Trading the Irreplaceable for the Unsung
by John Morgan on Mar 14, 2009 2:21 PM PDT
97 comments
On October 27, 2008, I wrote:
Whenever I mention that Seattle should sincerely consider whether to re-sign Leroy Hill, someone mentions cutting Julian Peterson. The idea is so preposterous I refuse to even respond. Peterson, just thirty and in phenomenal shape, is one of a handful of truly irreplaceable players on Seattle's roster. As a Seahawk, he's yet to miss a game. His contributions are incredibly steady, 10 sacks, 80 tackles, a handful of forced fumbles and a pick or two. Not to mention he's Seattle's second best defensive end. Peterson is the kind of talent that never, ever escapes the first round. He's the insane athlete made good. He gives Seattle scheme versatility and bottled pass rush. He ran around Joe Staley and forced a fumble with Dwight Freeney-like speed and precision.
Strictly from a talent standpoint, Seattle has gotten worse. They've given up a premier talent. Since 2006, Seattle had grown almost dependent on Peterson. He could morph into a Freeney-like rush end on third down and, in limited opportunities, record double digit sacks. He was capable against the run and still strong against the pass. Peterson was a beast, the undisputed MVP of Seattle's 2006 season, and one of the great signings of Tim Ruskell's career.
And yet, this deal could still work out.
Seattle has good young depth at linebacker. No one that is going to put their hand in the dirt and dismantle left tackles, but with John Marshall out and Casey Bradley in, it's possible that wasn't part of the plan to begin with. Clearly, Seattle wants pressure out of its front four. With Colin Cole presumably starting alongside Brandon Mebane, Seattle was setting itself up for failure. Mebane isn't beast enough and Cole not pass rusher enough to make that pairing work.
Consider then, the immediate impact of a Cory Redding and Brandon Mebane defensive tackle pairing.
Zero guards and centers entering the second level.
Hustle pass rush from snap to whistle.
A second string tackle pairing of Colin Cole and Red Bryant.
Seattle is stockpiling a specific type of defensive tackle. Players that are quick off the snap, hybrid single-gap/two-gap, that are stout against the run and hustle pass rushers. That type can be as good as Brandon Mebane or as bad as Howard Green. In totality, it should be very good against the run. Seattle almost must be a top ten rush defense to justify this move. For it to be good against the pass -- assuming Seattle is forthright about getting pressure from its front four -- it needs excellent coverage from its secondary. A hustle pass rush is all about time. Redding, Bryant, Mebane and Cole never give up, and convert a ton of cover sacks/hits. Not one knifes into the backfield and creates instantaneous pressure.
Redding has a good chance of a semi-breakout. He's nearing 29, so he has about three more seasons of peak ability. He's never played on a talented defense or a talented defensive line. Specifically, he's never played in front of anything but a terrible secondary. I'll have to watch more of him to know, but as stinging it is to see a truly irreplaceable talent go, Redding could be an unsung talent that makes Seattle's remaining linebackers, future linebackers, and surrounding defensive line, better and and better appreciated.
Scruffy's add - I love love love love this deal. This actually may improve our Defense from a scheme standpoint. No longer do we have to watch Hill fail to cover a crossing WR or TE. This allows the team to use a better coverage LB and use Hill more to his strength and that is brining the pain!
YES YES YES YES!
0 recs |
97 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Thanks for taking some time off from your vacation to post this, John.
I’m kind of excited to see how Redding does with some talent surrounding him.
by BrianL on Mar 14, 2009 12:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I've got to go run and watch Che
Soderbergh is doing a Q&A afterward…
but, damn, I couldn’t sit this out.
by John Morgan on Mar 14, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, I'm interested to see Soderbergh's take on Che
from the sounds of it he doesn’t iconosize him or demonize him, but tells it more the way it really was, the good and the bad, which will be enough to piss off both wings. Just the way I like it.
I like his less Hollywood type movies. He did one called Schizopolis a long time ago for what looked like a budget of 50 bucks, which I thought was great, but I don’t think people would get it or find it as entertaining as I did.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 15, 2009 1:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But our secondary was awful last year
because we couldn’t get a pass rush. Redding doesn’t seem to be getting a huge upgrade in talent around him. Maybe he’ll allow LoJack and Tapp easier paths to the QB, but is a Redding enhanced LoJack going to be better than a muscle armed Peterson?
