Confronting Walter Jones's Future

by John Morgan on Feb 11, 2009 11:11 AM PST Comment 28 comments

A few months removed from the news, I think it's time we take a serious look at Walter Jones and his future with Seattle. There's no new news on the big guy, so unless you want to wheel an MRI to the Bellevue Village QFC, we're going to have to do this from a stance of at least partial ignorance.

Jones turned 35 just about a month ago. He finished his season on IR after undergoing microfracture knee surgery. This is where things get complicated. Mike Holmgren described the surgery as to a non-weight-bearing part of the knee and forecasted Jones would be back by training camp. Will Carroll, presented with less information but with a better understanding of the technique and no conflicts of interest offered:

"Depends where he's having it on the knee. Sounds like they're arguing it will be (in the area of) the lateral (collateral ligament), but all of it's weight-bearing. At his age and with the problems, this is very Hail Mary, but why not?"

That's the range of outcomes: full recovery to involuntary retirement. It's impossible to know the more likely outcome. The most prudent projection is a probably an even split. Jones should be able to return before the start of the season, or maximum a few games in, but will probably not be at fully ability and will face an increased risk of injury from re-injury, injury from decline or a compensation injury.

Jones was the third highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL in 2008. His base salary jumps a little over a million in 2009, but I believe his hefty 16 million dollar signing bonus is paid in full. That means he would count a little more than 2 million less against the cap in 2009, but also that Seattle could cut him without creating any dead money.

Walter Jones is 35, expensive, not capable of taking strong pain killers and fresh off a surgery, no matter the severity, with a limited history of success among NFL linemen. The Seattle Seahawks are fresh off a 4-12 season, with an almost entirely new coaching staff, and question marks at quarterback, guard, center and wide receiver. Jones is an expensive, aged veteran on a team that's rebuilding. Seattle does not need to cut Jones. It's in solid if not strong cap shape. But barring something miraculous, Jones isn't a part of Seattle's next contender, and I think it's important we ask ourselves if a modern sports franchise should pay top dollar for what amounts to a retirement tour.

0 recs | Comment 28 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Maybe he's willing to restructure...?

But you like you said, cutting him should be out of the question. That would be a public relations disaster and I’m sure Leiweike knows that. Either restructure a bit, or if he’s really showing no signs of being capable anymore, hope to god he retires.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I would feel better about this...

if we’d gotten more of a chance to see Sean Locklear at LT. He looked passable in that role, but there wasn’t enough time to really know much about his long-term potential.

"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch

by crushedoptimist on Feb 11, 2009 11:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's even worse that we had him at LT for a grand total of like 2 or 3 games.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Locklear

I read this awhile back, by Farrar, and found it interesting enough to remind/share: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/cover-3/2008/cover-3-gimme-three-steps

A high ceiling is an absolute requirement for a left tackle like Thomas and Clady , and like Otah may someday be. I don’t see that in Locklear, and if he is this team’s primary lineman for any length of time, I think there’s going to be trouble. He’s good enough on the right side, but the Seahawks will have to look elsewhere for the next Walter Jones — if such a being even exists.

That said, the odds of drafting OT in rounds 1 (or maybe 2) have to be pretty good if the team feels the same way.

John, do you think Locklear is capable of being a good replacement at LT?

by Misfit74 on Feb 11, 2009 11:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think we draft one regardless

Locklear didn’t play LT enough to make a educated decision as to whether he’d be effective or not. Not drafting a capable LT (not necessarily using our first pick) would be insanity. If Locklear is a bust, expect Hasslebeck to take a mighty beating

by Nick Andron on Feb 11, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lock didn't look terrible to me.

But I personally think he won’t ever become become dominant like Walt, but perhaps a capable starter like Jared Gaither of the Ravens stepping in as the successor to Ogden.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Doug and I differ on the importance of left tackle

With that said, it’s really hard to know if Locklear is capable of being an average left tackle. I think he is, but there’s just not enough information to be certain.

by John Morgan on Feb 11, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Hence drafting one fairly early (3rd or 4th pick) wouldn’t exactly hurt. Then again, I’m no draft expert. Are tackles fairly transparent as draft prospects? Or are they confounded enough that you could end up with a Tom Brady situation? (metaphorically speaking)

by Nick Andron on Feb 11, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Kneecap?

I could have sworn that I read that it was his kneecap, or around his kneecap, hence the non weight bearing part of it

i need to go find that article

by DSAhawker on Feb 11, 2009 11:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I conjectured it was the patella or trochlear groove

but I think it’s a bit misleading to say that’s not weight bearing.

by John Morgan on Feb 11, 2009 11:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So how much cap space do we get by cutting him?

If it’s eight million or so, I say cut him. That’s a lot of dough, enough to go a pretty far way in maybe signing a replacement if we don’t have one in Locklear.

by djafrot on Feb 11, 2009 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Oh, how could you be so heartless?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Because building the best possible football team and creating a Warm Fuzzy Memory Train are two separate processes.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 11, 2009 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

is it really that heartless to let the guy go when he's playing in pain?

Do we want Walt to be one of those guys who can’t walk at 47 years old?

And who wants to finish their career on and off the bench, a shadow of himself?

He’s been amazing, one of the league’s best ever players, but that doesn’t mean we drag his service out to the very end.

by djafrot on Feb 11, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and I'm assuming you were half-joking...

by djafrot on Feb 11, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

A shame, because I used to have ideas of moving him to LG after his current contract expired.

I’m terrible. And yes, I was sort of half-joking with the K. West lyric.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

scheeeeerrrrrrrrrrroooooooww

That was the sound of a ‘K.West lyric’ wizzing right by me unnoticed. ;)

by Misfit74 on Feb 11, 2009 11:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe if there was an "auto-tune" emoticon...

by djafrot on Feb 11, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It represents the conundrum of some fans, though.

Walter Jones has been arguably the best Seahawk ever. He’s played his entire 12 or 13 year career here. He was franchise tagged a whopping three times in a row without complaint, he seemed to even enjoy it. He’s been excellent from the moment he stepped in, and hasn’t ever taken a snap off or shifted blame after a rare blown block or sack. He’s surely a Hall of Famer and one of the best tackles ever to play the game, along with the likes of Anthony Munoz. He still wants to play.

Do we unceremoniously dump him? Force him to retire? Que?

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Feb 11, 2009 12:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points all.

But I think he’s been pretty well taken care of by the team, so I’m hoping that he understands the situation.

Maybe a bit of a restructure is in order? Because surely he sees that he’s a risky player to have on the roster at ten million+ this season.

Understand that I would prefer to keep Walter here, no question. But if it means eight million bucks, we need to think about options.

by djafrot on Feb 11, 2009 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Very minor point, But Walter hated being tagged.

Keep in mind that he sat out of training camp multiple years and even a regular season game.

by redwolf75 on Feb 11, 2009 12:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's his decision, not ours

by Nick Andron on Feb 11, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it would save a little over 6 million

by John Morgan on Feb 11, 2009 1:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Which buys a LOT of white man hustle.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!

by abender20 on Feb 11, 2009 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

According to the link

his cap value is: $ 8,602,880 . That is a big chunk of change for a guy who may not be able to play period, and will very likely not be able to play to eight million dollars worth of level.

Non weight bearing part of the knee cap does not make sense to me, and I think it is misleading. It may not be directly weight bearing, but it hast to have some purpose, like stabalizing or reinforcing a part that is directly weight bearing, making this part weight bearing in a way. If the part never had any stress, how did it get hurt to begin with?

by germpod on Feb 11, 2009 1:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

That was in '08

Best evidence I can find of his ’09 cap number is from rotoworld.com, and they have him at $6.2M

Still a hefty chunk of change, for sure. But if the big key is if his original bonus has been paid off … then that’s a contract that’s easy to re-work or re-sturctrue. Say for example, you guarantee him his ‘09 salary of $6.2M but pay it instead as a signing bonus on a new deal with 2 years of minimum salaries tacked on …. then he becomes a $3M per year cap charge. And if you have to cut him after ’09, then it’s either $3M or $1.5M of dead space to deal with in ’10, depending of if you designate him a post-June 21 cut.

In other words, I think the team has plenty of options. I’m not expecting a big cap purge this offseason. We have some expensive players … but if the team has a good accountant in the FO, they can easily figure out how to redo these deals in ways that are fair to both the player and the team, not leave us on the hook for a huge bill that needs to be paid a couple years down the road, and give players like Hass & Jones the ability to stick around a couple more seasons and show if they’ve got a little bit left in the tank, or if they’re completely done.

by jteckmann on Feb 11, 2009 2:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Time to revive this discussion about Walter Jones

Orlando Pace was picked 5 slots ahead of Walt in the ‘97 draft and just got released by St. Louis, and he’s 8 months younger than Walt and started almost every game last season with no current injury that I’m aware of, even though he did miss time in ’06 and ’07. The $6.2MM the Rams save will go a long way toward signing J. Smith or Monroe with the 2nd pick in the draft. They are moving on.

It’s tough to say goodbye to undoubtedly the best player in franchise history, but unless we are 99.9% certain he comes back 100% from surgery, it seems to me we should be following St. Louis lead and taking the tackle they don’t select at 4. Smith and Monroe are better prospects than Locklear, which is not to say its a guarantee they’ll be better, but they should be better left tackle prospects.

There will be renewed emphasis on the run game, so we’ll need another RB, but should be able to get quality at 37, unlike OT. The team will be better with youth at tackle and running back than with Crabtree. We won’t be passing as much as past seasons to start with, so another WR regardless of talent, won’t in my humble opinion make as much of an impact. No other options at 4 make sense to me. It’s Crabtree, which probably means we let Branch go, or OT which probably means we let Jones go. I like option B.

by diehard82 on Mar 11, 2009 6:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs