for how well the seahawks have done. We’re spoiled.

      • Jhams says:

        Aside from the Patriots I believe the Seahawks have either the best or second best record in the league for the PCJSRW era. We’re truly spoiled as fans.

  13. Jordan says:

    Is there any hope for Chris Jones move? And do you have an estimate on how much it would be if AB signs?

    • Hoberk Unce says:

      The Chiefs franchised Jones in March and he hasn’t signed the $16M tender. Even if he gets out from under the tag how would the Seahawks sign him?

    • ZacScratch says:

      If I’m rounding up I would peg it at a 0% chance.

  14. dcd2 says:

    Yep, at this point the chances of Clowney being back are slim to none. We just don’t have the room to make a competitive offer, and there is no reason for him to accept a lower deal with us in hopes of hitting the market again next year. If he goes the one year route, he may as well join a team with a good DL (to minimize double teams) or a odds on favorite (to shoot for the ring).

    We’ll probably wait until cuts to go fishing for a DT, unless Mebane can be had for cheap. I fear this looks like a more or less the finished product.

  15. Kingdome1976 says:

    Well..I do love a good underdog story.

  16. Bankhawk says:

    Rob, thanks for that-it was a old shower of reality, but a good read. Hard to believe what things have come down to and what they now look set to place their faith in.

    Well, much in the world seems to fit that description so now I guess we hope for the best and see what happens. Sure would be interesting to be able to get inside PC/JS’s heads and know what they are Really thinking about how it’s all come down.

  17. Alex Higgins says:

    Is there any chance that Demarcus Christmas can help the D Line this year? What’s the scouting report on him? I’m really grasping at straws, but that’s all I have left. Also, there are always surprise cuts in August. We cut Tom Johnson or Don Johnson or whatever dude’s name who got picked up by the Vikings.

  18. BobbyK says:

    An early impact from Taylor is really the only hope for an improved pass rush. We know what guys like Irvin, Mayowa, Green, etc. are. While each of those guys can be a somewhat decent piece individually, they’re really quite poor in terms of being a quality NFL starting caliber player in terms of rushing the QB. I know the optimistic perspective is to look at the combined sack numbers for Irvin and Mayowa last year, but I think the pessimistic perspective is (unfortunately) correct – the sack numbers combined from them two years ago. These two guys are coming off better 2019 seasons than 2018 campaigns, but they’re also trending in age past their primes (and Mayowa was never even good in his prime). It’s going to be another long and painful year in terms of watching the defense in 3rd and long situations if Taylor can’t be a guy who can’t have 8-9 sacks as a rookie (along with a decent pressure rate). With how bad the pass rush is and has been – it’s surprising they waited until the middle of the second round to draft someone. If you would have told us that going into the offseason that they wouldn’t sign anyone good to rush from the edges and the biggest investment would come from either Irvin or a mid-second round pick – we’d have thought that person was crazy for even suggesting they’d ignore the pass rush that much.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Yep — we have to hope that Taylor lives up to that #58 he’s wearing.

    • LLLOGOSSS says:

      I’d be surprised if he topped 5 sacks. If we could just add Clowney, 5 sacks from Taylor looks a lot better. Say 6-7 from Irvin, 3-4 from Mayowa, 6+ from Reed, anything over three from Collier, Green, and Robinson, a few random blitzes and we could be in the 40’s.

      But not without someone like Clowney causing havoc and freeing up others.

  19. vbullen65 says:

    Just re-watched the Vikings vs Saints playoff game. Everson Griffen was a beast! And he did this against two above average offensive tackles.

  20. cha says:

    As things stand I’m thinking for the 53.

    OFFENSE

    QB (2): RW, Smith (cut: Gordon)

    RB (5): Carson, Hyde, Homer, Dallas, Bellore (FB) (PUP: Penny)

    TE (5): Olsen, Dissly, Hollister, Parkinson, Willson

    WR (5): Lockett, Metcalf, Dorsett, Moore, Ursua (cut: Sullivan, Swain, Fuller)

    OL (9): Brown, Iupati, Haynes, Finney, Hunt, Lewis, Shell, Ogbuehi, Jones (cut: Roos, Simmons, Pocic, Warmack)

    Total: 26

    DEFENSE

    DE (5): Mayowa, Green, Collier, Taylor, Robinson (cut: B Jackson)

    DT (4): Reed, Poona, (veteran DT), Christmas

    LB (6): Wagner, Wright, Irvin, Brooks, Barton, Shaquem (cut: Burr-Kirven)

    CB (5): Dunbar, Flowers, Griffin, Thorpe, Amadi

    S (4): Diggs, McDougald, Blair, Hill (cut: Miller)

    Total: 24

    K-Meyers
    P-Dickson
    LS-Ott

    Total: 3

    • Jack says:

      They aren’t cutting Burr-Kirven. Watch and see.

      • HOUSE says:

        Its also 55-man roster now

        • HOUSE says:

          Disregard my previous comment… lol

        • Hawkcrazy says:

          I believe the 55 man roster is misleading though. I thought it was a 53 man roster with 2 practice squad players being elevated each week (maximum 2 times per player without going on regular roster) and subject to carrying an extra offensive lineman, This significantly restricts the 55 man roster concept as the 2 man roster spot means that those players have to be cut initially to make the practice squad. It will be really interesting to see how teams use the 2 man move up each week to bolster their teams and whether the concept will help prevent teams from poaching other teams practice roster.

    • LLLOGOSSS says:

      FIVE tight ends? I would be stunned. That’s not even counting Ogbuehi.

      • Rob Staton says:

        Four TE’s is very likely I’d say, but not five.

      • cha says:

        You’re probably right. Willson can go live on the shadow roster where he’s been the last couple years. They traded to get Sullivan so he’s probably this year’s Ursua roster stash guy.

  21. Ashish says:

    Great article 👏. I don’t see K J Wright being cut for sure. You’re right ✅.
    Good article is one of the options

    https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/gm-report/preseason-cut-trade-candidates-for-the-seahawks-to-track-in-afc-north

    • HOUSE says:

      I brought up Brandon Williams about a week ago. I think he could be a decent signing. Another name that I will be monitoring is Ryan Kerrigan (Redskins). He’s in the final year of his contract, he’s due $11.5M and WAS has drafted Montez Sweat and Chase Young in back to back seasons. He’d be a decent trade candidate if WAS paid some of the salary or if they surprisingly cut him

      • Rob Staton says:

        If Washington or Baltimore were going to move those players they would’ve done it by now.

        • Tom says:

          Unless the Redskins or Baltimore wanted to take advantage of a post June 1st roster move? this is a possibility. Granted I don’t know how likely, but we could see some players being cut to take advantage of this.

          • Rob Staton says:

            You don’t have to wait for June 1st to make a player a post-June 1st cut.

            You can designate a player as a June 1st cut in order to feel the benefit of the salary relief earlier.

            Besides, the Redskins are NOT cutting Ryan Kerrigan. Absolutely no chance.

  22. Jack says:

    Not seeing a superbowl this season for Seattle. Be lucky to get to the playoffs with the current roster as it stands. Not signing Clowney is a big fail thus far which will really hurt the d-line. Even if the rookies play well, it still won’t be enough against the stronger teams. Not optimistic.

  23. Hoggs41 says:

    I think if Clowney wants to be here and they agree on a price they will do whatever they need to do to fit him in cap wise. I dont know about Griffen, at this point it feels like Clowney or nothing. Hope I’m wrong as I would love to add Griffern if Clowney signs elsewhere.

  24. Hoggs41 says:

    So right now lets say they have about $13.9m in cap space and the rookies will cost us about $2.1m which would leave us around $11.8. If they did sign Gordon, Harrison (or another vet DT) and Griffen and say those guys combined take up about $10m in space leaving us around $1.8m left. How would people feel about the team? Who do we think they would release to get more cap space? You wouldnt really need the space now but you would for sure once the season started.

    • Hoggs41 says:

      If we did end up signing a vet DT and Griffen do we think the DLine snap percentages could look like this?

      Griffen…60%
      Green…50%
      Collier…40%
      Reed…50?
      Vet DT…40%
      Ford…40%
      Mayowa…40%
      Taylor…40%
      Robinson…20%
      Irvin…20% (with more snaps at SAM)

    • dcd2 says:

      $2.1M takes care of Brooks, and that’s about it. Collier made $2M last year and the cap went up for 2020. You also have to factor in the practice squad/IR guys.

      The first paragraph of the article details that we have $5-6M effective right now, not $11.8M.

      Honestly, Gordon won’t impact the cap much. He’ll displace the low man on the 53 and will probably only add $200k or so to the cap. The vet DT will probably eat half of what we have left and leave us with ~$2M.

      That’s about it. It could still happen, but it’s looking more likely that we don’t get Griffen even. If we did, I would feel better about the DL for sure.

      • Hoggs41 says:

        The $5-$6 he is talking about is actual cap space you can spend, not what we really have.

        • dcd2 says:

          What we have doesn’t include accurate numbers for the rookies, or practice squad or IR. You still have to include those things, even if they aren’t reflected in Overthecap or Spotrac.

          We don’t ‘really have’ $11.8M to use on FA.

          • Hoggs41 says:

            I understand that but you dont need it until September. You could drain your cap space down to $0 if you wanted to. My point is you can sign whomever you want now as long as you stay above zero and create the necessary cap space needed for the season later.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Read the article Hoggs

  25. Spencer says:

    Sherman came in and stepped up when Marcus Trufant and Walter Thurmond went down. Kam stepped up a year after they let Lawyer Milloy leave. Wright stepped up when Hawthorne went down. I know this off season hasn’t been ideal and we would have liked to see some more established veterans brought in to come shore up a weak spot.

    They’ve recently thrown a first (Collier), a second (Taylor), a third (Green) and a fifth (Robinson) at the position recently. Irvin and Mayowa have shown they can be productive parts of a rotation despite low snap counts. The Seahawks had a good year in 2012 when their only pass rushing DEs worth mentioning were Clemons and Irvin. You don’t want to bank on guys “stepping up”, but there is a lot of young, highly drafted talent there.

    They won 11 games last year, and despite a lot of lucky bounces, they had a lot of unlucky bounces as well. They crated when their running game went down, and they’ve added insurance to ensure that doesn’t happen again. They’ve added depth and talent across the board.

    I know this off season didn’t go the way that we wanted and the upcoming season is uncertain in many ways, but the Seahawks have been in similar situations before and have generally pulled through. They will definitely be competitive this season, and next off season could be the one to take us to the next level, a la 2013 when the younger guys established themselves the year prior and they brought in Avril and Bennett to put them over the edge. Maybe no one wants to hear an optimistic take, and obviously the off season wasn’t perfect, but there are lots of reasons to still have some optimism.

    Disclaimer: This isn’t me complaining about the articles, saying the off season was great, suggesting that we don’t have the right to criticize, or saying that the Seahawks shouldn’t be critizized for their moves (or lack thereof). I love all of the articles and discussion that you’ve brought us, and its been a treat to be able to, for the first time, continue to make this my first internet stop even after the draft. Just trying to put some rational, optimistic thoughts together for my own purposes.

    • dcd2 says:

      I like it. Good stuff Spencer. Really do need some of the young guys to step up and it could happen (within reason).

      Last year we had 28 sacks as a team (29th in the league). If we can get to 40 or so, that would be middle of the pack.

      Irvin – 5
      Mayowa – 4
      Reed – 4
      Taylor – 3
      Green – 5
      Collier – 3
      Quem – 2
      Other DL – 4
      LB’s – 3

      That seems reasonable and would be 33 sacks, which is an improvement on last year. I understand that sacks aren’t the be-all/end-all, but it’s something. Scrounge up a few more and we’re middle of the pack.

      • Hoggs41 says:

        I like the thought process with the sacks but 33 is still terrible and puts you towards the bottom of the league.

      • Simo says:

        All your sack numbers seem pretty reasonable, with no single player getting more than five. After all there is no stars in this group, save for Wagner at LB (and he doesn’t blitz a lot).

        You might be able to add a few to the LB group, as Brooks might be an effective blitzer! If you also add 3-4 sacks over the course of a full season to the secondary, you’re getting pretty close to 40! Not that this is a magic number or anything, but it does seem to indicate a bit more consistent pressure than the group produced last year.

      • Rob Staton says:

        If their leading sacker is only capable of five next year, that says everything about their ability to create a consistent pass rush.

        You need a couple of big dogs. You can’t committee your way to a good pass rush with journeymen and rookies.

        • dcd2 says:

          I agree that this isn’t a good pass rush. At this point, we’re just hoping for okay though. SOME improvement over last year is probably this units’ ceiling.

          New England got 47 sacks as a team last year, and their leading guy was Jaime Collins with 7. Tennessee had 43 and only Landry had more (9) than 5 sacks on that team.

          I’m just saying there’s a scenario where this unit as it is, can be better than last year. “Good” is probably out of the question, but ‘average’ may be attainable.

    • BobbyK says:

      I remember them starting slow in way too many games. Getting clearly outplayed early. The only reason they got back into games and won more than their fair share of close games was because they have a franchise QB who is either the best or second best QB in the NFL.

      Teams “take” early in games and the Seahawks generally got outplayed (way more than a 11-5 record would suggest). Then they got back into games after defenses had leads and “gave” more plays to the Seahawks. This is the exact opposite of being a bully and shows an extreme lack of talent in comparison to the record they had.

    • Rob Staton says:

      But in 2012 we spent the season talking about the pass rush not being good enough and relying too much on Clemons. They addressed it properly.

      They similarly had an inadequate pass rush in 2019. And they haven’t addressed it properly.

  26. Hawktalk says:

    Rob, what would you say about the Seahawks bringing in Colin Kaepernick as their 2qb? Seems like they could bring him in for cheap, but I’m not sure if he would be a good fit in the offense. It would be a bold move from a pr perspective.

  27. calgaryhawk says:

    A little bit off topic but related. Rob, do you see any players that might enter the supplement draft that might be a fit for the Seahawks? Good job as always!

  28. Dassom says:

    I just want to see some football at this point. College camp NFL camp anything will do right now.

  29. millhouse-serbia says:

    Just one more thing about cap space…

    3mil for IR and 2 mil for PS are money that we can spend and don’t need to have free in SC before season starts…hypothetically if there is zero injuries during season (which is impossible) we would have those 3mil for whole season to use…so we could create those 5mil somehow during season if needed…

    what we must have in SC before season starts (and that’s the money we cant spend before September) is 4 mil for players that were released with failed physical…those are Britt, T2, Ed Dickson and Nazair Jones…

    So if we look like that we have 13.8mil-2.1mil (for rookies) – 4mil(failed phy)=7.7mil free to spend on new players.

    But if we spend all of that there is 99% chance we will need to create additional 5mil somewhere during season.

    We can also hope that some of 4 players mentioned will sign for someone else and that would give us new cap space (1,1-1.3mil for each of Britt , T2 and Dickson)

  30. Tree says:

    Since K.J. had offseason surgery, could that effect the cap hit if they had cut him earlier (not sure)? Could he retire like Doug? JS was pretty non committal in his presser. In any event, just because we signed or did not cut guys before we drafted their potential replacements or better options become available doesn’t mean we won’t ultimately trade/cut/renegotiate. I don’t think we should cut any of those guys now, but if the opportunity arises (some good vets will also be cut before the start of the season) to make your team better you have to at least consider it even though it would suck for the player (it is the NFL though). I am curious what folks would pay K.J., Bmac, and Hollister if they were free agents that were still available.

  31. LLLOGOSSS says:

    I’m sorry to say I agree with you that it’d be unlikely at this rate. I do think there are other ways it can be done, however — for Clowney in particular — even on a 1-year deal. Again, it’s not looking good, but I see the roster just a little differently.

    How many OL do we still have on the roster? 16-17? There will be some savings there; for one, I don’t necessarily see Chance Warmack on the final 53. How many is typical to keep, 10?

    Hollister could be traded, cut, or take a pay cut. He was retained before we drafted two more TE’s. Even if Sullivan goes to the PS, that’s still Olsen, Dissly, Parkinson, and Willson if they decide to keep four. That doesn’t even account for Ogbuehi, who I think is slated for the Fant role — even without Willson that could mean four “TE’s“ on the roster. Even if they like Hollister at $4 mil, if they need the money for Clowney it makes too much sense to make a savings there.

    Some less likely scenarios: It’s still possible Dunbar’s salary (what, ~$2.5+ mil) comes off the books. I agree it’s likely KJ is on this roster for the reasons you mentioned, but it would be hard to argue that having him over Clowney makes this roster better. I think viewing his release as non-sensical based on the $1 million already committed assumes that 1) they have been following a cogent plan, 2) that plan is set in stone, 3) they knew they would draft a LB high when they committed the $1 mil, 4) they think losing KJ and $1 mil in order to retain Clowney wouldn’t improve this roster (it would, $1 mil aside). Again, KJ is going to be on this team, and certainly the locker room implications are a big factor, but I’m not so motivated by the sunk cost, and I don’t think a smart front office should allow that to impact future improvements.

    Finally, you could still restructure some of Russell’s money to provide some relief.

    I could be taking a “glass-half-full” approach here, but I do think it’s at least possible to improve this team with a little more maneuvering.

    • Rob Staton says:

      If the Seahawks were blasé about Hollister they would’ve just given him the original round tender.

      They like him more than fans realise.

      • LLLOGOSSS says:

        Not saying they don’t like him, but I am saying his deal and the current roster of TE’s gives them flexibility if they need it. We can all see that they are deficient without Clowney. I’m sure they realize this as well.

        • Rob Staton says:

          Sure — but the point is they have aggressively ensured he stayed in Seattle. This wasn’t just, ‘we kind of like him’. This was — no way he’s going anywhere.

          You don’t go from that to… ‘see you later’… in a few weeks.

          • LLLOGOSSS says:

            Yes, but it doesn’t cost them anything to walk down that road. They could essentially say, “We don’t want to be without a good option and we need to ensure we have what we need at that position,” and they put a value on Hollister to reflect that. But it is and was a tentative value — no guarantees meant they can reallocate that commitment if necessary. Drafting two TE’s, signing Ogbuehi, and botching free agency certainly provides a new context to evaluate for them.

            • Rob Staton says:

              People keep saying this and I’m sorry but it’s just wrong wrong wrong.

              This whole concept that placing RFA tags on players ‘just kept them for a while’. No. it evaporated their cap space when free agency was actively ongoing.

              They didn’t give Hollister a high tender because, ‘well we can just move him later’. They gave him a high tender because they wanted to make sure they had him 100%.

              As for drafting two TE’s — Olsen is a one year rental, Dissly is injured a lot and Sullivan was a R7 flier.

              • LLLOGOSSS says:

                Again, it cost them nothing to secure his services. If he makes the team, he’ll represent what they feel is the best way to construct the roster. But they have the flexibility to act, and I don’t think there’s a person on this blog that would like to see Jacob Hollister be the difference between completing this DL or not. I’d be dubious if Schneider saw it differently.

                They signed Hollister under a different context. There was still money to sign Clowney then. The TE position group has since changed; the context of the DL… well, we all know very well it’s not appreciably different.

                The same point I made about KJ applies here: decisions they made earlier in the offseason should not impede a capable front office from addressing the present moment. Especially if it costs nothing in the way of dead money.

                Teams cut good players all the time that they’d prefer to keep around. Happens every year. Hollister is not another animal simply because he was given a non-guaranteed tender a few months ago.

  32. mishima says:

    Failed to fix the pass rush, but also didn’t improve the run defense.

    Losing Clowney, Woods, Kendricks (less so) will have a negative effect. Not expecting Brooks and a ‘Mebane’ to make much difference, this year.

  33. Phil says:

    Not my favorite dude, but I can see them bringing MikeB back if it’s true that he really wants to play here.

    If he can give them one year of giving it his all, I think he’d be a real difference maker at a fair price.
    Irvin + Mayowa + Bennett + Green + Collier + the 2 rookies & maybe some ‘Quem could allow a constant fresh rotation.
    1. Plenty of guys to move inside on likely or obvious passing situations.
    2. More than enough guys that can set the edge & provide constant fresh legs to rush from the outside.
    (MikeB was just a versatile option that I never saw listed.)

    • Rob Staton says:

      I don’t think there’s any chance of Michael Bennett coming back — and I’ve never thought there was any chance of that happening.

      They literally paid him to go and play somewhere else two years ago. That was an aggressive ‘go away’.

      Him saying on a local Seattle podcast he’d be open to coming back doesn’t mean the team would actually want him back.

      And frankly, he’s 35 in November.

    • Simo says:

      I just have a very hard time seeing them bring MB back. Not only is he well past his prime production years, he’s also a fairly constant distraction and certainly no role model for the young players. I would much rather see those snaps go the young guys. No time like the present to get them game experience!

  34. Sea Mode says:

    Woof

    Jamison Hensley
    @jamisonhensley
    ·51m

    Coming off one of the best seasons by a left tackle in recent memory, Ronnie Stanley could move past Khalil Mack ($23.5 million per season) and Aaron Donald ($22.5 million) to become the richest non-QB in the league.

    https://www.espn.com/blog/baltimore-ravens/post/_/id/52310/the-nfls-highest-paid-non-qb-might-not-be-who-you-think

  35. Malc from PO says:

    Under Coach Carroll, the Seahawks have always had a “bend, don’t break” approach that seeks primarily to limit big plays. Force the offense to run lots of plays in the hope they’ll make a mistake. Winning the turnover battle has always meant, for Pete, not giving the ball up, rather than forcing fumbles and interceptions. So the emphasis is on discipline, making tackles, not getting beat deep rather than taking risks to force the issue. I think the defense has been built with that in mind: I don’t think they are worried about not having a big name pass rusher. The approach is valid; But it requires outstanding discipline, concentration, sure tackling, and has very thin margins for error. Puts a lot of pressure on the offense to score, unless you have the players with the talent, mentality, and cleverness to strangle the opposition offense. That’s what we had on the Super Bowl team: confidence that if the offense didn’t score, the defense was more likely than not to get a stop. Last couple of years we haven’t had enough players with those qualities: too many missed tackles and blown coverages. Also why it’s hard for rookies to make an impact. In a different system, Blair is an impact starter from day 1: knocking off heads and making picks, but also getting beaten deep a few times. That’s not what this defense calls for. I’ve rambled on too long, tl;dr I don’t think they are all that concerned about having a big-time pass rush, and right or wrong, it’s part of the plan.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Everything you just described — bend don’t break, discipline, making tackles, not getting beat deep — is predicated on them being able to rush with four.

      The entire defensive scheme depends on them being able to rush with four.

      Thus — why they only reached their peak in 2013 with Bennett and Avril, not just Clemmons and a bit of Bruce.

      There’s absolutely no way this defense can function ‘getting by’ on the D-line — and that’s why they said about 17 teams before free agency that Clowney was an enormous priority.

      • Ashish says:

        Hawks rush with 4 and when on the top where able to put good pressure on QB with that number. Not only they had good top 4 but good rotation players to keep them fresh. We have seen in past rotation players also played important role to keep pass rush effective. With not having top 4 players Hawks will struggle like we did in recent years.
        Rob, do you think PC and JS have some plan to fix this issue this year? Minor changes in scheme or some innovation to bridge the gap from personal?
        If fans like us realize the gap, I’m sure PC/JS are doing something to fix.

  36. BoiseSeahawk says:

    All the teams could politely ask for a ‘re-do’ of the off-season.

    I wonder how if at all differently the front office would have handled the off-season knowing that there would be a pandemic going on. Its a factor that is tough to ignore with the decisions they’ve made. The Clowney decision seems like an obvious mistake though.

  37. Tom says:

    Rob,

    How do you feel about the hawks adding Micheal Bennett? He should be available for a discounted price on a short term deal, plus in a shortened season, he already has a good knowledge of the Defense. He has expressed a desire to come back and play for the Hawks. I know this wouldn’t solve the pass rush, but it may help. Plus he could mentor the younger pass rushers. I think that he may have a little left in the tank.

    • Rob Staton says:

      From an earlier response on this topic:

      I don’t think there’s any chance of Michael Bennett coming back — and I’ve never thought there was any chance of that happening.

      They literally paid him to go and play somewhere else two years ago. That was an aggressive ‘go away’.

      Him saying on a local Seattle podcast he’d be open to coming back doesn’t mean the team would actually want him back.

      And frankly, he’s 35 in November.

  38. Rob Staton says:

    Just got off the phone with ESPN and Josina Anderson has been canned:

    https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/josina-anderson-is-out-at-espn/

  39. Jhams says:

    How many current contracts that are counting against the cap have no guaranteed money on them? I think the guys who were tendered and at least one of the O-line right? Obviously they aren’t taking 25 O line or however many they have now into the season, so I’m wondering how much they’ll save after those cuts are made.

    • Rob Staton says:

      The cap only accounts for your top-51 players. Those players you refer to, the camp fodder, aren’t even worked into the equation. The only way you save money is if some of those camp fodder players beat out highly paid players without much dead money on their contracts.

  40. mishima says:

    If you’re an opposing offense, how would you attack the Seahawk defense?

    Despite the weak pass rush, I’d run right at them.

    • Kenny Sloth says:

      Same. Especially if it’s anyone but Diggs-McDougald at Safety spots. Get those young guys creep in forward and throw it over the top

      • Hoggs41 says:

        We were pretty good against the inside runs last year. I’d run outside the tackles until we showed we could stop it.

    • BobbyK says:

      You can attack this defense any way you want to. They can’t do anything very well. If you’re a better passing team than running team, beat them with your strength. If you are better rushing, do that. The Seahawks have nothing on defense to scare opposing offenses. Sure, Wagz will be all over the place but that’s all. Pass short, long, run outside, inside, they’re so bad on paper – it really doesn’t matter.

    • Gaux Hawks says:

      wonder what KC fans were asking themselves same time last year?

  41. cha says:

    If you’re stuck at home, ESPN is replaying the MNF OT thriller win vs SF.

    Clowney is all over the place.

  42. Hoggs41 says:

    Let’s say training camp and preseason happens like it normally does and Brooks shows he can step in and be the WILL day one. What happens? Does KJ move to Sam and Irvin become full time DE? Do they look to trade KJ and keep Irvin as a SAM/DE? What do people think would happen?

    • mishima says:

      Carroll stays with Wright.

      • Hoggs41 says:

        So your answer would be that KJ would be the SAM and Irvin would be a DE?

      • Zeke says:

        Even with Brooks and Irvin/Barton/Shaq when they can use KJ’s 6m to upgrade the DL?

        • mishima says:

          Yeah, I think Carroll sticks with Wright at WILL. Irvin will only play SAM. Barton and Brooks will spell Wagner and Wright as needed.

          • Hoggs41 says:

            That is most likely what will happen but that wasnt the question I asked. I asked what would we do with KJ if Brooks does indeed win the WILL job. Yes it could be unlikely but not impossible.

  43. Frank says:

    I’ve always loved advanced analytics, although I’m certain they are missing something in the numbers on the importance of the running game. All of the numbers point towards pass coverage being more important than pass rush, with as much money has been put into the LBers I think they made the decision that the Dline was only allowed to eat up so much of the cap space. I’d have loved to have resigned Clowney, although with the heavy investment in the position in the draft I understand giving younger players to get real game experience without breaking the bank. Personally I think they learned the lesson that dline isn’t as important as QB, Cb, LBers, or offensive line. What’s the worst that happens, we lose maybe a game this year lacking Clowney, but Green and LJ improve enough that by playoff time we are getting the same production at a far reduced cost? The Hawks are notoriously the hardest team to predict in the league during the draft, because they learn and change their goals. Even Rob who had the single greatest 1 round mock draft I’ve ever seen this year had absolutely zero luck predicting the Hawks. I actually like the fact they’ve gone with a youth movement, and see this offseason as a lateral step, rather than a back step. I have complaints as all of us armchair GM do, but Clowney wasn’t the end all be all of this off-season considering the last few years early draft choices. It’s all on Wilson to see if he can take an above average rooster to Super Bowl victory, and given his cost it’s on him if he can’t.

  44. Justaguy says:

    I edited your caption “The Seahawks needed more from L.J. Collier in 2019” L.J. isn’t going to surprise anyone in 2020. You know that so why am I even posting about it? I would willing to wager that Darrell is more likely to make an impact than L.J.

    • Hoggs41 says:

      I dont necessarily think we needed more from Collier as we needed more from Ansah.

    • EranUngar says:

      LJ had a very poor start for us last year. He received tons of negativity from fans, experts & analysts alike (justifiably so).

      That can have an effect on a young man trying to find his role in the NFL after missing most of the pre-season due to an injury. Some will never be the same afterwords…

      That is exactly why i love every word he had to say to ESPN:

      “I am chomping at the bit to get out there because it’s one of those things where you didn’t have the year everybody wanted you to get, so they just kind of shift you off to the side as if you can’t play,” Collier said. “It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing. Go out there and you run through a couple people, you run through people’s faces, you make noise, and people, they’ll remember who you are very quickly.”

      I can’t say if Taylor (at LEO) or Collier (at 5T) will have more impact in 2020 but I would not count Collier out just yet…or Green for that matter…

      I still hope to see another move or two on the DL so we do not have to hang our hopes on either guy.

      • Rob Staton says:

        I thought his comment about being disrespected was poor.

        He was a healthy scratch as a R1 pick. What does he expect? A glowing review?

        Less talk, more action please.

        • Daniel Matarazzo says:

          Aren’t you glad, he has a chip on his shoulder and just may play out of his mind to prove something???

      • mishima says:

        Yeah, Carroll will give Thompson and Hill multiple opportunities, but somehow conspires to keep Collier ‘off to the side…’

        Just ball.

      • cha says:

        It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing

        It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing

        It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing

        It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing

        It’s disrespectful and I feel very disrespected, but I’m the type of person there’s no need for talking; just showing

  45. Daniel Matarazzo says:

    1) What about signing Gordon (-887K), cut Moore(+2.133 mil) = + 1,246,000
    2) Sign Snacks Harrison (2yr 10Mil, 4 Mil SB, salary 1st 2Mil/2nd 4 Mil) Cap hit 2020=4mil, hit 2021=6 mil, or cut for 2 mil) so -4 mil 2020 /-2mil 2021; But Jackson (+2.133Mil) = (-1,867,000)
    Net 1246000-1867000=(-621,000)
    3) Pocic beats Hunt (+ 1,403,873, Cut Hunt (+2.133,000) Net (+ 729,127) (729,127-621,000 (from above)=+108,127
    Three moves that improve team, gain 108K, zero loss
    I think Pocic is ideal as a zone blocking guard, but is big can be effective at center in power bock scheme, was good in college)

    • Rob Staton says:

      If your plan is only to sign Snacks Harrison, they don’t need to cut anyone.

    • Big Mike says:

      Hunt isn’t going anywhere. Pocic otoh………

      • Daniel Matarazzo says:

        Remember hunt being pushed around all season, he is too small, not his fault, but he gets pushed around. Our OL coach like huge men. Hunt has the heart of a champion, and outstanding technique, but he weighs under 300, and he is short….and his hair is to long

  46. Daniel Matarazzo says:

    Olsen and Dissly are locks, and I also think they will never cut Hollister, they love him, but he is small, and not a good blocker. Parkinson is a redshirt, needs bulk, but he will be our #2 TE of the future. I think Willson can eek out one or 2 more seasons, he is a fan favorite, occasionally makes a spectacular ply, but at #4, who cares.
    Get a team to give up a 2nd or 3rd rd pick, maybe even a fourth, and you gain (+3,259,000)
    3259000+ 108127 from earlier post gives you (+3,367,127)
    Restucture 2 mil of each Wilson, and Lockette, and you have +4,000,000
    4+3367127+ 7,367,127
    Good enough for first year of Griffen, with money left over

    • Rob Staton says:

      There’s no way they’re getting a R2-4 for Hollister. He’s clearly well liked by the Seahawks but that doesn’t mean he’ll have a big market.

      You need to provide more details on how you have created that money from Wilson and Lockett’s contracts and what the consequences are down the line.

      • Daniel Matarazzo says:

        If you convert 2mil of salary to bonus for Wilson, you gain +2 mil this year and -666,666 per year 2021 -2023
        If you convert 2mil of salary to bonus for Lockett, you gain +2 mil this year and -2 mil in 2021

        I thought Salary cap was a different class, I already passed that one.

        If you convert 6 mil of salary to bonus for Wilson, you gain +6 mil this year and -2 mil per year 2021 -2023
        or If you convert 4 mil of salary to bonus for Wilson, you gain +6 mil this year and -1.333 mil per year 2021 -2023
        That may be smarter, just leave Lockett alone

  47. Daniel Matarazzo says:

    Then sign AB (for about 2 mil, prove it deal), as a favor to Wilson, and you have radically improved team in every deficiency, brought the offense to elite level
    Draft a LT early next year, trade up!
    and the rest is gravy
    Just my thoughts, I’m going to continue to participate, even though Rob seems to be a grump, but I’ll charm him eventually!
    See you soon

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m not remotely grumpy.

      If you’re going to propose a scenario that involves cutting or restructuring contracts, expect to have some of the ideas challenged.

    • dcd2 says:

      I hate the idea of signing AB for any amount. The chances of him doing more harm than good are too high IMO.

      Freeing up $4M from RW and Tyler is pretty easy though.

      • Rob Staton says:

        What’s the future damage to Wilson & Lockett’s cap hits?

        • dcd2 says:

          If you convert $4M of Lockett’s base to bonus, it spreads it over 2 years. So it saves $2M this year and pushes it to next. You could also extend him a year or two, but $2M isn’t a very big hit either way.

          For Russ, if you converted $3M of base to bonus, it spreads out over 4 years at $750k/year. You’d save $2.25 this year and bump his cap hit by $750k for the next 3.

          That gives you $4.25M for this year with forward carries of $2.75M/750k/750k.

      • Daniel Matarazzo says:

        If he is still psycho and under police suspicion, and NFL suspension, then no, but if he’s cleared and Wilson endorses him, I say do it.

  48. Relax 12’s, defense will definitely be better, even if they stand pat. Some of the young ones, who are talented, got a good slap upside the helmet the last two years. In other words, they’re pissed and ready to prove they belong! More experienced minds are at work in the Hawks front office and coaches rooms.Have faith, feel good about the team, and get ready( when we are able) to scream our heads off. Another playoff bound Seattle Seahawks!! Go Hawks

  49. Happy Hawk says:

    Watched the whole replay of the Monday nighter against the Niners. Clowney and Reed were beasts. Consistent pressure allowing the corners to play up & tough and the linebackers were freed up to run into the right gaps. Need to find a way to get Clowney back – it s imperative IMO. That game shouldn’t have been close if not for the fumbles ( Metcalf and Penny) and the dropped interceptions. Even when they didn’t get home Jimmy G was under duress and the pressure caused poor passes and even some blocked passes. We need that kind of performance in 2020 on a game by game basis.

  50. Daniel Matarazzo says:

    Tim Jernigan is available…should be in 2-3 million range only 27, 6 years experience, reportedly healthy after two down seasons

  51. […] As noted a few days ago — they only have about $5-6m to play with now. They can create more, either by cutting Branden Jackson or by asking players like Russell Wilson and Tyler Lockett to restructure their contracts. For that reason, there’s still some slight hope that Clowney could return albeit on a short-term deal. […]