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 12:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think this deal will be made or lost by what we do with the cap space
I just don’t see how this deal makes us better in terms of talent or productivity.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
One last thought
If Seattle really does plan to transition to mainly front 4 only pass rush doesn’t it make even less sense to trade Peterson, the coverage guy, instead of Hill the blitz guy? You traded for a guy thats dependent on coverage behind him and made the coverage behind him worse.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the offense just keeps getting older
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can play with an older offense at a high level
Skill is more important than athleticism/youth on offense (all else equal). On defense, athleticism must constantly be replenished.
I don’t think we’ll see a front four-only rush. I think we’ll see better-timed blitzing, using Hill similarly to the way he was used as a rookie. I think they’re paying Hill to be the guy now and were asking Peterson to play more of a secondary role.
Now, to move Peterson I’d want to get talent in a variety of different areas. Ruskell got back a starter at a premium position in this defense. He got a pick who can contribute on special teams at least immediately, and he got cap room. As you mention above Nate, the key is what happens with the cap space (and the pick). Still, I have my doubts too. I’m a big NBA guy, and in the NBA you don’t move a star player for parts—even useful parts. Basketball is too interdependent. Football isn’t quite as interdependent, but you gotta be careful about moving a star.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Mar 14, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously the Patriots are the exception with their old timer D.
by Built2Spill on Mar 14, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even their defense struggled a bit last season
Seneca Wallace didn’t have a lot of trouble with their old secondary and Carlson abused their old linebackers.
by MFAN on Mar 14, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our older offense crumbled last year
but I guess the only big question mark is Hasselbeck and there doesn’t look to be a solution to that available.
The other thing we need to wait and see with on this trade is the scheme. There has been so much speculation about how Bradley and Mora will run the defense, everything from something in the mold of a tampa 2 to a 3-4 (obviously some speculation is more credible than others). Theres enough talent on the D for it to be good if used correctly.
I guess I’ll go try to find some video of Malcom Jenkins.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I'm stepping out the door
The above should be interpreted from the standpoint that I value the defensive line well above the linebacker corps, and think Seattle has capable linebacker talent on roster.
by John Morgan on Mar 14, 2009 1:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hate to say it, but I agree...
It reminds me of trading for a quality big man in basketball. You give up a better SF/SG to get a weaker overall C/PF, but the addition of that guy makes your team better overall.
My core belief is you build the O/D Lines and build out from there. You win the battle in the trenches, you have a greatly enhanced ability to win the war. This trade makes us much better on the DL, and the right 1st/2nd round picks make us much better on the OL.
If Jay Cutler is the answer, I think it may be a trick question...
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 14, 2009 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well stated....
The above should be interpreted from the standpoint that I value the defensive line well above the linebacker corps
Glad you said that John. I do too. Two things strike me here:
1. I Love the DT position now (as un-sexy as it appears). They shouldn’t be amassing volumes of sacks, but I love that they should be able to “protect” our headhunters behind them. WIth smallish, athletic LB’s it becomes that much more important to allow them to work in space, as opposed to employing shed and tackle skills.
2. The thing I don’t like is that the great work the FO had done in setting up our draft with multiple options, somehow seems a bit more telegraphed now. It would appear that Aaron Curry is an absolute LOCK not to get past 4 now (May have been that way prior to this move).
by iverson2169 on Mar 15, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We aren't drafting Curry. Or at least, we shouldn't.
That would completely kill the idea behind letting Peterson go because of his large price-tag and investing that much into the LB crew while proceeding to go and get someone even more expensive. If anything, the fact that Curry isn’t guaranteed not to be drafted by us shows even more flexibility.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 15, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frog... are you saying then that...
Curry DOESN’T get drafted by us at #4 should he slip?
by iverson2169 on Mar 15, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me speak for Frog (hope you don't mind Frog)
Yep. Trade bait baby. We do not need him and the LB class solid later on. Plus DD and our youngins should provide good enough back up.
by Built2Spill on Mar 15, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is only one way Curry gets past Seattle at #4
If he’s even still on the board, and that’s if Smith is somehow also still on the board.
by MoonHawk on Mar 16, 2009 5:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will find your address and mail you $20 if we draft Curry.
Yesterday's Pants
A blog-thingy about the Mariners and stuff.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 15, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to have Curry on my team
if we had marginal LBers. But we have a perennial pro bowler, a very good LB, and a bunch of young and talented LBers, so there doesn’t really seem to be a need, or at least not nearly as great as pretty much every other position.
by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1.) It's unlikely he falls past the Chiefs.
2.) Like I said, there would be no point in releasing Peterson just to cop a new expensive LB. He becomes trade bait then.
3.) Given Ruskell’s history of drafting LBs later on who excel (Tatupu, Hill), do you really see him wasting a resource as important as a top 5 pick and that salary on one?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, and I'm glad
I hope one of the OL prospects fall (though unlikely).
Just the idea of us addressing DT, WR and OL in the offseason makes me very excited for this season.
Still needs addressing: Safety (hopefully Chung in round 2) and QB (not as important, but needs to be addressed this year or next, at the latest).
by Nick Andron on Mar 16, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Darn right
I like this deal quite a bit. We didn’t trade 2006 Peterson… we traded 2009 Peterson. There is still a downgrade to Lewis (resigned and solid), Laury (resigned), and Hawthorne (upside) but it is hard to imagine having better options after losing someone like Peterson. I would be surprised if TR even goes after a LB in either the first or second round. Not to mention that it was certainly a real possibility to just cut Peterson at some point (maybe not this season) and get nothing. The deal numbers aren’t out yet, but it sounds like we saved cap space.
All of that id BEFORE you consider that we added Redding. Redding (and the overall improved DL) makes ALL of the LBs better. No disrespect toTerril, but we are certainly better when he is not in our 2nd rotation on DL, considering the depth that we now have.
All of that before you consider that we get the top 5th round pick. If that turns into a quality player, this deal will look excellent.
I like this move quite a bit today and I LOVE it in 2011.
by Wolverine in the Hawks Nest on Mar 14, 2009 1:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I like this deal..
We get younger, improve our cap situation, net a fifth round pick, and then keep in mind this:
We have a lot of defensive ends now: Tapp, LoJack, Kerney, and Atkins.
Not having Peterson around lining up at DE on some plays will allow us to get more of these guys on the field. In particular, Tapp. Using Tapp in the same pass rush situations we had been using Peterson is no problem for me.
Peterson was a very good pass rushing LB and pretty solid in his other faculties. Many here reasoned that a combination of different guys could replace Hill, now we use the same group for Peterson.
Whereas we were weak in the DT department and are now amazing.
Also remember, we pull a linebacker in a large percentage of downs to sub in a 5th Dback. A lot of times that was Hill and now we will keep Hill and Tatupu out there.
I never loved Hill as much as JP, but at 26 I am glad we are sticking with him instead. With better schemes we can get a lot from him. JP excels in bad schemes because of his athleticism. More one-dimensional players need good coaching to be effective.
by michaelfox99 on Mar 14, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does the extra cap room mean Leonard Weaver signing?
It just hit me, we might resign Leonard with the extra cap room from the trade.
by Built2Spill on Mar 14, 2009 2:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It'll likely be for Hill, not Weaver
Weaver doesn’t really fit the new offensive scheme
by Nick Andron on Mar 14, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm all about selling on players a year early
So I see both the age and cap situation making this a sexier trade. (Losing Peterson could mean we keep Weaver and Hill)
The question mark is Patrick Kerney. I’d feel a lot safer-actually, maybe even a little confident- with another DE in the mix. Even if Kerney pulls through with a 09 campaign vaguely reminiscent of 2007, the odds of that happening in 2010 seem exponentially smaller. With a mid-round DE draftee, the best case scenario has everyone rocking and healthy so the guy incubates for a year as the 5th DE. If Kerney doesn’t pull through or LoJack takes another year to figure out the NFL, there’s another possibility in the mix. And by 2010, we’ve got a smooth transition ready.
by Will Kier on Mar 14, 2009 3:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd be happier
if we’d dealt Kerney and kept JP . . .
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 14, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We wouldn't really be able to get anything for Kerney.
by redwolf75 on Mar 14, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd question if anyone would trade for Kerney coming off of surgery.
The only option at that point if you were bent on getting rid of him is to release him, and that would wind up costing the team $2 million more than just keeping him.
by BrianL on Mar 14, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking money out of the equation
does anyone not think a healthy Kerney is still easily our best pass rusher? We’d have to replace him in free agency with another proven pass rusher or hope Lo-Jack or Tapp would step up in a big way.
by JamesMurphy on Mar 15, 2009 4:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't not think that..
errr…
I think Kerney healthy is our best pass rusher, but with a big asterik.
That is, even if he gets healthy, which is not a given, decline should be setting in anyways. He is not so far off from his monster 2007, in fact, he was actually on pace to do nearly the same damage in 08 before going out. He played in 7 games, multiply his stats by 2 and you get:
10 sacks, 6 PD, 4 FF
that would be only 14 games too. So assuming we are better in the DT and opposite DE departments next year, and Kerney bounces back from the injury, those would probably be fair expectations for the guy. Although scheme is an issue too, some of his sacks may transfer to DT’s, the other ends, LB’s, and possibly even DB’s.
Like Jones and Hasselbeck, Kerney managing to decline gracefully over the next couple of years is crucial to the Hawks success.. in particular because of the way we are gambling thus far in roster construction.
by michaelfox99 on Mar 15, 2009 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, I understand that
I’m well aware that he doesn’t have JP’s trade value. I’m not saying that dealing Kerney for Redding and a fifth was a real possibility.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 15, 2009 6:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You miss a lot when you spend half a day away from the internet.
I agree with Scruffy, Leroy Hill is better as a blitzer than as a pass cover LB, same with Peterson (Peterson is a 90 pass rush 70 pass defense and Hill is 80, 55 if we got by a Madden-like rating). Sure it sucks to lose one of the best LBers around, but it does give us cap space, and it does shore up a weakness. I hated this trade as soon as I heard it, but I’m definitely coming around. If Kerney leaves that would suck since him and JP are my two favorite players.
by LantermanC on Mar 14, 2009 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
So to clarify a couple things
First off, how much cap room did we actually create here? I’m not clear on that, from what I’ve read so far.
Second, the assumption seems to be that Hill will move over into JP’s slot, presumably with Herring and Hawthorne holding down the fort on the other side. I’d be interested to get John’s take on how well that’s likely to work
And third, doesn’t this mean the price for Hill just went up?
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 14, 2009 4:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
John talked about replacing Hill was a platoon a while back
by Nate Dogg on Mar 14, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, for Hill's side
what I’m wondering about is Hill replacing Peterson.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 14, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doubt that it jacked Hill's price up.
According to Mike Sando, this move created about $4.6 million in cap space for the Seahawks. Of course, that was before we heard about Lewis and Laury being re-signed.
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 14, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The point is
that with JP gone, we need Hill a lot more than we did yesterday, and he knows it.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 14, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We already have Hill and he will remain on the team no mater what
the only question is if they work out a long term deal. So far he counts for 8.3 million. Signing him to a long term deal will most likely just save 2-3 million against the cap.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 15, 2009 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This season, sure
Signing him to a long-term deal also ensures he’s not a Viking (or whatever) after next season.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 15, 2009 6:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Sando was wrong,
Instead of JP counting $8.8 million against the cap, by trading him we only take a cap hit of $4.6 million (the remaining amount of money we owe him). So the amount we save then is $4.2 million. Sadly, in the NFL, that $400,000 is barely relevant.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 15, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
DD Lewis
is an important factor here because he has proven himself to be a quality LB. If we line up Hill – Tatupu – Lewis I am confident in the strength of our LB corps, especially with a (hopefully) improved d-line providing freedom of mobility.
by t.hast12 on Mar 14, 2009 4:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Could a team make the SB with those LBs???
Hill, Tatupu, Lewis?
Oh, yeah… we did.
by Kryten on Mar 15, 2009 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's a bit of a flawed argument,
when you consider we also had a running back who ran for a then-record 27 touchdowns. That’s not to say Hill, Tatupu, and Lewis don’t make a strong LB corps, but they certainly didn’t lead the team to a Super Bowl.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 15, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but
we now have more cap room to fill gaps at other positions and try to build a complete SB worthy team. Besides, the main point was that we are not now reduced to a Bates – Koutouvides – Kacyvenski caliber LB corps that would effectively bar us from success.
by t.hast12 on Mar 15, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ugh, remember MNF
against Dallas in ‘04? That was the worst defensive display i’ve ever seen live.
by maninvan on Mar 15, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest, it was sort of funny.
Our run defense was almost literally like swiss cheese if it could play defense.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 15, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Worse than Thanksgiving againsy Dallas last season?
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 15, 2009 9:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, how does this impact re-signing Hill?
Do we get that accomplished in this offseason or what? Because I’d be terrified to have him have a career season and not have him locked up heading into next offseason.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 14, 2009 5:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, maybe the cap relief from the trade could be used to sign him somehow
Not sure how that would work… a front end deal?
by djafrot on Mar 14, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where'd the FA open thread go?
Former Seahawk Joey Galloway signed with the Patriots.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 14, 2009 6:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
After a while those things go back down even if they're recced.
They need to be continually brought back to the front page.
by LantermanC on Mar 14, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aaron Curry
Wouldn’t this open the door for us to draft Curry at 4, if he’s still there?
Basically the Hawks could got OT, QB, or LB, with a very slight possibility to take Crabtree at 4 (doubtful but possible). It will all depend on who goes 1-3, personally I’m hoping for a OT, but if Jason Smith and Monroe are both off the board, I don’t think I’d reach for Andre Smith or Oher.
by thebiz on Mar 14, 2009 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
For the love of Lofa
Maybe I missed this in an earlier comment, but I think this move gives us Lofa back. Too often last year he got gobbled up by the opposing team’s OL. I don’t think that happens this year, thanks to the Redding move. I think this move will have been worth it if it gives us back the Lofa that earned his Pro Bowl trips. If it helps our DEs have better success, all the better.
by dagraham on Mar 14, 2009 8:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
By the way
Hi. Longtime fan, first-time poster.
by dagraham on Mar 14, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hello
maybe it’s the beer, but I thought your callsign was “diaphragm”, geez.
Good point on Lofa, but not just him. Redding’s going to make things easier on Hill and the other (less talented) LB spot, too.
by djafrot on Mar 14, 2009 8:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically the same way that
Ray Lewis revitalized his career, by giving him a good D-Line to take advantage of.
by Fear on Mar 15, 2009 3:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would like to have kept Peterson
And I think Ruskell did as well (thus he asked for a restructure first), but I will give Ruskell credit for getting the cap space he needed, and a defensive tackle the team needed, out of it. I do wonder what other trades were on the table from other teams, but he could’ve done a lot worse. The good thing is this evens out our talent. We have a good safety, a very good cornerback, a great linebacker (maybe two), when healthy a dominating defensive end, and now potentially two quality tackles.
And though people may be knocking Detroit’s talent, Redding did play alongside Shaun Rodgers for most of his years, so it’s not like he was next to minced meat. I’m sure Shaun got most of the double teams. Just something to look at and keep in mind. I’m looking forward to John’s impending evaluation.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 15, 2009 1:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Also I'd like to point out that Redding started out and played his first two years as defensive end
not sure if that’s been pointed out yet or if that means anything in terms of how the Seahawks intend to use him, but I found that to be interesting.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 15, 2009 2:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of good points there
Re the playing next to Rogers – I agree entirely, but one of the great things about this move is that teams are going to have to chose between doubling on Redding or Mebane. One of them is going to get plenty of opportunities to make plays. Before Redding, I’m not sure if that was the case.
Re him starting as a DE – this guy isn’t the huge body run stuffer DT some want, according to NFL.com he’s 295lb 6’4’. For comparison, the guy he used to play next to, Shuan Rogers, is 350lb 6’0’. In Vikings’ WIlliams terms, he’s a Kevin not a Pat (although I wish he was as good as either!)
Just as far as my own views go on the trade as a whole, I was shocked when I heard it. Peterson was one of my favorite players. He was possibly our best player. But, we just got younger, cheaper and with a better distribution of talent. I don’t think we were going to go on a SB run in the next 2-3 years with the D-line we had, regardless of LB awesomeness. Peterson’s time would have run out. I don’t necessarily think we’re automatically going on one now, but if Kerney can stay fit and he, Tapp/Lo-Jack and Hill can provide a genuine pass rush behind a significantly improved interior D-line stuffing the run, our chances just improved.
