Cleveland Browns gave up conditional 7th rounder for Wallace, can improve to 6th
Very low price for Wallace.
almost 2 years ago
purplepansy
121 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Sorry to everyone hoping for a 3rd
Though that was never going to happen.
A 7th next year is...nothing in terms of value.
A 7th this year is next to nothing. I mean, I’m not a fan of Wallace. But a 7th rounder? Maybe those conditions are really easy to hit…
Well, whatever. It won’t affect the Seahawks too much either way. And at least we got something out of him. That’s always good.
Now with more lemon bars!
Baaaaaaaaaaaad move
We had so much more leverage in this situation because Seneca was so highly valued by the Browns as he is better than either of their potential starters at the time. I’m fairly pissed as I was hoping for a 4th or something.
No Myoplex?
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 10, 2010 1:00 PM PST via mobile reply actions
We could give them
a conditional 6th rounder for them in 2011.
by bilbo on Mar 10, 2010 1:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Didn't we give up a 6th in the current year's draft for Charlie Frye?
And we have to wait a year to get a 7th for Wallace?
Hmm.
Yeah, that's surprisingly little.
Says a lot about how Seattle perceives Wallace. For that price, I’d rather they kept him for Wildcart purposes if nothing else.
I wonder if he wanted out because he knew we were taking a QB
If they were going to release him anyway then I suppose it is good that got something for him.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
I agree that with Cleveland holding nine picks this year, it would seem like they could have at least held out for a 2010 pick
But at the very least the decks are starting to be cleared for new blood at the position. Everybody saw how bad Wallace played last year, so I don’t see why he would have commanded much value or interest around the league.
by lemonverbena on Mar 10, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
I'm afraid to think of what they'd have him do in 'Wildcarts'.
I suppose he could set up a manicure cart.
Yeah, a bit underwhelming, but at least we didn't release Wallace like Cleveland did to Anderson.
And I would rather have Anderson than Wallace.
I'd rather stay with Matt
Inaccurate, fumbles, rattled in the pocket, but at least he knows the offense and the team.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
Of definitely.
I meant as a backup. I feel more comfortable with Anderson in the pocket than Wallace. But this is not to say I want to sign Anderson, just making a comparison that we at least got something in return for Wallace.
Well, Cleveland did get to keep a boatload of money by cutting him.
Enough to pay for a six-pack of Senecas.
I guess I would too
but really it’s just a different set of frustrating tendencies and abilities. I just think there’s a chance Derek can rise above his issues, whereas Seneca I’m convinced will never change.
by jacobstevens on Mar 10, 2010 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
I hope this isn't a portent of deals to come
Say what you want about Ruskell, but the guy could work a deal.
Denver.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
There was nothing wrong with the Branch trade, other than it not working out due to injury post-fact.
As for Hutch, he gambled and lost…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 10, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Hutch has nothing to do with that
Simply for the fact that it was not a trade.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 10, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
Is poor management a gamble?
Hutch was/is the best guard in the league, they had to have known that testing the market would result in a contract from someone else.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 8:59 AM PST up reply actions
"Deals" includes more than just trades
and Ruskell mishandled enough of them to be unemployed now.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 9:12 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not going to worry, yet.
A backup QB that played very poorly was traded for a late round pick instead of being cut. If we trade too much for Brandon Marshall or Kolb, then I’ll be concerned.
on the Eagles blog seem to think they are going to get a first round pick for Kolb
They kind of remind of Patriots fans – extremely confident in their front office and the stupidity of other teams front office’s.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
They aren't trading Kolb, but if they do, they will AT LEAST get a high first rounder.
They have every reason to hold out for one or simply not move him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 10, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Or they can attempt to sell high
We have less proof that Kolb is good than KC had when they signed Cassel.
Not that I would endorse this from Philly's standpoint
but I think the risk associated with Kolb is under-appreciated.
I agree entirely...
I fully believe he’s a risk. I just know perception matters significantly when it comes to trade value, and you and I are not nearly as high on him as many are in general.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 11, 2010 1:03 PM PST up reply actions
It's likely Seattle wanted to cut him outright
But Browns showed interest and drove a hard bargain.
I was convinced he’d be cut, so at least we got something (albeit nearly nothing).
6/14/40. Sweet.
You were convinced Seneca was going to be cut?
That wasn’t even on my radar. Without Holmgren, I’d bet Wallace’s status was set all along.
by jacobstevens on Mar 10, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
but we're drafting a QB
And the Hawks aren’t going to carry four quarterbacks on the roster, so somebody has to get moved between Seneca/Hasslebeck/Teel. I’m definitely not on the Teel bandwagon, but he’s got more upside than Seneca.
We don't know that the team is drafting a QB. We project our desire for them to draft a QB
in concert with the logical argument that can be made for taking one.
We don’t know.
it is extremely likely that we are
we should have last year.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
I'm not convinced that we are
Anderson is visiting the Hawks on Thursday. That doesn’t sound like we are drafting a QB.
Anything's possible.
We could draft a QB, and have Anderson as a starter for a year (which would assume the team doesn’t see Hass as a starter)
We could bring in Anderson as a backup, start Hasselbeck, and not draft a QB at all.
We could draft a QB, bring in Anderson as a backup, and sell Hasselbeck to the Browns.
We could talk to Anderson, realize we don’t want him, and let him move along to the next team, which I believe is the Cardinals, still draft a QB, and roll with Hass and Rookie QB and Teel.
Anyway, if we assume that Anderson visiting the Hawks means they won’t draft a QB, what do we make of the Hawks having a private workout with Tebow? Does that mean they ARE drafting a QB, because of a meeting? I think the world will be torn asunder if we both draft a QB AND don’t draft a QB this year! Ahhhh!
You are assuming that the Hawks are looking at Tebow as a QB prospect
I know that they are keeping all of their options open at this point, thats why they are doing both. Most people on this site think that they should go after Clausen/Bradford. The two things that they have done, Anderson and Tebow, make that seem less likely. That could be complete smoke, or it could be that they have good intel on what others are doing ahead of them. Either way its interesting, but not not conclusive.
I meant it somewhat sarcastically.
You said you weren’t convinced that we would draft a quarterback, and then said that Anderson visiting Seattle was somehow indicative that the Seahawks would not draft a quarterback.
I was suggesting that IF a visit from Anderson was indicative of NOT drafting a quarterback, then having a private workout with Tebow would be JUST as indicative that they WERE considering a QB. Nobody mentioned in any of the above posts that it would be a first round QB.
I am not sure if there is another position Tebow could play for the Seahawks that would suit his abilities and the Hawks offensive scheme. What other options are there with Tebow other than QB on the Seahawks team?
Ultimately, I agree with your statement that interviewing Tebow is “interesting, but not conclusive.” I would suggest the same with a Derek Anderson meeting.
I'm not arguing against the logic or the likelihood. I want the team to take one.
I’m against the use of projecting certainty when looking at uncertain items.
Which is a very good approach
one we all should use.
Except now Charlie Whitehurst is coming in for a tire-kicking. Between the Tebow workout, the Wallace trade, the Derek Anderson visit, he McNabb/Kolb interest allegation and this, on top of the plain-as-day situation with Hasselbeck, contract and all, it’s probably a safe working assumption that we’re looking for a QB, and not just to upgrade the backup position.
by jacobstevens on Mar 10, 2010 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
And now I read more accurately, that you guys are talking about
whether it’s a safe assumption that we’re drafting a QB, not just seeking one. Different story, that.
by jacobstevens on Mar 10, 2010 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
Teel seems more like Carroll's type of QB than Wallace
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
That or they'd trade for / sign a QB from elsewhere
And as you said, Seneca is the odd man out.
And yes, I was convinced he’d be cut (or traded, obviously) :P
6/14/40. Sweet.
What a waste
Seneca was probably one of the more athletic players we have had in a while. And his gifts were ill used. He wanted to be a signal caller that maximized his decision making while limiting his athletic ability. We all know he he did making decisions.
I still think he could have made a #2 WR if properly developed. And now all we get is a seventh rounder for him.
C’est domage!
Holmgren used him correctly
We didn’t have the ability to only have him focus on being a receiver and now he’s getting older so maybe they thought the window for a transition had closed. I don’t think he ever could have been no. 2 and would never have emerged as a no. 3 as long as we had Engram.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 2:09 PM PST up reply actions
Plus, I think he wanted to remain a QB.
I could be remember incorrectly, but Wallace wanted stay a QB, much like Tebow wants to stay a QB. He may have worked as a #3 receiver, but I think the Sene-Cat was about as much as we were going to get out of him as a QB/WR.
Delhomme is scheduled to visit Cleveland.
Perhaps this sheds light on the compensation. I don’t see why Holmgren would overpay for a player he has coached/evaluated in depth.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 10, 2010 2:17 PM PST via mobile reply actions
But it wouldn't shed light
on why we agreed to the price. Surely Holmgren and any other team head would take as low a price as they can muster.
by jacobstevens on Mar 10, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
That is the big difference between Seneca and Brad Smith
Brad Smith knew he wouldn’t be a full time QB.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
They really couldn't get a pick this year?
I guess it’s better than cutting him, if they even were going to.
If Seneca's people started making calls because they knew it was going to happen
I’d assume this means they are going to try to keep or retain Quinn depending on what they feel like his chances of…sorry I had a John Clayton attack.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
Eh, it's probably fair value and is better than just cutting him.
Seneca could only potentially block a young quarterback, it’s not like it would make much sense for the Hawks to use him next year with the way his play has deteriorated. If this was the best they could get from the person who probably values him the most in the entire NFL then so be it.
I think it's more people got excited about a pick, yet were let down
when they (myself included) found out it was the lowest possible pick we could have got (and in next year’s draft!)
I don’t think there were any illusions about Seneca’s abilities. In fact, I’d bet there’d have been a lot less groaning had he been cut altogether.
6/14/40. Sweet.
Well, and even failed quarterbacks usually have greater value than a future seventh round pick
I mean, Rick Mirer was traded twice and once for a first-round pick. Wallace’s compensation is as much or less than they would have received if he just left in free agency.
This is more of a deal for Seneca then anybody
He gets a shot with probably the only team that can actually use him. Seattle gets a pick in next years draft and unloads his salary without the ramifications of cutting him. Not that that would’ve been much in an uncapped year anyway.
It'll be funny if Wallace starts and Browns fans start yelling at Joe Thomas for giving up sacks.
by John Morgan on Mar 10, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yes, because whoever Joe Thomas was blocking slightly touched Seneca
then Seneca ran out of bounds for a 12 yard loss. Joe Thomas: giving up huge sacks. What a terrible player.
Now with more lemon bars!
Then we can trade their 7th round pick back to Cleveland for Thomas.
But we’re keeping the damn Myoplex.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 10, 2010 4:22 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
More thinking the pocket shredding ten yards drops he invariably made.
I haven’t seen a quarterback drop back so far so fast since Aaron Brooks. His tackles never had a chance.
Sure, be dissapointed at only getting 7th now, but just wait till the pick turns into the next Nick Reed
Two words: legend dairy
Legend dairy? We're getting Milk Reed?
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
by SSreporters on Mar 10, 2010 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
There is no such thing as the next Nick Reed
He is a species of his own kind.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Nick Reed is the next Nick Reed.
He’s also his own father. This is due to a rip in spacetime that was created one day when he had an intense hiccup.
Actually it's because he went back in time
and did the business with his mother, creating a superior Nick Reed. Which is why he’s so awesome today. Let’s just hope he never goes Party Crashing…
Now with more lemon bars!
Why do you think Nick Reed is so amazing?
And he’s getting more amazing by the day.
Now with more lemon bars!
I was undecided too until his astral projection saved my wife from a fire
while his material body quarterbacked the Seahawks to the 2015 Super Bowl.
That needs re-stating:
Legend- wait for wait for it!…
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
You jumped the gun!
Just couldn’t wait could you?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
huh - what would we have to give up since we don't have a 3rd round.
I think he wants to be a starter which makes us more of a contender than Arizona, where he will exist to scare Matt Leinart straight.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
especially if we could get him and keep 6, 14, and 40
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
That would be preferable.
And, yeah, I think he’d have a better chance to start in Seattle, assuming Seattle doesn’t draft a QB in the first round.
What would we have to give up? How about Julius Jones? I’d be OK with that…
Is Whitehurst a restricted free agent?
that would be the best news to dump Julius Jones
but I don’t see it happening. He’s an RFA with a 3rd round tender. Would they take 4 & 5 for him?
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 10, 2010 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
Can't a guy dream?
I’d hate to give up that fourth with us missing our 3rd. There’s still value to be found there. I hate that all the teams want to get good value. Bah-humbug.
Oh, there it is.
Restricted free agent, 3rd round tender. Hopefully it’d be a trade for someone we could replace easily on our team, and not for a draft pick. But I don’t know how likely that is.
Charlie Whitehurst isn't worth a 7th
He’s a 3rd round only because it’s an original round tender.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 10, 2010 10:16 PM PST up reply actions
Whitehurst isn't worth a 7th, but Teel was worth a 6th last year?
I’ve seen Whitehurst play some down here in San Diego and kind of like him. He could be an interesting project.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
Having said that
he isn’t worth a 3, and I don’t see why the Chargers would be motivated to trade him.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
He was a 3rd in a really good QB draft class
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions
I know. I'd love to get the guy but a 3 (that we don't even have) seems high to me.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
What about a 4 and 5?
