What if Seattle let Bennett & Tate test the market?

February 16th, 2014 | Written by Rob Staton

Michael Bennett, and his celebration, must stay in Seattle

How much should you pay a free agent?

It’s not always obvious.

Sometimes you just have to get it done. It’s why quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco all got huge contracts. At some point in the next few months I’d expect J.J. Watt to get a titanic-sized deal.

But other times it just makes financial sense to let the market come to you.

In an ideal the world the Seahawks keep Michael Bennett and Golden Tate.

But they might be forced into letting both find their true worth.

Amid all the talk of discounts and a desire to stay in Seattle, they’ll never get a better chance to cash in.

They just won a Super Bowl. Both players are fairly high profile. In Bennett’s case he’s coming off a monster post-season where he had a huge impact as a pass rusher.

They can walk into a meeting with the Seahawks and name a high price — and it wouldn’t be out of order.

Bennett’s agent can point to the 5-year, $40.5m contract signed by Paul Kruger — a Super Bowl winner last year who also enjoyed a huge post season in Baltimore. Kruger left the Ravens to go to Cleveland, and will earn $8.2m in three of the next four years.

He’s also only three months younger than Bennett.

Tate’s agent can use Brian Hartline as an example. He signed a 5-year contract in Miami worth nearly $31m and for the next four years he’ll earn between $6.2m and $7.5m.

Whether we like it or not, that is the kind of money Tate can expect to command.

To accept smaller offers to stay in Seattle, without testing free agency, would be a huge gift to the Seahawks worthy of the phrase ‘hometown discount’.

So unless the Seahawks are willing to pony up that kind of cash (and they might) both players could easily become free agents.

That in itself would bring about an interesting chess game.

Pete Carroll and John Schneider have allowed players to test the market before. Red Bryant and Brandon Mebane were re-signed after an anxious wait in free agency, with New England and Denver sniffing around.

The reward can be substantial if you get a cheaper deal, but you also run the serious risk of losing key players — or even paying more.

In the end neither Bryant or Mebane came back at a reduced price. Seattle had to pay up.

Yet we only have to look at last year to realise you can save money too.

Everyone expected Bennett and Cliff Avril to get paid. The Seahawks weren’t mentioned as potential suitors — nobody expected either to last long in free agency.

Yet after a battle for Paul Kruger’s signature, the market went flat.

Suddenly Avril was signing a two-year deal in Seattle, and Bennett penned a one year contract. This was all about improving their future market potential. Both players were young enough to have another crack at free agency down the line.

But is the money definitely going to be there now they’ve won a Championship?

Could they actually be considered cogs in an an uber-talented, balanced unit? After all, it’s the secondary that gets most of the attention in Seattle. They’re the ones with the nickname.

Will teams, incorrectly, look at Bennett as just an 8.5-sack guy on a great defense?

It’s not completely unlikely.

Greg Hardy (26 sacks in 2012/13) will be the premium pass rusher in free agency and he’s likely to get the big money offers and the most early interest. Carolina have cap issues, so Hardy won’t be franchised.

When he leaves the board, does it go cold again? Just like a year ago?

Not helping matters is the relative depth available. Michael Johnson, Lamarr Houston, Jared Allen, Everson Griffen, Justin Tuck — other players who will follow Hardy’s lead.

If Bennett is being quoted offers less than the total he was requesting from the Seahawks, you’d have to fancy Seattle’s chances of keeping him at a slightly better price.

Of course the alternative scenario is a team just offers up a nice big contract and Bennett’s packing his bags.

Gus Bradley and the Jaguars have $47.7m in free cap space and should be making him one of their top targets.

Atlanta has $19.2m free even and could make a strong bid as they need a pass rusher.

Bennett’s former Head Coach in Tampa Bay — Raheem Morris — is now the defensive coordinator in Washington. They’ve got $24.9m to play with.

This is the kind of risk facing Seattle if they let Bennett talk to other teams.

**********************************

Unlike the pass rush market, receivers are hot property in free agency. The ones who don’t get huge, over-inflated contracts (Mike Wallace) at least get decent money.

Any team breaking in a young quarterback could use Golden Tate.

He’s reliable, he’s a playmaker, he’s physical for his size and he’s a good return man.

Numbers can be deceptive. Anyone who ‘gets’ the Seahawks understands they’ll probably never have one receiver who puts up monster stats.

This offense is about big plays and running the ball. Carroll refers to Wilson throwing around 25 times as perfection. We’ll not see 350-400 yard games with any regularity, and we may never see a Seahawks receiver leading the yardage charts.

Tate’s best year statistically was the 898 yards he recorded in 2013. He managed that from 64 catches. None of the top-ten receivers had less than 82 receptions, while the likes of Antonio Brown had nearly twice as many (110) to put up his 1499 yards.

It’d be interesting to see how he’d fair in a prolific passing offense such as New England’s. Julian Edelman had 1056 yards from 105 receptions. With Tate’s ability in space I wonder how productive he’d be in the Patriots system?

At the same time he’s pretty much perfect for the Seahawks offense. Make the most of your chances, be consistent, compete every day and be an X-Factor. He has a lot of value to Seattle and it’s why John Schneider will make a big push to keep him.

And yet there’s one huge elephant in the room if he wants big money….

It’s a FANTASTIC year for receivers in the draft. Truly exceptional.

If you need a receiver, whatever the type, you’ll find them in this class.

And while Tate, Eric Decker and Jeremy Maclin all have some value — they’re not must-have players. Not when you can get an Odell Beckham Jr or Jarvis Landry for a fraction of the cost.

So while the Seahawks risk losing Tate if he hits the market, they also know an other-wordly receiver class could work in their favour.

If Tate expects to get Hartline-money, he might be unlucky. There’s enough talent in the draft to hammer his value — potentially taking a couple of million off the table.

**********************************

Essentially it comes down to this — how much can you afford to gamble on either player?

Bennett for me is a must-sign. He’s just too important to the defense and for the sake of trying to save $2-3m, you just get it done.

Unless his agent constantly moves the goalposts and asks for more, there needs to be a meeting point on a contract to make sure he’s playing the peak years of his career in Seattle.

I truly believe Bennett is a top-10 defensive lineman in the league — and his lack of a defined position and gaudy numbers is making him devastatingly underrated.

No messing around here, I think this could be a formality. These were Ian Rapoport’s words on Super Bowl Sunday:

“Michael Bennett will be re-signed”

His words on Tate?

“They’ll try… if they have space”

I suspect Seattle is thoroughly determined to keep Tate. He gets under the skin of opponents, has consistently won games with big plays and has a lot of chemistry with quarterback Russell Wilson.

Unlike Bennett, however, you can imagine a successful Seahawks team without Tate. They somewhat made their bed by paying Percy Harvin a massive contract. I’d be surprised if they don’t make receiver an early target in the draft just because of the quality available. And we have to assume they’re going to tender Doug Baldwin.

With some heartbreaking decisions forthcoming, Tate might be a player they end up allowing to test the market. And unless they can get him back on a deal worth $3-4m a year, he might be playing elsewhere.

But as we discussed above — don’t rule out that kind of deal because the receiver-rich draft could hurt him.

For me — Bennett gets done before free agency begins on March 11th. Tate tests the market, but could still remain in Seattle.

**********************************

Speaking of heartbreaking decisions…

Sportrac have put together a list of 60 potential cap casualties. Sidney Rice, Zach Miller, Chris Clemons and Red Bryant are all named for Seattle.

Here’s the potential saving for each:

Rice — $7.3m

Miller — $5m

Clemons — $7.5m

Bryant — $7.5m

Total — $27.3m

I watched some post-season highlights this weekend. Part of Seattle’s effectiveness with the pass rush was being able to team Bennett and Avril on one side, with Clemons on the opposite edge.

Whatever you think about Clemons’ performance during the regular season, he appeared back to his effective best in the playoffs.

Bryant is assumed as a luxury by most fans, and yet I get the feeling Carroll sees him as integral on early downs. It’s not as simple as plugging a more orthodox 5-tech guy in that position. Bryant’s massive size would also need to be replaced.

Miller has acted more as a terrific blocker in Seattle but he’s made his fair share of catches too. Ideally you keep him, but whatever anyone says he shouldn’t be earning $18m for his efforts in 2013/14. Luke Willson is more of a joker than a blocker and not a natural replacement.

Rice is the nearest thing Seattle has to a #1 receiver. Even with a good group, they need a #1. Out of the four though, I think Rice is the only sure-fire cut.

It’s not beyond the realms of possibility Clemons could be cut and then re-signed at an incredibly low price. The market for 32-year-old pass rushers isn’t great.

I think the team would look to work on Bryant’s and Miller’s contracts simply because they are vital players. But they aren’t irreplaceable like Russell Wilson or Earl Thomas.

If they cleared house and cut all four it’d make for an interesting off-season.

In that scenario they’d have the necessary funds to extend Thomas’ contract, pay Bennett, re-sign the likes of Breno Giacomini and Steven Hauschka, possibly keep Tony McDaniel and/or Clinton McDonald and have a look at what value they can find in free agency.

A new deal for Richard Sherman is also very much on the table.

Of course, you’d also be losing four players who’ve been part of the heart and soul of this team for the last few seasons.

They’d need to be replaced. And it wouldn’t be easy.

Shop for Conference Champs and Super Bowl XLVIII Match Up Merchandise at NFLShop.com

89 Responses to “What if Seattle let Bennett & Tate test the market?”

  1. CC says:

    It is tough, but we won’t be able to keep everyone. Many of these guys have been a big part of the success, but it is time to move on from a few of these guys. All of these guys have been well paid over the last few years – it is time to pay the young guys now.

    Gone
    Rice
    Miller

    If restructure available keep
    Clem
    Bryant

  2. Cameron says:

    Interesting thoughts Rob. I could see Tate signing a short term deal. Something along the lines of 2/9. He’d still only be 27 and have a chance at a longer term deal. Seattle may not want to commit to Tate long term. Next year there will be a decision on Baldwin, who should be cheaper than Tate but in many ways is better and offers something Tate doesn’t – precise, consistent route running. With Percy getting 11-12 mil, can we really afford to pay Tate and Baldwin? We’d probably be over 20 million just between those 3 guys. I’m not seeing that.

    Bennett is the big fish we shouldn’t let get away, IMO. I’d go for that Kruger contract with him. He’s worth 8+ million a year. To pay for part of it I would ask Red Bryant to take a pay cut that takes his cap hit down to 5 mil (down from 8.5 mil). They’d essentially be swapping salaries.

    If we can’t re-sign Bennett we should let the market play out and basically re-apply our FA approach from a year ago. Sign mid level or unappreciated DL prospect promising opportunity to shine and earn longer more lucrative deal. I could see getting Henry Melton in this scenario. He’s coming off an injury and has some character concerns. A year of Seahawks rehab could do him good.

    • Brad says:

      I don’t see the bennefit of Tate taking a two year deal. At least not from his perspective, he is coming off the best year of his career, thanks in large part to the injuries of Harvin and Rice. It is highly probable that his numbers will dip over the next two years with Harvin in the lineup and the emergence of Kearse, not to mention the possibility of a high round draft pick at WR. This year was a sort of perfect storm for him to earn himself a big payday. And by my count he did just that.

      • Cameron says:

        I doubt Tate looks at that way. I’m sure he sees himself as capable of producing in this offense for years to come. The problem is, it’s not looking like a sellers market. Rob pointed out correctly that this is an insanely deep draft class at receiver. Impact receivers are going to be found through rounds 3 and 4. Given that, what team is going to make a commitment, both in years, and in value, to a receiver that’s never had a 1000 yard season?

        Maybe I’m all wet here. But if I’m not, and Tate’s market is tepid. He might very well do what Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett have done with great success – take a short term deal in hopes of improving future value.

        • zh93 says:

          If he is looking for the next pay day as a reciever I’m not going to come to Seattle because I’m not going to get the ball very often. You want to go somewhere they throw the ball 40+ times a game. Ala GB, Pats, Saints, Atlanta, ect. Just my opinion. I like Baldwin better and I say let’s replace taste with the draft.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Some excellent thoughts there Cameron.

      • Nolan says:

        I think we need to keep Bennett I think a big reason for our success this year was our pass rush and Bennett was a large part of that. It might cost us big dollars and it might not there are a plethra of pass rush options for teams to consider. Rob mentioned them in his piece. Justin Tuck, Jared Allen are splashier names and some of the other guys provided bigger statistical numbers. Versatility is also a big part of Bennett’s value, but how many teams will value that verdict lit over a guy who can play three downs at one spot on the line like Jared Allen? It’s not a slam dunk Bennett gets a big deal he had better stats last year and had to take a 5mil one year deal. Also there were reports his shoulder might need surgery where is he on that, will every team clear him medically specifically long term with garunteed dollars ? I think he will get paid well and I really hope that is with the seahawks I think his skills area perfect fit and I would be okay if signing him cost it’s a vet on the Dline like red Bryant, but maybe the market for him won’t be as big as we think.

        I love golden Tate, I really really do he is one of my favorite players… But I definitely let him test the market and only bring him back at a very good value 5mil and under knowing perfectly we’ll he might get away. As much as I like Tate I think Baldwin is even more important tithe team and will be a better value at least through next year. Letting Tate test the market will be one of the hardest decisions this team will have had to make he was an original draft pick of this front office that they developed into a great player, but e might be the first of many we have to let leave. Percy Harvin I think can fill in a lot of rates production, and Baldwin and Kearse can pick up a lot of the Slack as well with increased oppertunites. I suspect a rookie will be drafted it it is important to rennet most rookie wide outs need to be developed and don’t contribute right away ( including Tate himself who took almost two years) so they might have to find a cheap vet who can high point balls and make plays on the perimeter that the current group would lack if they lost Tate perhaps that guy is already on the roster in Sidney rice if no market develops after he is cut.