P.S. Good luck to Peterson, and thanks for the plays.
by JamesMurphy on Mar 15, 2009 4:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't focus too much on size
or you’ll wonder why we don’t just play Colin Cole; the scouting reports I’ve seen indicate that Redding’s quite solid against the run.
by The Ancient Mariner on Mar 15, 2009 7:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
$$$$$$$$$
Cash is King.
Cogito Ergo Sum
by censor1979 on Mar 15, 2009 8:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the draft impact of this trade
Steve Wyche said the following:
"As for Seattle, acquiring Redding seemingly would discourage the pursuit of Boston College DT B.J. Raji, who would’ve been a reach at No. 4 but would have fit a team need with the free-agent loss of Rocky Bernard. Peterson’s departure could put Seattle in the running for Curry, but the Seahawks, according to a league source, appear to be leaning toward an offensive "playmaker."
Although the Seahawks signed Bengals free-agent WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh in free agency, they could be looking at someone to stretch the field like Texas Tech WR Michael Crabtree.
Then again, there are other wideouts available later in the draft, like Maryland’s Darrius Heyward-Bey, North Carolina’s Hakeem Nicks and Ohio State’s Brian Robiskie. Seattle could end up being an ideal trade partner for a team like Philadelphia, which is supposedly looking to trade up to acquire one of the desired offensive tackles."
Hill was franchised to give us flexibility, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see him let go at the end of next season, if we draft the likes of Mathews or Curry. A trade down with Philly could allow for that.
by diehard82 on Mar 15, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd give Philly our 4th for both their 1sts.
by redwolf75 on Mar 15, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would that be equal value according the draft chart thing?
I just don’t see two really late first rounders cutting it for a top 5 pick, but I could be wrong.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 15, 2009 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems unequal, but either of their first plus their late second seems lopsided the other way
It’s really hard to determine value out of picks
by Ezzra on Mar 15, 2009 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trading our 4th for the 21st and 28th would be favorable to the Eagles
According to the draft trade values the 4th pick is worth 1,800, the 21st is worth 800 and the 28th is worth 660. So the Hawks would come out ~300 behind which is equivalent to a late second round early 3rd round selection.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 15, 2009 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, I didn't realize a top 5 was so valuable
I’d be supportive of their 21st, 28th, and 53rd* for our 5th.
*Not positive, but around there.
by Ezzra on Mar 15, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theres been some criticism of the chart
more modern charts have lowered the drop off from pick to pick, most noticable in the first round. Heres an example of one that the Seahawks Addicts guys and Ben Reilly came up with. The 28th pick is valued at 700 instead of 660.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 15, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That value chart
was created by Jimmy Johnson in the early 90s right? In my opinion escalating rookie contracts have diminished the value of top picks by exponentially increasing the associated risk such that in many situations I would be satisfied with the 21 and 28 for the 4.
by t.hast12 on Mar 15, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Salaries are only a problem if you don't draft well
Matt Ryan earned every penny of his contract last year. Vernon Gholston not so much.
by Nate Dogg on Mar 15, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't make rookie salaries any less of a problem
Just because good drafters do better than bad drafters, that doesn’t mean rookie contracts should be as high as they are.
As for trading picks, if there was no better deal, I’d give up our #4 for the 21st and 28th picks no question.
by djafrot on Mar 15, 2009 7:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd do that in a heartbeat.
Would I rather have a Stafford/Curry type player, or both Ebben Britton and Michael Oher for less overall money?
by LantermanC on Mar 16, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Letting Hill go and drafting another LB would virtually put us back at square one.
But I would love trading down with Philly. However, that’s as long as if we don’t go near Heyward-Bey.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 15, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The beauty of Ruskell's free agency philosophy
is that he creates situations like this every year. He shores up most if not all the obvious needs, allowing him to draft whoever he wants and not forcing us to bank on a certain player being available. Now, NO one knows who they want to draft except the team itself. Which gives them the leverage in draft day trades.
And a trade down with Philly for both of their 1sts would leave me ecstatic.
by Fear on Mar 15, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
This means they can get someone like Alex Mack AND Duke Robinson, although I’m hearing differing opinions on whether he’d fit zone blocking. He’s certainly athletic enough.
