So, Frank Hughes has a quick piece up over on Seahawks Insider about the implications of James Farrior's new contract extension with the Steelers.  Hughes thinks that Farrior signing a contract worth near 3.5 mil per will established the market for Leroy Hill at about 5 or 6 million per, since Hill is younger and with a higher upside.

Now, John's been quietly convincing me over the last year or so that Leroy Hill seems like one of the more undervalued pieces on this team.  I'm not sure he's the most significant contributor on the defense, but his versatility is extremely useful, and he's still young and developing.  We've got a good one already, and he could be great with a little more growth. 

We also, however, have some genuine depth at linebacker right now.  Hawthorne's emergence this preseason is giving me some hope that we're sitting pretty at the position for the next few years to come, with Lofa locked up and Muscly Arm still not that old.  Our linebackers corps might be the best in the league, and I think we can continue to keep it so, if we choose to lay out the money and keep Hill. 

My question for you is:  Should we?  Lofa's already making 7 million per, Peterson's making a pretty hefty amount too, if we give Hill the contract he'll get on the open market (much less the contract he deserves), that's a very large percentage of our salary cap going towards just the LB's.  Does it make sense to be REALLY great at LB at the expense of say, perhaps, Rocky?  Or should we shed either Hill or Muscly Arm next year?

I genuinely don't have an answer, I just know that I would hate to see Hill leave.  But, I also don't think we need to be investing 25+ million on the linebackers alone.  Oh, the indecision!