        I love every player on this team and I’m glad they got the chance to win the title before the difficult decisions had to be made but now our offseason might be more pain then pleasure seeing some of our favorits leave.

  3. Brad says:

    Markets come and go. Last year we got pass rushers cheap. By comparison, last year you could have purchased stock in google for around $750/share. As of today it trades at $1,200/share. So if we pay Bennett close to $8million per year before he tests and possibly re-sets the market it could work out to be a significant discount for us in the end.

  4. Cameron says:

    Rob, I see that Randy Starks is a UFA. What are your thoughts on him if we can’t re-sign Bennett?

    • Rob Staton says:

      I really wanted him a year ago before he was franchise tagged. Having seen this defense operate without an orthodox three technique, I’m not sure we necessarily need one now. At the right price, Starks is a very solid tackle with pass rushing qualities. But I think he’ll get some interest.

      • Cameron says:

        Starks might be a decent fall back option. He’s 30 years old already (11 years in the league!!) so he won’t be getting any long term deals.

    • Madmark says:

      We may not have gotten Starks last year but we did get his backup in Tony McDaniels and that turned out pretty good for us too.

  5. Rock says:

    Schneider’s philosophy is Stay Young Forever. He understands that young legs are faster healthier legs. He did well last year picking up bargain basement value when every other team was out of salary cap space. I think he will attempt to repeat the formula and wait as long as possible before pulling the trigger in FA.

    Rice is gone and Tate can easily be replaced. Not only is there a deep draft at WR but there are plenty of free agents on the market, as well. Tate may not find the offer he is looking for. I see them letting him look around. At the end of FA Schneider will make a move for a WR. It may or may not be Tate. It will be a number we can afford. The emergence of Kearse, Baldwin and Lockette makes Tate just another guy. Somebody is going to want a chance at a Super Bowl ring on a one year deal.

    Bennett has value because of his versatility along the line. The Hawks learned having four pass rushers is far superior to having just one. Bennett was effective in part because the Hawks could put so many rushers on the field at once that he ended up going against a guard. I see him coming back but not for more than $8 million per year. Clemons played well but will need to take a cut to return. Bryant could be replaced. He also, will probably be offered a new deal at a lower number. We have plenty of replacements waiting in the wings. Managing the cap is the priority on the D Line.

    I have mentioned it before. This is not a solid offensive line. We need improvement in pass blocking as well as run blocking. We can probably afford to bring back Giaccomini. Unger and Sweezy will be back. Bowie and Bailey have earned jobs next year. The others are all question marks. Carpenter struggles in pass protection. McQuistan is versatile but not effective. Okung earns $11 million. I could easily see Okung being traded for draft picks. This would solve a lot of salary cap problems. This is a good year for OT’s in the draft. Miami will be a buyer. They have cap space and must rebuild their entire offensive line. Moving on from Okung while he is still young enough to command high picks in return would be a smart Schneider move. Look for more cheap moves like the addition of Greg Van Roten to build the depth in this position group going into camp. We have seen what this group can do and it isn’t good enough.

    • MJ says:

      What would be the point in trading Okung? We would be creating a new hole to fill. If Seattle has a problem with Okung’s pay and performance, then why would another team trade a bunch of picks for him?

      While I get people wanting to upgrade the OL, it’s just not going to be cost effective and pickng at 32 pretty much ensures we would be completely over drafting an OL, who more than likely represents a negligible upgrade.

      The OL struggled this year because we were missing 3 starters for a big chunk of the year, and additonally, we faced some crazy defenses. The days of dominant OL play are long gone/over. DL are way too athletic. If some OL who is an absolute upgrade is available at 32, then take them. However, simply making moves at OL to make moves is a dangerous way to waste premium draft capital and cap space. I’m struggling to see what rookie OL at 32 will shut down Justin Smith, Robert Quinn, Aldon Smith, etc. Just not happening.

      • Rock says:

        The reason we need to move on from Okung is his $11 million salary. We will not be able to keep him beyond 2014 anyway. His money has to go to Russell Wilson. Trading him now, while he is 27 ensures you can get maximum return for him. Miami’s situation creates a unique opportunity. They have cap space and will need someone to anchor their line. Miami cannot afford to start a rookie LT to protect Tannehill.

        I disagree that we are creating another hole. Bailey filled in well. We will probably get two or more draft picks for Okung, including a 2014 first round pick. We can bring a talented LT in and use him behind Bailey, if necessary. The additional picks will add depth and enable Schneider to continue to churn the roster and Stay Young Forever. This is how you manage the cap. You bring in youth and develop them in house.

        • Colin says:

          You aren’t going to be able to trade Okung for a 1st round pick. That isn’t going to happen.

          • Ben2 says:

            I agree with Colin completely – you’re not getting multiple picks including a #1 for Okung…Okung is better than Eugene Monroe but I think it was a telling trade for this fantasy scenario where we make cap room via an Okung trade. What did Monroe go for? A 4th rounder?

    • Michael M. says:

      I can’t find much of anything in this comment that I would agree with.

      First off, if you think Tate is “just another guy” I would have to ask, are you watching the same Tate as me? Golden Tate of the Seattle Seahawks? The guy can make people miss, and breaks tackles like a running back. To my eye, he has better balance than any receiver in the league, and is even better than some running backs. Reliable hands, the ability to play above his size on the outside or work the slot, and let’s not forget what he can do on punt returns or blocking in the run game. I’m sorry Rock, but Tate is not “just another guy”

      Your proposal to trade Okung makes no sense. First of all, Okung is by far our best O-lineman. If you could simply trade him for a first rounder and then draft his (much cheaper) replacement, that would be awesome, but that’s just not the way it works. If there were anyone as good as Okung who will just be sitting there at #32 overall, why in the world would any team trade for him instead of just selecting this very hypothetical player for themselves? Miami will be a buyer? How do you figure? They wouldn’t pony up to keep Jake Long, but all of a sudden they’re gonna pay even more money and give up draft capital for a guy who has missed even more games due to injury? I don’t see it.

      Finally, your last sentence might be the worst thing of all: “We have seen what this group can do and it isn’t good enough.” ……Wasn’t it good enough to win a Superbowl??

      • Rock says:

        No, it wasn’t good enough to win a Super Bowl. Marshawn only gained 39 yards. We could not open any holes. Fortunately, the rest of Denver’s defense was historically bad.

        • Colin says:

          Historically bad? They weren’t a great unit, but historically bad? That’s absurd.

        • Jon says:

          wow, haha

        • MJ says:

          Just making sure we clarify that it’s points that matter, not yards. This isn’t fantasy football. And Denver’s defense was not even remotely close to historically bad. They were a middle of the pack defense. By the way, we also beat SF and NO to get to the SB. Both have outstanding defenses. Or did those wins not count?

          And how can you possibly say it wasn’t good enough, yet we didn’t just win, we killed Denver? I really don’t understand this logic, at all. This is the NFL with a salary cap and parity. Fielding a perfect roster will never happen. The OL and the rest of the roster were good enough where we were clearly the best team in the NFL this year.

          Let’s keep the dialogue grounded in reality, not hyperbole. Wanting to upgrade the OL is a great talking point. Acting like they kept us from winning is a totally off base observation.

        • Ray says:

          Really rock, think before you write. Of course this group was good enough to win the Super Bowl. Winning the trophy wasn’t just one game against a mediocre Denver squad but a run of games against a string of top ten defences to get to that point. The O line deserves all the props for grinding down two very stout front sevens the weeks leading up too the Super Bowl or that game probably doesn’t happen.

          • bigDhawk says:

            I’ll confess I’m on the side of upgrading the OL as well, although I’m not sure trading Okung is the means I would endorse. I agree that our offense prevailed admirably against a host of top defenses at the end of the regular season and through the playoffs, like you said. However I would give most of that credit to Marshawn Lynch, at least as far as the running game is concerned, with a significant nod to Russell’s scrambling and ball contol ability. I’m of the opinion that Lynch is every bit as vital to the success of our run-oriented offense as is Russell.

            Just imagine our offense without Lynch. We likely don’t win half the games from mid-September to mid-Novemeber when Okung, Giac, and Unger were mostly out if Michael and Turbin are our RBs. Lynch, along with Russell’s ball control greatness, saved our season during that stretch. And after the OL got somewhat back on its feet it was Lynch who so terrorized defenses like NO that they sold their soud to stop him, at the fatal expense of leaving play-action wide open for Russell and the Legion of Pedestrians.

            So I give my props mostly to Lynch for whatever success our OL enjoyed this year. He covered for what in reality was our area of least depth on the roster, and without him we don’t win the division, the conference, and likely not the SB. Our offense succeeded largely in spite our OL, not because of it. I’m open to seeing the OL upgraded and deepened at every spot, with less emphasis on LT, and am also open to any way that can get done most efficiently.

            • MJ says:

              Oh, I don’t think anybody is debating that the OL can’t be upgraded/improved. We are strictly debating the non-sense that you can’t win with the current OL, which has been unequivocally proven false.

              All of us would love to see a big improvement, I’m just not sure where you find that without overpaying/overdrafting. That’s the real issue. Do you draft a potentially marginal upgrade at 32 and pass over superior talent at another position just to try to improve the OL? Or, do you strategically attempt to upgrade without just throwing picks and money against the wall and seeing what sticks?

              I’m not saying a good OL won’t be available at 32, but chances are there won’t be (as we have seen recently with OL being overdrafted). I’d hate to pass on a Ra’Shede Hageman or Odell Beckham Jr just to draft a guy like David Yankey or Cyril Richardson (I wouldn’t even consider drafting Richardson at any point) who probably can’t even start on Day 1 for this team.

              I honestly think people are going to be blown away with the improvement the OL makes next year, just by being healthy and another offseason of growing together. I think Sweazy takes another huge step forward as well, not to mention how Bailey/Bowie develop. I really think we have a nice thing going forward. It’s not going to be Walter/Hutch, but it will be an effective OL, not just playing wise, but cost wise as well.

  6. Colin says:

    I don’t think you can do a Kruger type deal with Bennett. He’ll be 29 in November and that’s alot of money/years for a guy at his point in the career. You’re better off offering him 3, and while I do REALLY want him back, you just can’t afford to go overboard with guys like Richard, Earl and Russell due up soon.

    Golden just doesn’t strike me as a guy who we should outbid anybody for. If someone offers him a big contract, let him go. He’s a phenomenal punt returner but his skills as a WR, in this offense, leave things to be desired. Russell countless times did NOT throw him the ball, no matter how open Tate got- a sign that there may not be a ton of chemistry there, certainly not what he has with Doug Baldwin. And ask yourself this: Does this offense need another smallish, lightning quick but unable to dominate coverage type of receiver? No it does not.

    This offense needs a Brandon Coleman, a Kelvin Benjamin, someone who will DEMAND coverage- and will thrash it at times. Someone defenses fear on 3rd short because he’ll dominate you on a slant. Someone who if he gets behind you, you’re done. You won’t catch his long strides and momentum. A Dwayne Bowe clone.

    • Robert says:

      …and in the red zone, just have RW call “KB for 6 Crossbar on 2.” Then throw it at the crossbar and let Kelvin Benjamin go get it…6!!!
      See 1:52 and imagine! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTkyr7Qv8mc

      • Brad says:

        Benjamin is an absolute beast in the redzone. That’s the main difference I see between the highlight clips of Benjamin and Coleman. All of Coleman’s big plays come from the other side of the 50 and not much of anything in the red zone. We had a guy like Coleman on the roster early in the year and cut him loose(Stephan Williams?). Benjamin could come in and produce 10tds in our offense right away. He might only get 30 catches and have a dozen drops, but if he puts points on the board I’d be ok with him in the first. Sorta like a Bruce Irvin for the offense. That said I will be more interested in his 20yard split than his 40.

    • LantermanC says:

      Disagree with the last paragraph. Our threats on 3rd down are like our threats on the D. Avril, Bennett, Once in a while Clemons, or the 2 McDs, can all get some pressure on 3rd down (combined with excellent LOB coverage). Same for our offense. 3rd and 3, you fear Marshawn getting that 3 yards, Harvin on a fly sweep, Baldwin on route over the middle (or heck a long pass), or even Zach Miller for an easy 3. The best offense is many capable weapons, all of which pose a credible threat, imo.

      • Colin says:

        But that in itself is some of the issue. Seattle does have capable guys, but they don’t have a guy at WR who can really dominate. Baldwin, Miller, Harvin, they all have their strengths, but dictating coverage and being a dominate physical presence isn’t one of them.

        • Jon says:

          I feel that Harvin will dictate coverage because he is a player that “tilts the field”. However I agree about needing a Coleman, Benjamin.

    • Cade says:

      “Russell countless times did NOT throw him the ball, no matter how open Tate got- a sign that there may not be a ton of chemistry there,”

      This statement I believe is way out of context.

      In the post season Wilson did not throw to Tate a few times when he broke open. I believe Wilson was competing to not turn the ball over. A style of play specifically mandated by PC for the playoffs. There were moments where Wilson held onto the ball if he felt any uncertainty.

      Throughout the season Wilson showed no issues with throwing the ball up for Tate in one on one situations even when Tate was well covered. He had great chemistry with him.

      I think what happened in the Superbowl is that the no.1 guy was often covering Tate, Harvin was commanding a double team and then Baldwin or Kearse were mismatches vs backup CB’s with minimal safety help. Wilson was going with the ball to the right guy at the right time. Tate did his job.

      Now I don’t think there will be a huge dropoff without Tate in the lineup but it will be a drop off even if an early round rookie is selected. Biggest hit being in punt return.

  7. Stuart says:

    Washington State does not have a state income tax, the majority of other states do. This is a big reason why an offer from Seattle can be lower when doing a quick financial analysis of net dollars per contract offer.

    Next, we are the best run organization in the NFL, in every conceivable way, top to bottom and everything in between! Believe me NFL players are fully aware of how we do things up here, finally.

    The playoffs are a guarantee for the foreseeable future, which will bring in more revenue for the player. Also, the endorsement opportunities are getting better and better. Success breeds success.

    We have all witnessed the MAGIC of PC/JS. I for one have no fear about the future of these impending moves. Worst case, next man up be it a current player on the roster, the draft or a FA on a 1-2 year prove it deal in Seattle.

    Don’t worry, we are a destination now. We are no longer South Alaska.

    BTW-just for s&g, what would OKUNG fetch in a trade? This never entered my mind before reading the the communities posts, interesting, I wonder…

    • House says:

      I think possibly a 3rd Rd pick for Okung. With his documented injury history and need for a new deal, a team would have to LOVE him to give us that.

    • pqlqi says:

      it’d have to be a sign and trade deal…

      he was considered the top LT (tied for 1st) in his draft, those guys ALWAYS go top 10. overall, he is probably just inside the top 10 LTs in the league, with good character and work ethic. nonetheless, it is unlikely you could get a top 10 pick, but I think you could get a late 1st rounder or a pair of 2nds plus one or two late round picks. The alternative would be to trade Okung and the 32nd pick for a top 10 first round pick, and maybe a 3rd this year and a 2nd next year.

      Any trade of Okung would have to come with the FO’s complete confidence that Bailey (or someone else on the roster) could replace him adequately.

      Personally, I think it more likely that the FO signs Bailey to a long term contract in his RFA season for 5-6 million per year and lets Okung walk in FA.

  8. KyleT says:

    Here is an interesting question: What position do we value the highest if both Tate and Bennett walk? Is it really receiver? Or do we look for a Bennett replacement? Who might that be in the draft this year?

    • Kenny Sloth says:

      Michael Bennett from Ohio State. Swear to god.

    • Robert says:

      Wonder what PCJS think about Kenneth Boatright and Scruggs? I heard KB put on 20 pounds. His college tape looks awesome!
      Donald would be awesome, but probably gets snapped up before #32. He is a bit of a ‘tweener, though. And most teams have raisins when it comes to drafting prospects outside of ideal measurables.

  9. Brik says:

    Im going to keep believing out of all those guys we need Sidney Rice the most. With 4 of the top 10, almost top 5 defenses in the league in the NFC West he is crucial for success. Restructure Rice, Miller, Okung, and Bryant. Saves about $10 mil. Clemons is gonna be gone along with Tate. Bennett is gonna be about 4 yrs., 30 million. Jared Allen is gonna sign a 1 year deal real cheap because he wants a ring. Draft Kelvin Benjamin.

    • Colin says:

      Considering we just won the Super Bowl without him, and did the latter half of the season without his services, I don’t agree with that. We do need to draft a guy or two though.

      • Brik says:

        We did and now we are trying to repeat, dont forget Tate is gone too. We cant rely on a rookie WR being a red zone pass threat. Im wondering what everyone who wants to get rid of Rice think we will do next year when we are within the 10? Because to me it looks like all a defense has to do is stop Lynch and stop a PA with Russell rolling to the right. Not enough.

        • AlaskaHawk says:

          I want a big receiver too, but don’t forget that Russell Wilson can still throw to Harvin, Kearse, or Baldwin. Plus we have running backs that can catch passes. Plus we have some practice squad guys that might be ready to move up. So all is not lost if we don’t have Tate or a big wide receiver.

          If you want to throw to big guys then maybe the Seahawks can start using the tight ends in the red zone? We hardly use them right now.

  10. Colin says:

    I really don’t understand the ‘replace Okung’ sentiment. You want to toss aside a proven commodity for a 3rd round pick, at best? Seems foolhardy and reactionary to a season of injury. Maybe you let him walk after 2014 if he can’t stay healthy, but he’s a very good LT, and 2011-2012 he showed he was one of the best at his position.

    After witnessing the post Walter Jones fiasco, I’m not ready to toss aside guys like him and Unger because of a season or so of injury plagued play. Yeah, I get it, he missed time in 2010, 11 and 13, but you don’t find pro-bowl LT’s all the time. Now is not the time to purge the offensive line.

    • Jeff M. says:

      Yep. Likeliest scenario is that Okung gets extended for something similar to Duane Brown’s second contract (6/$53m but with little/no dead money in the last couple of years).

      There’s no way that JS is foolish enough he hasn’t budgeted to keep a LT on the team at market prices–by the time that Wilson’s new deal starts producing big cap hits all of Rice, Miller, Lynch, Giacomini (big cap hits on offense that we’ve afforded by underpaying at QB) will be off the roster. We can afford three “big ticket items” on offense, and those will be Wilson, Okung, and Harvin.

      • AlaskaHawk says:

        Watching how the Seahawks have drafted the last few years, they are no longer using high picks on the offensive line. Most of their picks are in the late rounds, even later then the 5th where they have picked cornerbacks. I see a lot of rotation on the offensive line as they move from a high cost early draft pick scenario to a bunch of no name 7th rounders. Under that scenario Okung’s 11 million dollar salary could pay for 3 good free agents. Not elite players but good players. I’m pretty sure that all parts of the line are being targeted for eventual replacement. Note that PC has already brought in a guard that used to play for Green Bay.

        Okung is just too injury prone and expensive to be kept at his rates. Signing a half season player for more than 4 million a year would be a mistake. He could redeem himself next year by having a full season of play. His replacement is already on the team and they will most likely find a second player to compete for that spot. The best thing that Okung can do to stay on the team is have an injury free season. The talent and spirit is there, but not the healthy body,

  11. EranUngar says:

    I love Bennett and Tate and would love to see a way to get both back. Both are great players who fit our offense/defense perfectly.

    Having said that – I find that we miss something in our evaluation of both -

    1, Tate is a sub 900 yards WR. Yes, he plays on a run first team that likes to spread the ball among all targets etc.

    2. Bennett is an 8.5 sack lineman. Yes, he plays as part of a multi pass rushers NASCAR package and helps others get their sacks too.

    The same arguments we use to explain why they are needed in spite of the less then elite production work against spending top dollar on them.

    Should a run first spread the ball offense spend top dollar on it’s 2nd no. 2 receiver?

    Should a NASCAR defense spend top dollars on one of its 8 sacks lineman?

    Maybe the true strength of those units are in the system they run rather then the individual quality of each player?

    Maybe any mediocre pass rusher would work just as good within a 3-4 rushers package supported by the LOB behind them?

    Maybe any mediocre receiver will provide similar value along Harvin, Baldwin, Kearse and a no. 1 receiver?

    Maybe we should let Tate get his pay day elsewhere, release Rice and resign him back at his open market value of 3-4M tops to groom a new drafted WR?

    The same system that made those stats what they are is the system that doesn’t need better stats from those players.

    • Jarhead says:

      I think we saw medicore lineman with the LOB behind demonstrate their effectiveness in the 2012 playoff run. Big difference between ’12 and ’13. There is your sample size and your evidence of Bennet’s impact. Besides Avril, what else changed? You have a perfect A to B comparison. So the “it’s the system” arguement is rendered almost invalid.

      • EranUngar says:

        If i remember correctly the 12 D was the best in the league in points scored too. Yes, the 13 D was even better but it was better all over. Avril added a lot too, Red was healthy, Quinn added his input, the LBs did better and the LOB too. It wasn’t just Bennett. I love the guy and want him back with all my heart but I want everybody else too. Will you sign Bennett if it means no extensions to Thomas or Sherman or if it means no extension to RW next year?

        All that i pointed out is that if our system is the cause behind Tate’s lower number of receptions or Bennett’s lower number of sacks maybe we can make do with a more affordable talent and let that system work it’s magic. McDonald had 5.5 sacks at 120,000$ a pop.

        I would put an offer to all of them – Rice, Clem, Red, Bennett, Tate, Miller and Baldwin at a price the team can pay and keep it’s cap structure solid. Some may take it, some may want to try FA first and still come back and take it and some will be lost. Once the FA frenzy is behind us we’ll know what we need and try and get what we’ll need in the open market or during the draft.

        This is the cap game. Going all out last year with Avril, Bennett and Harvin worked well for 2013…but has a price for 2014. It’s time to pay the piper.

        • EdC says:

          I totally agree. I think if we want to continue to be successful, we cannot overpay like other teams and turn into 1 hit wonders. Cut Rice/Miller, restructure Clem/Red to lower deals (cut otherwise) don’t pay over 6 for MB and 3 GT .

          Next 2 years Wilson/Thomas/Maxwell/Sherman/Wright/Wagner all come up. Unless you plan on trading Sherm (i’m open if he wants 10), that is the core

        • Kenny Sloth says:

          There were a lot of issues in 12. We switched to a 4-3 over for long stretches of the season. Gus Bradley had guys playing out of position. It was weird.

    • Colin says:

      The idea that it’s the system making the players is ridiculous.

      • EranUngar says:

        LOL…if the common view is that the system is “breaking” players and effecting their stats negatively then by definition the system effects the output and could do it both ways.

        As for Bennett – He was the same player for years at Tampa with similar stats of less the 10 sacks a year with the hurries and hits….

        Ever since the Giants came out with the NASCAR package it was clear that when you have a group of pass rushers on the field together they have an accumulated effect. stop one or 2 and the 3rd or 4th gets you. We were lucky to have so much young talent on rookie contracts to be able to have 5 defensive linemen on 4-9M contracts a year plus a few extras. Having everybody fresh and changing packages helped the productivity of all. without Avril and Clem drawing a lot of attention i’m not sure Bennett is as productive as he was. You saw how effective Irvin was once Clem went down.

        Again, i hope we get Bennett back on a multiyear contract but if it’s over 7M a year then we are better off with a DE drafted on day 1 or 2…

    • Robert says:

      The key stat for Bennett is not the sacks; it’s the hurries, hits and all the times he caused opposing QB’s to hurry. Our pass rush had offensives thinking hurry, hurry and worrying about bone jarring hits if they did make a play. Bennett is a very unique and valuable player.

  12. Maz says:

    I would like to see us keep both Bennett and Tate. Bennett on a 3-4yr deal 22-30 mil. Tate to a 4-5yr 20-22 mil deal. I also think it is a good idea to cut and re-sign Clemons and possibly Rice. Miller @ 5 mil next year I am ok with. Would be nice to re-sign Okung too and get that cap number down. Either way we go at this point, you have to be confident in our front office. I don’t see any one move that makes or breaks us this off season. We may not get a hometown discount on our guys, but we could attract some really nice veterans on short term deals.

  13. Cash says:

    If we resign Tate, what will we do in one year with Baldwin? Will we let him walk and do nothing? Would we resign him to be a backup for Harvin since they play the same position? To me, Baldwin has significant value to us right now because I view him as the replacement for our third round pick we gave up in the Harvin trade. Put a 3rd round RFA tender on him to “encourage” other teams to take him. If the draft is considered extremely deep, this is the perfect time to do it and head into the draft with a full complement of picks.

    Dont get me wrong, I like Baldwin. I like the way he gets open off the line of scrimmage, I like his hustle, and I love those toe tapping sideline catches. But the decision on keeping has to be made now, while he still has trade value. His stats are comparable to Tates and rank very good amongst his peers who were drafted the year he came into the league (I think he is 3rd in catches). He is going to want to get paid too, and while his tender if we made him a second rounder to try and get maximum value might be around 2.2 million, his stats will demand a contract higher than that when its time to give him a new contract. He very well might ask for 4-5 million a year, just one year after signing Tate for 5-6 million.

    I think we have to choose one and cant afford both. I like them both, but for me, we get maximum value by keeping Tate at 4-6 million per year, and tender Baldwin for a third round pick to use in this years draft.

    • AlaskaHawk says:

      I look on Baldwin and Tate as being equal in value to the team. So if Tate gets 4 million/year, eventually Baldwin should be getting that also. I don’t know how we could choose one of them over the other. Probably the free agent market will make that choice for us.

  14. Cysco says:

    I’m ok with losing Tate if it’s going to take more than $3.5mm to keep him. (which I suspect it will)

    Harvin
    Tate
    Kearse
    Baldwin

    During the playoff run and SB, what order would you rank those guys based on their performance and importance to winning? Here’s my ranking:

    1-Baldwin – 13 catches for 202 yards. 9 first downs. 130 kick return yards with 3 of 20+. Dude was our best receiver in the postseason. Hands down.
    2 – Harvin – Yes, he didn’t play until the Superbowl, but he impacted that game in so many ways. If Harvin doesn’t play that game, I think the score is closer. Having Harvin out there really put the Denver D on its heels.
    3. Kearse – Dude stepped up big time and made some epic plays. 7 catches for 134 and 2 TD (almost a 3rd in the SB except for a nice defensive play)
    4. Tate – 8 catches for 64 yards in the postseason. No TD

    In my eyes, Tate was the 4th most impactful receiver on the team in the post season. Granted, part of it could have been match-ups, but based on the numbers and eye test I’d have to stick with this ranking. Given that, It’s hard to imagine paying Tate. He’s not our clear number one and is arguably not the team’s second or third most impactful receiver. If you can keep him for a “bargain” then sure, but you don’t break the bank for a player like Tate.

    • Layne says:

      Add Ricardo Lockette to are WR arsenal. the forgotten man. 6 foot 2 4.37 speed. next year could be his breakout season. a return specialist in college.

      “I don’t want to just be the fastest; I want to be the best – at whatever I do.”

      Lockette. I want to be a tall Doug Baldwin.”

  15. CC says:

    Rob – what do you think of Devin Street from Pitt? Apologies if you’ve reviewed him already. Thanks

  16. Kenny Sloth says:

    If we cut and resign rice. Tender and resign Baldwin, I would be ok with Tate walking. We’d have to draft a WR early, though. Cannot let Bennett go.

    WE STILL NEED A BACKUP FS WHY IS NO-ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?!?!?!?!

    • Kenny Sloth says:

      Imagine if we added a versatile, athletic, hard hitter to our secondary. Played our nickle packages with 3 DBs. I’m thinking like an Antoine Winfield in our secondary. A versatile, terror to add to this fearsome backfield.

    • Colin says:

      No one is talking about it because:

      1.) This team isn’t going to invest much in a backup much like you would a backup QB. If you lose your guy for the season, well, tough shit. You lose him.

      2.) If you do invest big in a backup FS, WHY ARE WE INVESTING HEAVILY IN A GUY WHO WILL RARELY SEE THE FIELD? Waste of resources.

      3.) There isn’t a backup FS in this league with Earl’s skills. It just doesn’t make sense to worry about it. You address the position and move on.

      • Kenny Sloth says:

        We need insurance. ET is not literally an alien. He has corporeal form. He isn’t indestructible.

        OUR DEFENSE GOES THROUGH THAT POSITION. If Earl goes down. We’ve got Chris Maragos back there. And Jeron Johnson. Neither of them can play the single high reliably. I just want a rangy 5th round safety so my heart doesn’t drop everytime Earl gets trucked.

        Who said we havfe to invest a lot in the position. What a silly notion. Silly silly fellow. Don’t know nuffin bout no drafts. Don’t know no football over here.

        “well, tough shit. You lose him.” Lol better just waste a year because one guy goes down. It’s way better to not have insurance. Always invest in a warranty, cuz.

        Who said he would rarely see the field. Why not pick up someone with VERSATILITY (that’s a nice word in football) that can play a multitude of spots that you just can’t stand to not have on the field. I want to see us implement some more dime packages. Have a guy that can play the nickle corner spot so we can roll our coverages and shit. God. That would be such an exciting dimension to add to this defense. Having three safeties capable of playing the single high on the field at once. Why not add to our strength a little. This is a great year for safeties in the draft. I can think of five I would draft in the first two rounds not named HaHa.

        Sometimes, dear Colin, one mustn’t be afraid to think outside the box.

        • Colin says:

          “I just want a rangy 5th round safety so my heart doesn’t drop everytime Earl gets trucked.”

          Ok, that’s fair enough and realistic.

          “Why not pick up someone with VERSATILITY (that’s a nice word in football) that can play a multitude of spots that you just can’t stand to not have on the field.”

          Why not move up and select a QB in round 1? OUR OFFENSE GOES THROUGH THAT POSITION. If Russell goes down. We’ve got Tarvaris Jackson back there. And BJ Coleman. Neither of them can play the quarterback position reliably.

          Two can play that game.

          It’s not about insurance, it’s about cost effectiveness and risk aversion. We don’t want Earl to get hurt, but if he does, there really isn’t another guy who can do what he does. Sure, you could find a nice backup in round 5, that shouldn’t be a problem at all with this staff. But I’d like to introduce a little Billy Beane quote here:

          “Is there another guy out there like Giambi?”

          “No- nope”

          “And if there was, could we afford him?”

          “No.”

          “THEN WHAT IN THE F*** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MAN?”.

          We can play the “what if” game all day till the cows come home. I do think an upgrade to Maragos isn’t a bad thing at all- I’m largely in favor of it- but I don’t think it’s a priority, and “Having three safeties capable of playing the single high on the field at once” is not a necessity, or realistic. There’s a fine line between “thinking outside the box” and “too much of a good thing is a bad thing”.

          Given the state of the team overall, and the needs at WR, OL and possibly DL, I think getting caught up in the backup FS is missing the boat a little bit.

          “Your condescension, as always, is much appreciated, Kenny Sloth, thank you.”

          • Kenny Sloth says:

            We’ve talked about wr ol and dl ad nauseam. Why not add a dimension to this team that was not there?

            Having a versatile DB that could play both man on a wr and deep zone would totally redefine this defense. Not saying that it’s an easy thing to find, but I trust management to find and coach a player up to fit any role they want on the field.

            I’m just talking about opening possibilities. Making new things possible. Things that haven’t really been done before. The dichotomy between the tried and true concepts and the originality and creativity that went into Carroll’s defense are what made it such a special one. Why stop here? Why not continue to redefine the game?

            Now we’re getting into hypothetical land. I could go on for a while about what this addition could mean for our defense and the game in general, but it’d be lost on obstinate ears.

            I will say that the safety class is very deep this year. And this FO’s MO is to take players based on ability against current roster talent. I would love to see some Dime packages this year. Add to the Legion of Boom. Instead of having a corner out there in Nickle, have a safety. The coverage possibilities are instantly multiplied.

            The talking down was unnecessary and you rebuked it very maturely. Sorry.

            • Kenny Sloth says:

              Also, just because there are three important needs (that I will certainly admit are more pressing) doesn’t mean that there aren’t other ones on the roster. Safety is the only position group that I feel doesn’t have developing talent waiting in the wings. That and maybe WR. Maybe, although I was a huge fan of Arceto Clark’s when he was with NIU. High points really well. Great hands and body control. Good blocker from a run first offense. I digress.

            • Rob Staton says:

              “We’ve talked about wr ol and dl ad nauseam”

              That’s because we’re focusing on the needs of this team. I could spend a week talking about QB’s, but what’s the point?

        • Rob Staton says:

          I’ve got to side with Colin here. Earl Thomas is irreplaceable. Whoever comes in for him, you’re going to have to dramatically change the defense because you’re not going to get a guy with his range unless you’re using a R1 pick.

          If we’re going to need great players to backup the elite guys, we better also spend a high pick on a new QB… a backup strong safety… a great return man who can cover Percy…

          And I’ve got to say, I think this is a pretty bog standard draft for FS’s.

  17. stuart says:

    If Rice is signed for any amount, he will likely be available for only 10-13 games. For the post-season, he may already be out for the year. Coming off serious knee problems he may never get back to where he was.

    I have always really liked Sidney Rice. At 80% and injury prone, how badly do want him. Draft his replacement, it’s time to move on.

    Ultimately the future is what we do now, tough choices lay ahead…

    • CC says:

      Agree with you – Rice hasn’t played a full season with us yet. He’s been well (over) paid – tough choices, but this one seems a bit easier than most. Even restructured, you could get a younger player with his salary. I also think Lockette is going to get better next year. He caught the ball this year and ran good routes. With his speed, if he now has got it, he could be exactly what we need.

    • Kenny Sloth says:

      For me, he is still a relative unknown. When healthy he’s been tremendously productive. and a great threat for us. Baldwin, Harvin, and Rice is a fearsome trio. Add in Kearse and a rookie or two. So good. We don’t need to overspend on Tate is what I’m saying. He deserves to get paid. He got his ring.

      • Colin says:

        “When healthy he’s been tremendously productive. ”

        Well, that’s a stretch to say the least. A guy who averages maybe 3 catches a game is not tremendously productive. He has his moments and made plenty of phenomenal sideline catches, but he’s never came even close to that $9 million a year he’s getting.

        • Kenny Sloth says:

          Basically aside from hyperbolic conjecture, you agree with me.
          I simply meant he has been a threat.
          If he made less, he is a great player and weapon for this team. Cut him. When his market is dry sign him back for a pittance. It’ll probably come down to a couple 2 mil per year deals from some perennial losers and he’ll choose to stay.

          I think we could get both Baldwin and Rice for what Tate would cost is the point I’m trying to make.

    • Madmark says:

      Below I talked about Donte Moncrief He’s roughly Rices size at 6’2″ 214.

      • Kenny Sloth says:

        I haven’t looked at Moncrief in a while. Was really turned off by the drops, but I’ll go back to him eventually.

        • CC says:

          Have you guys taken a look at Devin Street – Pitt? He didn’t have a great QB, but he looks like a guy that may be worth a shot in the 4-7th

          • Kenny Sloth says:

            Well, you know, I did look at him on my first run through of the higher profile guys in this class and I kept confusing Street and Robinson’s games. I’ll have to go back, because all I can think of is Allen Robinson.

  18. Madmark says:

    J.J. Watts is going to get a good deal for sure but then we are talking about a really good , well rounded player who plays whether its run or passing down and rarely comes out of a game except to get a quick breather. There is no way Bennett will get what Watt’s will get. I think Seattle always lays out what they are willing to pay before FA and if they don’t sign we let them test the market. I think about Leon Washington position last year and the fact that other than returns he just didn’t measure up as a 3rd Rb for the money. We could have traded him for a 7th round draft pick, but he asked us to just go ahead and release him so he could pick the team he would like to play for and Seattle did just that. I thought that showed a lot of class as to the way this organization will try to help players.
    Does anyone remember Jason Jones he wasn’t a cap casualty he just got a better long term offer from Detroit than he would have got from Seattle. I thinking Clinton McDonald, Walter Thurmond, and Michael Bennett are going to be those players that will get better offers from another team. I kindia get this feeling that paying for 3 pass rushing specialist Clemons, Avril, and Bennett is something Seattle isn’t going to do.
    The defensive casualties this year I think will be Chris Clemons and Red Bryant along with the 3 I mention above being offered more money on other teams. As for the offense I can see Sydney Rice who was having knee problems before the season and then the injury during the season. Paul McQuinstan, I know we can get someone with his versatility that’s younger and cheaper than 5.8 million dollars. I think James Carpenter will be here for his last year just because of how much he costs but don’t bank on it he could easily be cut in camp, He’s a hard one to figure out. I’m all about bringing Breno for the right price and I truly think we can do it. He’s bounced around the league I think he would like to settle in where he’s wanted and could finish out his career as a winner. I love Zach Miller but I’m just having a hard time with that contract and the fact that he just seems slower than I remember when running pass routes. If he would redo his contract I could see him staying otherwise I think I would try to resign Anthony McCoy and let Miller go.
    Now lets talk WR. If Tate would take 5million for 4 years I would keep him and no matter what I’m going to put a 2nd round tender on Baldwin. I know we want that big receiver but I’ll tell ya now Brandon Coleman could be that one but not at pick 32. I just don’t see it from everything I’ve read and watched on him. Braylon Edwards manage to stay on the roster for a bit but every other veteran we brought has been gone before camp was over and at this point I’m just not willing to reach. I say continue to churn out tall receivers and eventually we will hit on one. I like Ricardo Lockett. He had a nice 19 yd catch in the superbowl and how lucky was he when SF dropped him and we got him back. It just might be that being bounced around a little has woken up the speedster we was looking for when we had him to begin with.
    In the first round I like Zack Martin who would replace McQuinston and would push Carpenter at LG spot. I Don’t see him sliding down to us because of a great Senior Bowl and Miami’s messed up offensive line issues. I pretty comfortable with the players that are left with Bailey and Bowie. I’m even curious to see what Fat Rabbit will be now they training him as center but if I can’t get Martin I would grab Xavier Su’a-Filo from UCLA and if he didn’t push Carpenter for LG spot he would be ready next year to take it. Brandon Coleman would be my 2nd round pick and I’m thinking I could possible trade into upper 3rd and still get him. If I’m completely wrong on my evaluation and he’s gone. I would go for Donta Moncrief . In FA if Everson Griffin and Jared Allen offer good deal contracts, I say lets pick them up. The Minnesota connection has been goo to us so far.

    • David Mast says:

      Do you think the guy we just got from Green Bay could/would challenge Carpenter at LG? I recall him being a guard and center. He reminds me a lot like Sweezy, a little smaller but real athletic

      • Madmark says:

        I think Greg is a backup who got some starting time in the NFL due to injuries. I think he was signed to come in to camp and compete, we will just have to see.

  19. Clayton says:

    Rob, do you know if incentives, such as a certain amount of extra money on top of a player’s salary for a certain amount of sacks, touchdowns or yards, count against the salary cap? That way, a player like Bennett or Tate could be offered a reasonable salary and then it could have incentives tacked on so that Seattle could compete with desperate teams with lots of cap room. Trying to think positive here.

    • Rob Staton says:

      Good question — I know a players cap number can rise if he hits incentives (eg, Earl Thomas makes $X extra next year for making the Pro Bowl, winning a title etc). I’m not sure whether sack incentives impact the cap. Bennett & Avril both had bonuses attached to sacks.

  20. Kenny Sloth says:

    The more I watch, the more Allen Robinson reminds me of Sidney Rice with some YAC. Like a Sid-Tate hybrid. He’s a similar build to Rice, with some route running skills that could certainly stand to be developed. I would not mind Robinson at 32.

    • Kenny Sloth says:

      I think a question I would posit is what kind of qualms do you have with Robinson’s game, Rob?

    • CC says:

      I like Robinson a lot – if we picked him at 32, I’d be happy. He may not be the fastest guy, but uses his body well and I believe he can block.