Maybe even Knowshon Moreno would be available at #21. I’d certainly love to have him in a Seahawks’ uniform, given that he is a top 5 talent.
However, If I’m Tim Ruskell working out a trade with the Eagles, I’d want more than just the #21 and #28 picks for the #4 pick overall. I’d be OK with it if they gave the Seahawks both their 1st round picks and their 3rd rounder, but I think they’d have to include their 2nd round pick (#52 overall) to make it more even. If we accept that GM’s use the draft day trade chart when trading draft picks, then it stands that because the Seahawks’ 4th overall pick is worth 1,800 points, the Eagles would have to not only trade their #21 over all pick (800 points) and #28 overall pick (660 points), but also their #52 overall pick (380 points) to acquire the Seahawks’ #4 overall pick.
That would add up to 1,840 points combined for the Eagles, which makes it a pretty even trade for the Seahawks.
Of course, all of that is assuming that GM’s use that chart to justify draft day trades.
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 15, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless the Eagles are really, really jonesing for a particular player in the Top 5,
two first-rounders and a second-rounder are probably out of our reach for the #4 overall pick. Unless they’re looking for a QB, there’s enough depth at every position to get top talent to fall into the 8-12 range, making that a much more likely trade scenario. If they want to trade up to #4, they would have to be looking a specific player, and not be willing to take anyone below him at that position on their draft board. Not to mention, in the interest of saving money, we probably want to move down more than they want to move up, so we’d probably take both their first-rounders without any condition.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 15, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two 1sts and a 3rd round pick
let both teams walk away feeling like they won something. It’s a late 3rd rounder (21st in the round) and let’s the Eagles get another relatively high pick with their 2nd rounder. Seattle gets another third to find a gem with and the two 1sts. And I believe that’s cheaper than the draft charts say we should sell it for. Which lets the Eagles come away feeling like they weren’t robbed (even though I think this would be highway robbery).
by Fear on Mar 16, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two 1sts and a 3rd or 4th would indeed be a pretty good deal for both teams.
And if we could negotiate for that, I’d love it, but don’t underestimate the money involved. Paul Allen could have made the Blazers a whole lot stronger this season by trading Raef LaFrentz or Channing Frye’s expiring contracts but instead opted to keep those contracts to save money. Consider the fact that he admittedly prefers the Blazers over the Hawks – if two late first rounders are whats on the table at the end of the day, he might jump on it in the interest of avoiding an enormous rookie contract.
In any case, we’re completely speculating here and doing a little too much fantasy GMing.
by SeaTownBlueDevil on Mar 16, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do not miss Julian at all.
B’oh.
I will smash your face into a jelly.
by Phildopip on Mar 15, 2009 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"YES YES YES YES! "
For a second I thought it was Monday and I became terrified that I would miss 24 since I’m busy tonight.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 15, 2009 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Re: Curry
He was on Sirius NFL Channel on Friday and said that the Seahawks linebacker coaches had “a long conversation with me” and that he’s going to have a workout with the Seahawks, I think this week.
by MoonHawk on Mar 16, 2009 5:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/3/12/795459/seahawks-schedule-workout
It's great to be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Mar 16, 2009 6:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Balanced Defense
The way I see it, our defense is now much more balanced. Instead of having:
- below average D-line
- awesome LB core
- below average to average secondary
We now have:
- average to above average D-line
- above average LB core
- below average to average secondary
This also better fits our 4-3 defensive scheme. Net gain in my opinion.
by Nick Andron on Mar 16, 2009 8:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Possibly, but considering that Peterson and Redding are in different stratospheres of overall talent, I'm not sure it's a net gain.
Although I could be completely wrong if Redding explodes for another 8 sacks next to Mebane, I’d say this trade is barely even.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Mar 16, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we don't need sacks out of Redding
We need him to force double-teams and take the pressure off the rest of the line. Mebane will absolutely destroy most single blockers that try to take him on, and while our DE’s are not elite they are competant and will benefit muchly from inside pressure.
Even more important, it will get people off our smallish LB’s and let them make plays.
by djafrot on Mar 16, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
He’ll make more players better, whereas a LB doesn’t really make other players better.
by Nick Andron on Mar 16, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