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 12:55 PM PST up reply actions
That's an awful lot to pay for a guy who hasn't been on the radar in ages..
The tender only means that’s what you have to pay if you don’t work with the owning team. We could say, “7th or nothing” and their either accept or don’t.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. “The 7th we get from Cleveland in 2011 for him. Take it or leave it.”
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 11, 2010 2:11 PM PST up reply actions
Let's give them Julius Jones then
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 2:38 PM PST up reply actions
I'd be willing to give them a 5th and still think we would get the better end of the deal
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
How so? We'd be giving up a 5th for an unproven/broken prospect.
There’s just no reason. Just because he’s on the “all names team” doesn’t mean he has the kind of value that says we should give up a pick for him…
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2010 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
Holmgren showed he wanted Julius Jones when?!?
When he sat him for Morris? Why would he now?
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 12, 2010 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
It's been four years and he hasn't thrown a regular season pass
Chargers have had a few blowout games over the years, three or four this year, and they put in Volek instead. Hell, they even put in Billy Volek during the meaningless final game instead of giving Whitehurst a look. Also, he hasn’t even looked all that good in the preseason. At this point, I think Whitehurst as less potential then Teel, yes.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 11, 2010 1:48 PM PST up reply actions
Not a good deal at all for Seattle.
Considering how little value the draft pick they got in return has, they’d have been better off holding out for more. Even if we draft a QB, most teams carry at least 4 QBs through the offseason in order to have competition to make the roster. I think Wallace would have more value as part of that competition, even if he ended up being the odd man out, than the pick we’re getting in return.
I’m not going to make too big of a deal out of this, and probably won’t mean much in the long run, but our new FO lost this exchange, and it makes me slightly more nervous about how they’ll end up handling this whole Marshall business.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 10, 2010 4:22 PM PST reply actions
Wallace's skillset didn't fit with their plans.
Carroll didn’t want him competing for any job in camp. Plus he’s the incumbent backup so he would’ve been blocking Teel and whomever else they bring in.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 9:33 AM PST up reply actions
I think it is a great deal
for me at least At I will not have to ever see him in a Hawks uniform again, running as fast as he can for the sideline for a 12 loss. I got mad every time he took a snap last season. I would have much rather have watched Teel in there and maybe get better, while seeing what he can do, instead of Wallace who I had no hope of ever being a decent QB.
For any data point in the NFL that makes sense I'll show you five that don't.
Also, a player’s worth is dependent on a variety of factors including the teams involved, the position they play, blah blah blah.
by DrunkAmerican on Mar 10, 2010 9:33 PM PST up reply actions
Supply and demand.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:01 AM PST up reply actions
Keary Colbert wasn't worth a 5th
Receivers were dropping like flies and Ruskell was desperate.
by lemonverbena on Mar 11, 2010 9:38 AM PST up reply actions
Warren Moon said it best that year
“when ever receiver you’re starting has a number in the teens, you have problems at that position”
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
If Seneca wasn't stuck playing QB that year
He may still be with us as a receiver
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
Haha, that's pretty good.
And exactly what I was thinking once…. “reminds me of a preseason game”.
Honestly
I would have given Cleveland a 7th to take him.
To me, this guy was a BRuss playing QB.
I’m mostly pissed off he was never turned into a receiver. What a waste.
I agree we totally wasted his skills
Mangini likes trick plays so he’ll do well there.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
by Generzal Zod on Mar 11, 2010 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
Carroll weighs in, makes no sense.
"Seneca had a great career here, and I’m sure the people in the community appreciated his hard work," Carroll said. "He’s a great guy and great for the community. But for us, it’s time for us to move on. And he has a good opportunity. Mike (Holmgren, Browns president and former Seahawks coach) wanted him in a big way there." (emphasis mine)
If they wanted him in a BIG WAY how come we got an 8th round pick for him?
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
7th, but your point stands.
Goddammit, now I’m upset….we should have been able to get more for Seneca. He’s not THAT bad!
How much Holmgren might have wanted him and what kind of plans they might have for him
definitely feels like Holmgren altered the deal.
by jacobstevens on Mar 12, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Maria Menounos wears Giants bikini in Times Square after Patriots loss
- How the Super Bowl prop bets played out
- Want to watch UMass kids riot and a Giants fan get punched in the back of the head?
- Only dance can heal the wounded souls of Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski
- Hysterical Pats Fan Cries Over ‘Stupid’ Team
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
