Why hasn't Leonard Weaver been signed?

by Doug Farrar on Mar 12, 2009 8:12 AM PDT

Well, it could have something to do with this. From Harold Lewis, Weaver's agent, who wants his client to be paid like a tailback:

"He's an excellent receiver, runner, and blocker. The fullback pay scale doesn't reflect his talents. We're just trying to find the right situation and the right contract. We can always go back to Seattle, because they'd like to have him back."

Hold up there, lil' buckeroo. Weaver is a solid playmaking fullback who brings possible H-back threats into the right offense, A good third-down guy with some weapon options. But let's backtrack to February 18, when Lewis told a different tale:

"As far as him staying in Seattle, I'm sure Leonard would be very happy," Lewis told Pro Football Weekly. "But just being a realist, I don't see it."

You can imagine how well stuff like that would go over with the Eagles, who aren't exactly "bendy" when it comes to player value -- ask Brian Dawkins. In the end, I think Weaver will be paid like exactly what he is, Seattle will probably cut the check, and Harold Lewis will have expended a lot of hot air for nothing.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

There's a very irrational part of me that wants Weaver signed no matter what the cost.

That said, what do you expect his contract to look like?

by BrianL on Mar 12, 2009 9:14 AM PDT reply actions

2 year for maybe 2.5- 3 mil.

that’s my guess on what the Seahawks are offering. I think he’s looking for 2-3 million a year.

by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 12, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions

It's an interesting question...

…because if you look at the straight Knapp offense in Atlanta/SF, there isn’t much room at the inn. This is obviously what Duckett was signed for, right? Maybe he can play the part of Anthony Fasano if they run some Wildcat? Oh, wait, there’s John Carlson for that. David Martin, then.

I don’t like to pull numbers out of my whatsis with no basis, but I’d guesstimate a couple years at a couple mil per, for potential’s sake. That includes guaranteed, with a 30-40 percent lop-off if he doesn’t make the life of the deal for whatever reason.

by Doug Farrar on Mar 12, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions

Weaver is the perfect "Madden Fullback"

Solid runner, good receiver, above average pass blocking, lead blocking might leave a little to be desired. I’m surprised no team is interested in him as a hybrid-third down back, a creative OC should be able to use him really effectively in a RBBC situation.

But it would be cool if he came back!

by cro-mag! on Mar 12, 2009 9:42 AM PDT reply actions

Old News

Yes, Weaver and agent are asking to much – reason he hasn’t been signed yet. I am not sure that Seattle wants him back that badly… Griffith is a pure FB and a good blocker and will be signed soon, if Weaver doesn’t make it back – I’d say by next week.
Remember that Weaver was almost cut a couple years ago, and in one play was given an opportunity to play (by the SeaHawks). He has learned and then last year had a DECENT year, not great, but decent and now he thinks he deserves RB money? What a laugh… don’t most FB run the ball a few times a season? Don’t some even catch the ball a few times? And ALL of them block — Weavers very weak point. If we are going to run more, and I have no doubt to say otherwise when the coaching staff says they will, then a Lead blocker is what we need in that position. He has showed his gratitude, (that he has NO LOYALTY to us, but, trying out the market – personally and for the Seahawks, they don’t need a player that is NOT loyal. We have RBs and FBs… don’t kid yourself,,, Owens may be a little raw, but, bringing in a Griffith, will only help him learn his job better and faster… Good bye Weaver – nice to see you on another team – Sorry about the punctuation, try to live with it… this is the way I write – being a writer you should be able to understand what I have said.

by BUSTINHEADS on Mar 12, 2009 10:09 AM PDT reply actions

It's not the punctuation.

It’s your concept of loyalty that I’m laughing at.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

What's to be loyal about? Sure he's grateful for the opportunity we gave him,

but now he’s a free agent and he’s looking for playing time and money, two things any of us would be looking for.

by LantermanC on Mar 12, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions

I don't think it's too much to ask that you use periods and break up paragraphs for readability.

by abender20 on Mar 12, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions

He has to be trying to write like that, right?

How in the world does someone develop habits like that?

by Nate Dogg on Mar 12, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry about the punctuation, try to live with it… this is the way I write – being a writer you should be able to understand what I have said.

The single greatest sentence (?) I have read here in some time.

by Dukeshire on Mar 12, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions

That was indeed priceless.

by redwolf75 on Mar 12, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

Ha, great point.

I didn’t even read that part. I just skimmed through it and focused on the capitalized words, which I guess kind of proves Bender’s point about readability.

by LantermanC on Mar 12, 2009 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions

The problem is

I’m also a reader. That stuff wasn’t written for readers.

by Mr Fish on Mar 12, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions

I thought that some team would snatch him up and make him an RB.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 10:25 AM PDT reply actions

You...and his agent.

by Misfit74 on Mar 12, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions

I think Weaver has a point

He’s the Mike Alstott of full backs. The only thing that really makes him a full back is that he run blocks well enough to play the spot. What seperates him from TJ Duckett, Lamont Jordan, Tim Hightower and other similar running backs is just the ability to be an ~average lead blocker. Those aren’t great running backs by any stretch but they’re getting paid as running backs, I don’t see why it’s a stretch for Weaver to think he should be able to make that kind of money. He won’t because of limited exposure, but he’s likely worth it.

If I was him I’d sign a one year deal with Philly, be amazing in that system and see if he can’t cash in next year.

by Nate Dogg on Mar 12, 2009 4:47 PM PDT reply actions

Now he is visiting Minny

  He can’t get a RB postions because he isn’t one. He wants the money for something that no team has seen him do for any length of time. You people can laugh all you want. I notice that you all stick together just like a family, tho. How nice. Too bad my opinions differ from yours. I thot this was a free speech forum, but guess I was mistaken. I can be incorrect and many of you usually are wrong. Try looking at all the angles before you write an article on a subject. John, and another guy here are the only two worth really reading, but, John, you do an excellent job in writing. I could have had this finished in half the time, if you guys would let me string my thots
   Anyhow, if given the opportunity to write my opinions here again, please try to focus on the subject of my opinions.
   I know in places I usually write, the others don’t just make all snide remarks about my punctuation and ellipses, instead of the subject. You are downright wrong in doing that if you want to gain viewers, John.

by BUSTINHEADS on Mar 12, 2009 7:43 PM PDT reply actions

ok

But I’d still expect a team to at least try him out at RB. He’s shown to be an underrated rusher, strong pass-protector, and very good receiver, all traits of a great RB. The fact that he hasn’t done it for an extended period of time would theoretically add to the allure of adding a diamond in the rough with low mileage to your team.

As for the free speech/differing opinions, that’s actually strongly encouraged. As long as you back up your points with evidence and actually attempt to make your post readable, you’d receive a more favorable response.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 12, 2009 8:23 PM PDT up reply actions

What you have to understand is that by participating in a blog

you become part of the blog. You impact the quality of the blog. It’s not a forum in that it’s not closed. What you contribute is read by thousands of people a day, and that means there must be quality control. Asking you to take the time to organize your thoughts and make those thoughts readable is an almost minimum standard. I’m certainly not a stickler for grammar or punctuation, but your posts are so littered with spelling mistakes, impulsive changes of voice and subject, misused or even made up punctuation (i.e. the comma ellipsis “,,,”) that it becomes daunting to read. It weakens the blog for the vast majority of readers who don’t and probably never will comment, and makes for a poor community for those who do.

You’ve proven you can write in complete, readable sentences. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you would write in complete, readable sentences. And for the sake of the blog, I must enforce that you will write in complete, readable sentences or you won’t be allowed to comment.

by John Morgan on Mar 12, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Weaver probably would get more chances this season

As the running game is supposed to be put into effect, I would imagine that Weaver would have a lot more carries and there would be more plays for him. I don’t know if he talked that over with the Seahawks before he went out to search, but, he should have listened to an offer, and maybe did. But, until he proves he can be a RB, he isn’t. A small raise would be in order, for sure, but, I have no idea what they are asking for his services. But, if he signs with somebody else, a good pure blocking FB will be there for us.

by BUSTINHEADS on Mar 12, 2009 11:18 PM PDT reply actions

As much as I like Weave, there's just so much going on in our backfield right now.

JJ as the main hb
TJ as a change of pace/power/short yardage guy
Forsett, who could potentially be a dynamic playmaker
Schmitt, the bulldozer.

Weaver isn’t as fast or agile as Jones, and his presence in pass pro becomes moot when you take into consideration JJ is an excellent pass blocker. He doesn’t gain short yardage or run with the brute strength of Duckett, and he’s not nearly as much of a traditional bulldozing fullback as Schmitt could grow into.

In the end, it comes down to the question of exactly how many backs do we need, and at what cost to the cap? No sense having players around that aren’t playing, but are taking money from the cap that could be used for other positions that we need.

It's great to be a Florida Gator!

by Wayward Llama on Mar 12, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions

They could very likely draft another RB as well, furthering this mess.

I love Weaver, but I’m also having trouble seeing the benefit of his resigning.

by Ezzra on Mar 13, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions

I think Forsett isn't going to ever become more than a returner.

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

by Fearless Frog on Mar 13, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions

I agree with this.

The Forsett-love is way overdone. There’s a reason why he was barely drafted.

by redwolf75 on Mar 13, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions

Definitely agree he's over-hyped in certain circles

But I do have hope for him developing as an RB, or quality back-up.

I think that scouts/coaches are often guilty of drawing conclusions on players solely on body type (like has been discussed with Cole & Howard Green being seen as run-stuffers just ‘cause they’re big) Small RB’s get pegged as return guys or scat-backs, and ignored as potential feature backs.

I personally don’t think Forsett has the pure top speed or moves to fit in that stereotypical category. But I do think he’s a good blend of all-around skills – if he were a few inches taller and not hit with the scat-back label, he may have been drafted much higher. And players like Maurice Jones-Drew are showing that smaller backs who have typically been written off because of their size can carry some of the load without breaking down, and in fact offer some advantages because of their low centers of gravity and ability to “hide” when going through the OL.

by jteckmann on Mar 13, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions