Seahawks Must be Willing to Walk Away to Win
by John Morgan on Mar 7, 2010 8:47 AM PST
Email
PrintIf the Seahawks want to win negotiations with the Broncos, they must first accept losing Brandon Marshall. Marshall or bust is a losing strategy and the more Seattle projects a Marshall or bust front, the quicker their leverage deteriorates. In theory, Seattle started negotiations with leverage. Marshall has a poisonous relationship with Denver, right down to the city proper. Marshall wants out, and Seattle is a logical destination. If the Seahawks could convince Marshall to commit, if not formally than in spirit, to a trade to Seattle, they win leverage. Hopefully, that's what the Seahawks are attempting to do over this weekend: Woo Marshall, but not fall in love with Marshall.
The latter is how leverage can swing radically in favor of the Broncos. If Seattle begins to take Marshall for granted, begins planning around him signing, perhaps pursuing other prospects less actively, perhaps, as in the case of Nate Burleson, allowing other wide receivers to leave, increasing Seattle's need; If Seattle sets their heart on making a splash as their opportunities dwindle, then Seattle becomes locked in and may begin to fear not signing Marshall more than overspending. That can not happen.
Pete Carroll and John Schneider must understand that if Seattle does not sign Marshall, if he stays a Bronco or another team swoops in, the Seahawks can still have a very successful offseason. Seattle does not need to sign a single free agent. It has three top fifty picks and no mandate to win this season. Unless Seattle overspends for Marshall, it's in a no lose situation. The Seahawks only lose if they choose to lose.
280 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice post
I’m really excited about getting Marshall for the right price. Even as a character risk, he seems hardly that much more of a risk than a the bust risk of a draft pick spent on a WR in the 1st or 2nd rounds, esp. given this year’s crop. What’s even more encouraging is how no one else is making any noise. Reports are going up for mediocre talent getting numerous interviews and generating interest, but nothing about Marshall.
I was perusing other blogs last night, and read a post on Seahawksdraft.blogspot.com regarding an ESPN Outside the Lines documentary:
Seahawksdraft.blogsport.com has seemingly removed the link, but you can view the ESPN product here
Not sure I would want this guy on anyone’s team. Certainly not for a 1st or 2nd rounder. Maybe not for anything.
It is what it is...
ESPN documentary on Brandon Marshall's legal challenges.
And they are serious and serial.
It is what it is...
I find it amazing that we as a fan group can ostracize a Jeremy Stevens and yet embrace the same personality in Brandon Marshall
Sports is a strange world indeed.
It is what it is...
No one is. But the fat that Stevens was woeful and Marshall is a top 5 WR
Kinda eases that.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Perhaps better stated would be:
The majority of what I have read, meaning my own impressions of blogs and articles in the Seattle area, leaves me with the impression that we are willing to accept the risk of his personality.
I see this as Brandon Marshall’s 3rd or 4th chance. To me, this has the potential to ruins a front office. This would be a no go.
Again, this is just my impression. And my impressions are really only important to me. But I do find it a fascinating dichotomy.
It is what it is...
If the cost is low enough no one is going to care if Marshall's behavior winds up getting him run off the team.
Same thing across the street with that other Seattle professional sports team and Milton Bradley. Talented player with personality issues that was well worth the gamble because the cost to acquire him wasn’t that big of a deal.
I would see Marshall only for his production as a Seahawk
if he gets busted year one, and cost us a 1st rounder, he will be, in effect, Jeremy Stevens.
It is what it is...
Jerramy Stevens wasn't ran out of town because of his problems off the field
He wasn’t resigned because he wasn’t very good.
Yeah, my position is rather weak in that last statement (or all of them!)
But the premise is that with outside distractions would come impacted performance. Thus, his dismissal would be performance, behavior, and team chemistry based.
All of which seems appropriate to Stevens’ case. Holmgren did not part with Stevens’ gladly.
It is what it is...
Marshall has always had off field problems and he's alway been very good
Not much reason that I’m aware of to expect that to change when he gets to Seattle.
Well a change of scenery could do a world of good for him.
From SeahawksDraftBlog.com
Randy Moss once drove a city block at high speed with a police officer on the hood of his car, but after going to New England, he finally matured and kept himself out of trouble.
Now, Randy Moss often takes plays/games off, but that’s never been an issue for Marshall.
Brandon Marshall is also on record as saying that he wants to leave Denver, and I don’t think he’s been right since the Darrent Williams tragedy. Now, no one can say for certain that his off the field issues will ever go away, but who knows? I think simply getting out of Denver could go a long way.
Yeah, that's both untrue and libelous.
The NYT story about what Moss did. He certainly did not drive “a city block at high speed with a police officer on the hood of his car”.
This is a better account.
Not to say shoving an officer with your SUV is justified, but it’s also not okay to sensationalize a criminal case.
by John Morgan on Mar 7, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, I'm a little schocked that he twisted that like he did.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Well, aside from that little snippet, I still stand by my point that getting out of Denver could make a world of difference for Marshall, much like getting out of Oakland resulted in a big change for Moss. Even better, Marshall is younger, and has never let his off-field issues affect his on-field performance. But I think we already agree that he would be a valuable asset to the Seahawks, I’m pretty much preaching to the choir here.
He probably just went off memory.
Either way it shows that Moss shows extremely poor judgment and used a dangerous weapon to assault an officer.
That's not an excuse
and “used a dangerous weapon to assault an officer”, is a spectacularly sensational way to describe it. It’s misleading and manipulative. What Moss did is not excusable, it also shouldn’t be framed as assaulting someone with a dangerous weapon. He didn’t stab an officer, he didn’t shoot her in the leg, he acted like an entitled ass. I see no evidence that death or even major injury was ever possible.
Using a car to shove someone is, by definition, assault with a deadly weapon
Whether or not it could’ve killed them doesn’t change the fact that it’s an assault using a deadly weapon.
I'm aware of the legal definition.
That doesn’t mean what Lanterman wrote accurately portrays what happened.
I just wrote what the article said
Moss was in jail on suspicion of assault with a dangerous weapon, a felony.
Like Chirp said though, using a car to push someone slowly is not inherently overly dangerous, but if a foot should slip, it is very dangerous, possibly even fatal.
Makes sense
It was a stupid move and could have resulted in something more serious is how I saw it
by Brian Floyd on Mar 7, 2010 12:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
And if it was a Toyota...
He may not have been able to stop. Just because he was being an ass doesn’t mean it wasn’t “assault.” The car was the weapon he happened to have at the time to display his entitlement. The same thing probably would have been said if he had shoved her with a baseball bat, Tim Tebow’s smile, or an eyelash curler.
And, obviously, when it comes to the police, anytime you touch them, it will be assault. And there aren’t many deadlier weapons than a car. Moving a car toward someone, even slowly, is a stupid, dangerous thing to do. He didn’t intend to hurt her, most likely, but as my friend who ended up with her car in the lobby of a medical complex, a foot can slip off of a pedal pretty easily.
I never said it wasn't assault
Nor am I defending Moss, I am simply cutting through some of the bullshit.
But it also seems like...
you’re assuming we can’t cut through bullshit on our own, which is a little insulting. There are definitions of what a deadly weapon happens to be, which would include a moving vehicle, and then there’s using that deadly weapon to maim, harm and kill. I’m not going to assume that said deadly weapon was being used to intentionally harm anyone. I’’m not sure it is sensationalizing to call a tree a tree.
However, I agree that the statement about driving around with the officer on his hood is pure sensationalizing and is, at the best, shoddy journalism.
Maybe not every Field Gulls reader can cut through BS with a butterknife, but I like to think that many of us can.
Maybe I was giving you the benefit of the doubt of not having a fragile ego.
How you can interpret what I wrote as an insult blows my mind. I was disputing the facts of the altercation. I said nothing about you.
alright
I retract the insult comment, and realize you did not intend insult through your perceived cutting BS for the rest of the Field Gulls.
I don’t agree with everything you say in this conversation, but I recognize that this is a thread about free agency, and to take any of this further is a sign of a “fragile ego.” Let’s move on.
Chirp,
Just because you can doesn’t mean that it needs to be done on a regular basis, I would assert that avoiding bull shit is much more agreeable to everyone than having to sift through it.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:36 PM PST up reply actions
Kudos John,
Sadly, uniformed people always try and argue semantics.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
How is knowing a legal definition...
and suggesting that calling the event “assault with a dangerous weapon” was not sensational, being uninformed? Is a car a dangerous weapon? I say yes. I’ve actually seen a person get mowed down by one. Is “pushing” a police officer with any object going to be deemed assault? I say yes, most of the time. You don’t have to agree with me, but from my own lexicon of the English language, I don’t see anything sensational here. Calling it sensational, in and of itself, is arguing semantics.
The point of conversation is to be understood, so I’m asking this question to understand your characterization of my comments as uninformed.
Semantics get a bad rap. If we aren’t talking about the same thing, then the words we use mean nothing, and we’re not really talking. What’s the point of flapping our mouths and listening to noises coming from other people’s flapping mouths, if we don’t understand the words coming out of other people’s mouths?
Wasn’t John arguing semantics when he disputed the way Laterman portrayed the event, and deemed it sensational? I say yes. You may not agree. That’s okay.
But calling me uninformed needs to be clarified by some sort of rubric, or you’re just making noise. Which, by my definition, is just being a jerk.
Chirp,
It wasn’t meant as a stab to anyone per se, more of a commendation of John trying to cut through the bullshit that ruins a constructive conversation.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:35 PM PST up reply actions
I agree.
But if they do pay a high price, and his seemingly serial behavior pops up under the pressure of a big contract and big expectations, man… I guess I see bad things happening.
Don’t get me wrong, when I say “We”, I’m including myself in the statement. Hell yes I want Brandon Marshall the player. I just amaze at how easily numbers ease the realities of past life events.
It is what it is...
Yeah, you are making some assumptions you shouldn't
I am not embracing Marshall the person, nor am I judging him. We are excited for Marshall the player and the prospect he can be had for cheap.
Boy, I'm sure the Eagles are glad they got rid of Cris Carter
Some players, you know, have the potential to mature after making bad personal choices. Speculation about Brandon Marshall’s personal life going forward should be just that; he could continue doing the same stupid shit, or maybe he won’t.
People would have looked past Stevens issues
if he could make a catch in the clutch.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
Personally I don't care what anyone does off the field as long as they play well on it.
Unless he goes to prison, if he’s good, he can be on my team.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
I can understand your viewpoint, but I personally disagree.
Say some guy rapes a child or murders a family or whatever and he gets off on a technicality or evidence tampering or whatever, I can’t root for the guy even if he’s such a superstud that he’d lead my team to a SB win. I don’t want my players to be saints, but I can’t root for guys that are almost universally considered by their peers to be morally bad. Football is just a game, and while it’s a lot of fun to play and watch, in the grand scheme of things, winning just isn’t that important to me when compared to other things (ex, would you pay off refs to ensure a victory, or pay a mobster to injure a star player on the other team?)
by LantermanC on Mar 7, 2010 11:29 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
As long as it's not proven in a court of law, if he wins my team a Super Bowl, I'm happy.
I don’t have to like the person, but to me, a championship parade in Seattle is worth dealing with a villain regardless of what he’s done off the field. I guess I’m just cold hearted, but meh.
Also, those other things are cheating—paying off refs or a mobster—having a criminal on your team is different than committing a crime such as assaulting a player or buying the refs. What players do off the field doesn’t matter to me as long as it doesn’t effect what happens ON the field. They can be as morally bad as they want as long as they play hard and good on the field.
I mean, if Pac Man Jones had been good, Dallas would’ve loved him. And I don’t think Baltimore has too many complaints about Ray Lewis.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
Supposedly he does a lot of good work in the community
so that cancels out assisting a murder or whatever.
[DELETED ZOMG NO POLITICS]
Lanterman,
Judging based on morality is silly, not only is there too much interpretation when it comes to morals and values because of cultural differences, but even brothers or sisters growing up in the same environment can be on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Beyond that if the person truly is morally corrupt and lives their life as a fool their career will go up in flames, point in case pac man. It is funny how these people weed themselves out.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
Which is why I said those that are universally considered to be morally bad are those I can't root for.
Or at least generally so. A murderer, is in almost all instances, a morally wrong act.
Understandable, however one thing IMHO that religion does have right,
Only cast the first stone if you yourself have no faults, which we all know is impossible.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
I say let the morally bankrupt...
fail out they always will in one way or another.
There is no need to worry over spilled milk.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
Finnegan,
I was speaking more towards high profile athletes and celebrities. Politicians somehow cast a spell over their constituents. Car salesmen aren’t a success in my book but to each their own.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
Ok well in that case, take offensive lineman for example
You kinda have to be a real dirtbag to be good at that.
It's a bit one sided since the interviews are with his girlfriend and her parents.
I’m not excusing Marshall, but domestic violence can go both ways, and it’s easy to assume the man is always the guilty party.
I was waiting for this point to be made.
No where in that segment was Brandon allowed to share his side of the story, and he obviously had one. While I am particularly sensitive to bigger stronger men striking women at all, it was clear even by her own testimony that she was heavily involved in instigating and participating in the violence.
I also understand the ‘battered’ woman syndrome, but she stayed with him despite how he allegedly treated her. He never admits to stabbing her, or hitting her, or blackening her eye, even in private correspondance to her.
No doubt aspects of Brandon’s behavior are questionable at best, and maybe criminal, and he shouldn’t be let off the hook for any of it, but none of this has been established in a court of any kind where the rules of evidence and some kind of judgment made. All we have right now is the journalistic version, one that would just as soon incite the public as illuminate any kind of truth.
I would love to have him on our team...
but not for the 6th overall pick.
I still have a hard time believing that the 6th overall pick would be involved.
Not saying that it won’t be, but really, it would be just really bad business if Seattle were to give the Broncos that pick.
The logical thing for both teams, because Denver doesn’t have as much leverage as Seattle does, is to work out a different trade that’s not in the parameters of the tender that Denver designated to Marshall. Meaning, Denver does not, and will not, get Seattle’s 6th overall draft pick.
On a slightly different tack, if Seattle gives up the 14th overall pick instead, then Seattle basically would have traded their 2009 second round pick (37th overall) for Brandon Marshall, and that’s a damn steal.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 7, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
With so much talent at Safety O and D line this year.......
Why not spend your first three picks there? Do you consider shipping Butler to Denver? I don’t think I would. But Butler and Royal on the field together sounds good to me.
"Superhero like even"
I would HAPPILY give up the 40th for Marshall.
I would begrudgingly give up the 14th.
The 6th would disappoint me.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Mar 7, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
I think assuming the 6 is more valuable than the 14 is a mistake
It’s a similar level of talent, but for a fraction of the price. The only thing about the six that makes it attractive to me is that it might net a quarterback. Otherwise, I’d rather Seattle not move either first round pick.
You don't think
that Brandon Marshall would be worth #14? I think he’s a young, proven, talent that could step in immediately and help out. While his personality is a risk, so is a draft pick. I wouldn’t be happy about giving up #14, but it could solve our need for an offensive play-maker.
by killacamkilla2 on Mar 7, 2010 9:49 AM PST up reply actions
Well, first, Seattle does not need an offensive playmaker
It needs an effective offense, and that starts with the quarterback. An offense can have better “playmakers” than Marshall and still suck. See Houston with Andre Johnson prior to Schaub or Arizona with Boldin and Fitzgerald prior to Warner. After the quarterback, the offensive line is probably next most essential to having an effective offense. And I’d much rather Seattle works that path than attempts to slap parts on a broken core.
Now, is Marshall worth the 14th pick? Probably not to Seattle. He might be a better player than Seattle can anticipate at 14, in fact, he is, but he is not a better value. The 14th pick can be spent on an offensive tackle, that tackle would be signed to a fraction of what Marshall would cost, and fill a more fundamental need than Marshall. And really, with a good quarterback and good protection, a less talented wide receiver can be more valuable than Marshall. Jurevicius, Jackson, Garcon, etc.
One could argue that Seattle was an elite offense in 2005 without a playmaker. There was Alexander, but I don’t think Alexander was head-and-shoulders better than a running back that could be taken in the first two rounds of the draft, and the wide receiver corps was all spare parts attained through free agency. But it was efficient, something Marshall has never been.
Makes sense.
Would you be ok with giving up #40 for Marshall? Possibly with someone like Branch?
by killacamkilla2 on Mar 7, 2010 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
That would be a deal
but unless Marshall can be had for cheap, I’d rather Seattle went another direction.
I concur
There are much more fundamental holes on the seahawks than WR. The QB position and OL and DL all need improvement and the draft is shaping up to allow us to fill in all three with our first 3 picks. I think if we get Clausen, OL du jour and one of the second tier DL (Alualu, Houston, Price) with the 6, 14, and 40, the Seahawks will be a better team than trading any of the those three picks for Marshall. My position is Branch and next years 2nd rounder (or Hill Tatupu, or Hawthorne or some other roster filler) or stay pat.
Riddle me this, John
And I do totally agree with you about the value in keeping the #14 pick, but…..if the Seahawks DID trade the #14 pick for Marshall, we could still draft a LT at #40. I’m curious; what would be the talent downgrade between drafting a LT at #40 compared to #14, as well as factoring the difference in salary between the two spots?
Again, I agree trading the #14 would be a mistake; I just wanted to look at this question from another, relevant angle.
Well, Seattle would likely be shut out of about every offensive tackle that has received much press
and would probably have to settle for someone like Selvish Capers or, maybe, Rodger Saffold. It wouldn’t be a disaster, but it would be a downgrade, and take a position of need that can be filled with a great talent and turn it into a position of need that has to be filled.
I'm a little confused.
How is Marshall so “inefficient”? And if he’s so inefficient, why are you stoked to get him?
I've been arguing this for a while.
In which case, if the talent is close, but the cost isn’t, one should always trade down even if all it does is net you a few 4th rounders.
Where's the context for this post?
I haven’t seen any of this Marshall Or Bust stuff but I also don’t get Seattle-area papers.
And the success of that pursuit can not hinge on getting Marshall or not
but getting Marshall for a good price or not. Thus, not getting Mashall can be a successful outcome.
Well-stated.
I enjoyed this piece today. It’s alway good to hear your perspective and you stated essentially what a portion of fans like myself have been pushing: don’t overpay for him. At the right price, he’s a welcome addition.
We can’t target a WR to fix our QB problems.
Giving the 6 would likely end any chance at Bradford or Clausen. Though we can’t be sure of that, we have to at least position ourselves for a QB if the team views either of the top 2 QBs as a franchise player at the position.
but
if u sign marsh to a offer sheet u have to give up the 6 unless u worked a sign and trade with denver first
okay i have cerebral palsy arthris and chronic fatigue as well i have a great life and loveing folks some days are better than other days i got a make-a-wish in 2001 and saw my favorite team the broncos it was the trip of a lifetime i wish everyone couild have gotten to enjoy that with me i know some of u hate the broncos and that okay but i bleed organ and bule for my mnr fans but i bleed orange and blue denver will rise again resident broncos fan for every blog resident broncos for stampede bule thanks shvd98z24
If I were the seahawks new GM,
I would have tried to work out a conditional trade with denver first, in that if we can sign marshall to an extension, we give them our 2nd rounder and Branch. Then I would fly marshall to seattle for a recruiting visit, and hope he loves our seaplane.
I would also front load the shit out of his new contract, so he saves us money in the salary capped years to come….
The Jags signed Kampmann
I guess that’s good for them.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
It wouldn't have killed me if Seattle signed Kampman
I think he has a good year in him. Unfortunately, Seattle doesn’t need that good year in 2010, and wouldn’t want his future and the contract that ensures he starts.
It could impact our draft at #14 too.
I’m not sure if the Jags were going to be willing to spend another high pick on a defensive end before this anyways, but I highly doubt now that they would draft DE Derrick Morgan at #10. From my understanding, he’s a top 6-7 player in this draft that might be available at #14 due to the number of teams running the 3-4 at the top of the draft.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 7, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
If Morgan fell to 14
it would be worth taking someone Seattle does not explicitly need. Nothing wrong with having another high upside rotational partner, and though Seattle has its starters, it doesn’t have much else at end.
Ugh.
If we just let Tapp go and then use #14 on a DE… double-ugh.
Morgan plays the strongside
Tapp has been signed to an original round tender, and Morgan is a better talent than Tapp or Jackson. There is nothing wrong with talented depth at a vital position.
There's certainly nothing "wrong" with it
BUT it seems not particularly smart to me. This smacks a little of the whole Peterson – Curry thing… when we have so many more basic needs, why use a #14 pick on a spot that we’re at least “sufficient” at?
You’ve been arguing for a few days about how the Seahawks’ FO has made mistakes by not maximizing their resources, e.g. letting Burleson go instead of at least getting something for him, not picking up Stallworth, and so on. To me, taking a risk of letting Tapp go easy and then using a high pick on his replacement seems wasteful. We’d be much better off keeping Tapp and using that pick on a position that has more need for us: LT, DT, CB, RB, or WR.
I realize that those positions may not be available at 14, but in that case, deal down and grab more picks or move our later picks up.
I guess I’m combining this angle with your take on Marshall. I’d argue that that #14 is better spent on Marshall than another DE. If we can argue that the acquisition of Branch with our late-first was OK, certainly Marshall with #14 is OK too. Only in the dimmest of circumstances do I see Marshall doing worse than Branch has.
Of course, if you consider Morgan at #14 to be truly excellent value, a game-changing kind of DE, than this argument is weakened somewhat.
Marshall isn't worth giving up a #6
He may not even be worth it at #14. I’d love to have him on this team if Seattle had a QB that could effectively give him the ball. And yes, that means I think Kyle Orton is better than Matt Hasselbeck right now.
Clausen and Bradford are out of the question if we give up the #6. What will really have me concerned is if Seattle does not draft a QB at #40 (which could include Pike and McCoy). That’s a dead giveaway that Carroll and Schneider believe Hasselbeck is still a good QB who just needs better weapons (which isn’t the case) and there is no need to heavily invest at this position.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Regarding the #14 overall pick, I like to think of it as this:
The Seahawks would have essentially traded their 2nd round pick from last year for Brandon Marshall.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 7, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
This sort of things has a catchy ring to it
But it doesn’t mean much. Denver got a year’s worth of use out of Marshall in that deal, too, and that’s no small thing.
More importantly, the economics of the current situation may mean that trading last year’s second rounder for Marshall is still grossly overpaying.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
I don't, simply because we made a good deal last year. It doesn't make sense to turn around
and devalue that deal to it’s original value.
Example, you invest in a company and you get a bit lucky and it turns out that your $10,000 turned into $30,000. You don’t go around and offer $30,000 for a car that is priced at $10,000 just because that was your original starting point.
I agree.
A first round pick is worth a first round pick. Not less because it was acquired for less. Trading future picks usually results in one round lower of value. That difference is what made that deal attractive. You don’t just throw it out the window.
I don't think that analogy is correct.
I think it would be more like this: You traded your $10,000 car straight up for a $30,000 car. That $30,000 car was traded for a commodity where its value is similar or the same as that $30,000 car from that same company that you did your previous trade with.
So, essentially, there’s no devaluing going on, and you’ve basically acquired the aforementioned commodity for the $10,000 car. It’s not you that did the devaluing, it’s the company who you traded with in the first place, by giving you a $30,000 car for a $10,000 car, and then giving you their commodity in exchange for that $30,000 car, which you got by giving up the $10,000 car.
I do not see how the Seahawks would be offering the $30,000 car for another that is priced at $10,000 because it was their starting point. It doesn’t quite make sense to me.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 7, 2010 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
I took your phrase
The Seahawks would have essentially traded their 2nd round pick from last year for Brandon Marshall.
To mean that the #14 should be treated as last year’s second, and anything more valuable than that that we get in a trade for #14 is an added bonus. However I think we’ve already ‘earned’ our added bonus by trading our 2nd round pick, and now we should treat the #14th as a 14th. Yes the end result will be last year’s second for Brandon Marshall, but unless we think Marshall is worth a #14th pick instead of just last year’s #36, we shouldn’t make the trade.
I see your point.
I think if I read it from a different point of view, I might say the same thing you said. However, my statement was just an interpretation of what the Seahawks basically gave up for Brandon Marshall if the 14th overall pick were involved; I do not think it would be unfair to say so.
Just to add another example of interpreting it, I could say that the Broncos basically traded Brandon Marshall for Alphonso Smith.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 7, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
That's a dangerous assumption. I think most coaches in the league would give Hasselbeck another year.
If we don’t draft a QB, then start worrying. But I don’t think it’s clear that Carroll is really high on Hasselbeck or anything. I still wouldn’t be surprised if we took a QB at 6
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
Right, it could just be they think Hasselbeck has a year or two left.
Or that none of the QBs in this draft are worth what their perceived value is.
I'd still be shocked if we didn't draft a QB.
Though it may not be at 6. It should be, though!
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
I think that was a reply towards me so....
I had made this remark on the basis that we do give up the #6. In all likelihood the only QB that would be available at #14 is Tebow. That’s not going to work.
I already said I’ll start worrying IF Seattle doesn’t draft a QB by #40. Because right now they don’t have a 3rd round pick. Now obviously Seattle could find a hidden gem in the later rounds and he becomes the new Hasselbeck, but not drafting a QB within the first two rounds is a clear sign that they do not see the QB position being a major concern this year.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I'm confident we won't take Tebow, and I'm relatively certain we won't give up the 6. That'd just be retarded. If they're retarded though, well, I was wrong...it just doesn't seem likely though.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
Why would you be so confident the Seahawks won't draft Tebow...
Gil Brandt reports on the NFL’s own website that the Seahawks and Buffalo Bills have lined up private workouts with Florida quarterback Tim Tebow for after his pro day session with all the league’s scouts on March 17.
Interesting news. Maybe the Seahawks just doing their due diligence, but I seem to be one of the few who thinks Tebow could be a great pick for some team with the time and patience to let him develop for a year or two.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
......To go somewhere else.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
Gil Brandt thinks Seattle has the time and patience to let Tebow develop.
Apparently, Gil Brandt didn’t notice that Hasselbeck has missed time in three of the last four seasons and is reaching the end of his contract.
If they don't think we can compete next year,
then we should draft the BPA with regards to draft position for the future. Rookie QBs and second year QBs rarely make a huge impact anyways. I forgot the statistic, but didn’t you cite a DVOA statistic that showed it took QBs three years to get to 80% of their maximum DVOA season?
Also, maybe they don't THIS year, but I still think they pretty much have to take a QB with one of the first three picks they have.
Even they have to know Hasselbeck is nearing the end of the line, even if they think he’s got a year or two.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah I worded it poorly
Seattle has to address the QB situation this year and absolutely make a concerted effort to find Hasselbeck’s replacement. He doesn’t even need to start, but the Seahawks need to think about the future and if they DO give up the #6 for Marshall and don’t draft a QB by pick #40 then that’s a discouraging sign as to what they think of the offense.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I would hate it if the Seahawks think they HAVE to address the QB situation
As much as we’re against the Seahawks rashly overpaying for Marshall, we should hope for similar temperance w.r.t the QB position. We need a QB, yes, but this draft may not be the place it can happen. Would you really rather see the team draft a QB with no real NFL future as a starter at #40 just because “they have to address the QB situation?” If there’s no good QBs available, the hands of the FO are tied, and they can’t until next year. They’re better off getting a player who can make a difference at #40 and waiting until next year if Bradford and Clausen are both gone by #6.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
I would rather the Seahawks wait on the QB situation
than have them address the QB situation badly. Going hard after a bad QB and paying him too much money can sink a franchise for years.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
There's a chance Seattle could be going after a great WR
With a team who currently has a bad QB, an even worse backup, and an unproven 3rd stringer.
Time to address!
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
You may be aware of that one of two highly regarded QB prospects will likely be available at the Seahawks #6 pick
If it has to be addressed and good talent is available, why not do it?
Of course I'm aware
I’m really, really hoping that Clausen falls to six, or even that the team can finagle a trade up if necessary. But beyond Clausen and maybe Bradford, the quality drops off precipitously. Addressing the QB position with picks #14 or #40 is almost certainly a big mistake.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 2:08 PM PST up reply actions
Why?
A QB drafted at either spot will not be particularly expensive. There may no fit talent-wise at 14, but certainly there are a few QB’s in the mix at #40.
Like who?
I’m not sure there’s a QB worth the #40 spot. And even if they reach for one, he likely won’t be a starter for a couple of years.
Pike or McCoy.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I'm starting to think both of those guys will last until the 3rd round
Too many questions about them. Though, some desperate team may grab them in the 2nd. Oh crap. Are we one of those desperate teams!?
I'm feeling pretty desperate, yeah.
Nailbiters around every corner. Except Josh Wilson…he’s cool…
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Pike and McCoy are overwhelmingly likely
to spend their careers riding the pine and carrying clipboards. I’ll take a difference maker at #40, thanks.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 2:13 PM PST up reply actions
It's not
But as has come up in debates here time and again, how many times can a team afford to take a shot with a low-round QB before going for a higher-round talent. Not to say a second-round QB can’t possibly be the answer, but I’m not enamoured by the depth of this draft, and I don’t see how Seattle’s prognosticating at the position has left us with any choice but to draft Clausen/Bradford if available.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 7, 2010 2:18 PM PST up reply actions
Huh.
Unless you want to give me some evidence for this, I’ll trust the fact that more than two NFL quarterbacks get drafted a year.
Oh, they'll be drafted.
I’m just not sure that they will 1) be worthy of a 2nd rounder, or 2) will fix the QB problem for Seattle in the short-term. There are plenty of great prospects who could ride the pine for a little while, and then come out and play like gangbusters.
There are lots of QB's slotted in the second by draft guru's
I’m not appealing to authority, but unless someone can come up with a real reason to say that Pike or McCoy (or whomever) has no chance at being an NFL QB, I’ll stick with averages.
There's nothing wrong with that.
I’m not saying these guys can’t be NFL QB’s, even starters, I just don’t think they’ll be starting in 2010. If Hass goes down, we’re back to Wallace as the starter again. Unless we trade Wallace to Cleveland, in which case Teel or Pike/McCoy starts. That sounds like a scary year. But if one of these guys is starting in year one, good for him, and I wish him the very best. There just hasn’t been a huge success rate in second-round QB’s starting right out of college. Not that the success rate is significantly better for 1st-round QB’s starting right out of college.
Good point.
I guess I should add that I’m not sold on the fact that McCoy or Pike will help our team in the long-term better than many other available players in the second round. I’d rather seem the team grab a 4th round project at QB than a 2nd round project at QB.
He's a 6th rounder
I keep thinking he’s a 7th, but he’s a 6th. It all depends on what the new head office thinks of him. If they see a 4th round project they think is better than Teel, I wouldn’t be surprised to see them go that way. Teel will be new to this system, somewhat, so it isn’t like he’s got an advantage over a rookie coming in.
What’s the scouting on Teel? I admit complete ignorance on the guy.
I liked what I saw of him in preseason.
Pretty much what Brian said.
I agree on that.
But I’m not concerned in the slightest about this year.
Sign some freely available QB fodder if Matt goes down again.
Just don’t use that as an excuse to overlook guys like McCoy and Pike.
Garcia. Garcia. Garcia.
Assuming he’s available. In fact, I’d almost argue for dealing Matt away, signing Garcia and drafting a rookie. Let Teel and the rookie battle for #2.
are there any other former Raiders QB's on our short list?
Maybe we can trade our #6 for JaMarcus Russell…oy.
I'll be needing you to pick me some Powerball numbers.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
by Wayward Llama on Mar 7, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions
As chirp said
Who? McCoy. LOL. He makes Orton look like a QB with a “laser, rocket arm.”
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
He is somewhat limited in the type of passing offense Denver can run, though.
Due to his inability to consistently make downfield throws accurately. Part of that is what we have with Matt.
It's also partially because our pass protection didn't allow time for deeper routes.
That’s hopefully going to be improved this offseason.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Also
the fact that it seemed as if Knapp was trying to bunch routes into zones on the field versus spreading it and letting Matt read what was going on, instead forcing him to make a bb pass (a la the vick offense) which we all know he is not capable of.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 8:40 PM PST up reply actions
Also
I’m not sure people can forecast that Clausen is a favorite to be available at #6. I think he’s a longshot to make it past both the Rams and the Redskins.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Mar 7, 2010 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
Now this I completely agree with
I become less convinced by the day that the Redskins and the Rams will pass on a QB.
It is what it is...
SS,
I may be wrong, however I feel had the Broncos been fortunate enough to have a healthy Matt behind that line, they would have been a serious playoff contender. Orton has always been a shaky decision maker which is the only way with his tools he could be considered an above average starter. I am not trying to sway you one way or the other, you obviously have your mind made up on the matter, just my .02.
by Seahawks4life on Mar 7, 2010 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
It's debatable.
The only thing guaranteed is that Matt’s floating passes would’ve been in the air even longer in Denver.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I think Hass is hands down the better decision maker.
I’m worried about his injury history and age. I love the guy dearly, and as a Seahawks fan since 2003, I’ve never known another Seahawks QB (unless you count Wallace when Matt’s hurt.)
Now, if you could put Matt’s brain into the body of someone who still has health and arm strength (at least enough arm-strength to toss the ball 20 yards or so) and then signed him to the Broncos, I agree that Denver would have been much better off.
By the way, is there any way we can do that? I’d like to get Matt’s brain into Tebow’s body. We’d have a heck of a QB.
I'm not sure these things are related, but was Matt's limited arm strength
A major reason for his poor decisions (especially all of December)? That, among the fact that he made blowouts even worse, seems to be part of the issue.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
I guess I've been thinking his health was connected...
to his poor decisions. He may have been thinking, “Oh crap, not my back! Stay away from my ribs!” But it’s all speculation.
The thing is many of his interceptions in that month came with little pressure.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
To clarify
It’s not that he’s thinking “there’s pressure in my face, let me chuck it before they wreck my body”, but it’s his inability to throw a seam pattern without it floating on him regardless of pressure that bothers me. That’s natural decline accelerated by injuries.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
It substantially restricted his options
and helped paint himself into a corner — along with the rest of a bad team — in game circumstances where he’d force it. Try to make a play and end up breaking our backs.
by jacobstevens on Mar 8, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Another RFA to look into?
Jared Gaither http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=4497
He’s got a 1st Round tender.
Baltimore has nothing to gain by giving him up for less than a first round pick
and he is not worth either of Seattle’s first round picks.
Oh ok.
I wonder why Rotoworld think he could be had for less than a first then. (Not sarcasm, genuine statement.)
Well, it's possible
I just don’t see the angle from the Ravens perspective. Maybe something of very similar worth, like a player and second round pick, or some combination, but would not anticipate getting a deal on a player Baltimore has no need to move.
6'9" 330 lbs
Good grief.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Apparently, Lombardi is a Bronco mouthpiece today:
I fully expect another team to jump into the Brandon Marshall sweepstakes at some point this week. Not certain which team, but it appears Marshall has more than one team interested in his services. I do know this: The Denver Broncos won’t negotiate a trade for Marshall. Either a team is prepared to pay a first-rounder or move along. Denver will not take calls on Marshall; it’s either an offer sheet or he plays in Denver next season. If Seattle really wants Marshall, it will take the sixth pick in the draft….
Who made him commander of Bronco’s leverage? Screw that guy.
That would be dumb.
If the Jets sign him, the Broncos get the 29th or so pick. If we make a deal with Denver, they could possibly get the 14th. Why limit your options?
Any team would be unwise to limit their options.
To say that ‘Denver will not take calls’ is similar to what someone from the Denver Post wrote yesterday. Why would they ‘only’ take calls after an offer-sheet is signed? Sure, leverage, but c’mon, really? That’s not going to work.
Yeah, it's rediculous. Of course they're going to take calls and discuss options.
I can’t imagine any scenario where Schneider calls up Denver’s front office and the call goes like this:
“Yeah, hey, this is Schneider over at the Seahawks, I’d like to talk about Bran—-”
click
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 7, 2010 12:54 PM PST up reply actions
And he knows this how? A crystal ball?
I’d love to see some evidence there.
That'd be an odd negotiating tactic
Then again, has anything the Denver FO has done recently made any sense?
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 7, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
If this is proven false
I just hope people stop supporting him. It doesn’t do any good to call it horseshit. If someone reports bogus news, that person should lose credibility as a news provider and should be ignored. Ignoring someone you do not respect is the only recourse. People have made careers off of bad publicity.
See: Pretty much every contestant on "Around the Horn"
Bad Analysis + Being Loud + Cliches = Credible U.S. Sports Writer
Bad publicity, it would seem, sometimes leads to respect.
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:46 AM PST up reply actions
He's the same guy who invented the Thomas Jones to Seattle
trade rumors last year.
Lombardi is also the Eagles mouthpiece.
He recently went on and on about how in love the Eagles are with Vick and how there is no chance they trade him for anything less than a second round pick. Such a load of crap. It’s not surprising that he’s doing the same thing for Broncos now.
Say what you will about Peter King, but at least when a team feeds him information about their supposed intentions, he reports it and then speculates as to whether they’re telling him the truth. This is the second time (that I know of) that Lombardi has passed off a story like this as the gospel rather than an attempt to gain trade leverage.
And I can’t believe that Lombardi had the balls to write, “If Seattle really wants Marshall, it will take the sixth pick in the draft.” As LantermanC already said, what happens if a team with a late first round pick is on the verge of signing Marshall to an offer sheet? Denver would be crazy not to take a call from Seattle and make a play for the 14th pick in the draft.
Very short sighted article by Lombardi.
not getting marshall at all would be preferable
but most of the discussions revolving around him have assumed he was a given, so i haven’t even really taken the time to get my head around how great it’d be if denver priced themselves out completely
Why would not getting him for a potentially reasonable deal be preferable?
If the Broncos price themselves out, yeah, that’s preferable to overpaying, but what’s wrong with paying correct value or a little less for him?
by BrettJMiller on Mar 7, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
WR isn't really among our top needs
and we have a finite amount of people we can reasonably acquire via trade. I’d rate our WR needs on par with our DB needs; another good one would be nice but it’s a tier 2 need, in my mind. We need DL, OT, QB.
but if we can get him at a good value, yeah, sure, i’m all for that. the question is how likely do you think we’ll get that? given denver’s obliviousness i’m skeptical, and given the general mistrust of our own new FO around here i’d say that skepticism is sound.
how likely do you think it is that
long for edit button
It isn't?
Burleson is gone. Branch CANNOT be relied upon. Housh is absolutely getting up there in years. Butler is far from a proven commodity, and probably more of a slot guy anyhow.
Everything you just said is true
And yet WR is not one of our top needs.
The fact that we have more than a few big needs and one as gaping as WR doesn’t even make it to the top really shouldn’t be all that surprising considering our record over the last two years.
by Thomas Beekers on Mar 7, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
It's not that we aren't lacking at WR
it’s that a good WR is kinda useless without someone who can – because he has time – throw to him.
But with that said I don’t think anyone disagrees with the need at OL and QB, it’s the defensive line that is debatable. I can understand where people are coming from when they disagree, I just feel like WR is a bit more fungible, and we have some serious talent on our defensive line if we can just get that one guy to free up Mebane.
by kow on Mar 7, 2010 8:20 PM PST up reply actions
Kowtowing
The point is well made and extremely valid. Our situation is not dissimilar to that of the Bucs, and this editorial is as true for them as it is for us. No moves in the FA period does not mean Seattle “lost” the free agency period, even if Doug Farrar thinks so.
Two things cross my mind:
How unreasonable is the 40th? He’s tendered at a first, and considering the depth of this draft the 40th is even more of an “extra low 1st rounder” than in other years. If the Hawks play their cards right, I don’t see how that would be impossible. If he can’t be had for anything but a 1st – and I can see how the Broncos would stick to that – then yeah, walk away.
Maybe we can highwayrob the Broncos a second time tho’.
Boldin’s trade. Was really low. Sure, he’s an older, frequently injured WR, but he lacks Marshall’s personality problems – or at least that extent – and like Marshall, he wanted out. It was plain robbery what the Ravens pulled off here. Does that help set the stage for us, harm our chances due to WR market being even thinner, or not matter at all?
Great post
As a Charger fan I have seen Marshalls skill set, which is worth a first rounder. But the player himself, and the investment is risky. The Seahawks have all the leverage right now; and shouldnt offer anymore than their high 2nd. I actually would even offer that. The highest I would go would be Marshall and Denvers 4th in 2010 for Seattles high second and high 5th.
Oh and If the hawks are smart they will try and make a play for Scheffler. Way less risk, and a ton of upside; would be a huge addition and cost a lot less in turns of picks/players and money.
Yeah, I don't want to ruin the ending...
But it’s basically 4 minutes of watching a plane land, and another of watching Pete Carroll stand around.
Wow, that was exciting stuff!
Joking, sorry.
But it’s fortunate that it was nice and warm that day.
I would describe it as a confusing
Sims is 35 and a spot starter at best. Maybe Gibbs hasn’t updated his notes in a while.
Can't hurt.
The Seattle Seahawks offense is driving......right into a brick wall at the end of the tunnel.
CORRECT LINK
Shoot, sorry. Must have hit ctrl-c wrong. http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=NFL&id=5096
Thanks.
I really, really doubt he makes it past the Jags in the second.
Which means we'd have to take him in the second...
which doesn’t sound great to me. But maybe that’s the thought process of he powers-that-be?
I watched the tape of him working on his mechanics and he looks like he is getting it
The mechanical fix that he needed was mostly learning the drop back, keeping the ball up while he did it and throwing from that elevated ball position. He looked remarkably better than he did during the season. It was just drills, but it looked good. No more keeping the ball down around his chest and dropping it to nearly waiste level before he reared it back to a full arms length behind him to throw.
If he can show it during his pro day, he will definitely be worth the #40.
We have an individual workout scheduled with Tebow
Florida QB Tim Tebow’s March 17 pre-draft workout will be unscripted, meaning he’ll make any throws NFL evaluators ask of him.
Tebow also revealed that he’s lined up individual workouts for the Seahawks and Bills after the Gators’ Pro Day. Tebow has been working to learn both the numbered, Coryell-type offensive system and the West Coast scheme since the end of the college season. Currently a second- to third-round prospect, he may have the most to gain or lose of any prospect at his Pro Day.
Source: NFL.com
I’m sure it just due diligence. But NO THANK YOU.
Sportscenter just reported that the Bengals are now in the Brandon Marshall sweepstakes.
So, now that there is a race and there are more suitors, do the Seahawks change their mind and sign the Beast?
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
I say no.
And if we sign him, hope we don’t have to call him, “the beast.” But it’s better than “the bust.” But the team execs have a mind of their own, so we’ll see what happens. Can you imagine the Begnals with Ocho-Cinco, Owens and Marshall? It’d be an interesting year in Cinci.
haha, I don't know if it's an option. He's had the nickname since college.
Anyways, I live 5 minutes south of Cincinnati and I can say this for certain. Cincinnati will explode. Or Implode. Okay, maybe I’m not as certain as I thought.
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Doesn't Marshall have to negotiate a contract with the Bengals before being able to sign him to an offer sheet?
If so, Marshall is still in Seattle and likely hasn’t spoken to the Bengals beyond setting up a visit with the team. I wouldn’t call it a race at this point.
This is true, but wouldn't it weigh on the mind of the Seahawks' brass if they decide to end their meeting with Brandon?
If Taylor Swift were to try and tackle me, I'd let her.
PS3 ID: broncomaniac6
Not really. Cincy could sign him to the offer sheet right away (making a 1 year offer)
and give up pick #21in the process
Cinci could use a wideout
So, giving up the #21 pick for him might be a good signing for them. I still don’t think we should give up our 6th or 14th.
In the end, the decision is up to Marshall
If he wants to sign a contract with the Bengals, then they have the inside track.
I sincerely doubt that Marshall will do anything to help Denver’s position in trading him. If the Bengals offer a lot more money than us, then that’s the biggest factor; frankly, I believe Mike Brown to be too cheap to get in a bidding war over Marshall (or anybody, really).
I wonder if Denver will point to the Roy Williams trade in negotiations?
Dallas paid a fortune for a receiver not in Marshall’s class (on-field).
If so, the Seahawks should point to the game tape of Roy Williams
and say “no fucking way we’re getting screwed like Jerry Jones”.
by G'd Up on Mar 7, 2010 3:42 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Please let this be the actual result
Every minute that goes by, the interest in Brandon Marshall wanes. Go get him Cinci!
It is what it is...
Especially since we've screwed over Jones in past over a WR
That Joey Galloway trade worked out very well for us, after all.
I love how Broncos fans are patting themselves on the back
thinking that they are going to get the #6 pick.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
Shh. Don't get cocky yet.
We don’t know enough about this administration to be guaranteed that they don’t screw the pooch.
Why assume drafted OL/OT isn't a bust?
Everyone that says Seattle shouldn’t get Brandon Marshall because it will come at the sacrifice of a draft pick that could be used to select a OL/OT. I cannot believe the Seahawks would be willing to give up the prospect of getting the QB that they want to get a WR that they want. Why get a WR if you are not getting a QB to throw to him. The fact that we are entertaining Brandon Marshall should tell everyone without a doubt that Seattle is selecting a QB in this years draft.
If Seattle is selecting a QB in the draft this year that they see as the “Future of the Franchise” then it is imperative that we have a system around him to support him. Some would argue that an OL/OT will help out the new QB more then a WR. I propose that either will help the QB. There is no saying that any OL/OT we sign in the draft whether 1st round or 4th round will solve our problems with the line. Untested college players are just that, prospects, untested, amateur football players. Brandon Marshall is a proven NFL receiver. He is also known for his short to mid routes and great physical game. He makes catches and yards after catch. He is not the deep burner people assume he is. He has the hands along with TJ and Carlson to make any QB selected feel comfortable. I can only imagine a team that has 3 recievers that can catch 70%+ of the balls thrown and a burner added to keep em guessing.
Everyone agrees we add stars when and where we can. Brandon Marshall is a star. If we have a chance we must pull the trigger whether its the 40th pick or the 14th pick. We will be coming out ahead. There is talent to be found at all positions in all rounds in this draft. We must be confident our leaders/FO understand this and are doing everything they can to take advantage of this.
i agree
i want brandon marshall too, but a #6 pick, a potential franchise qb, that you have rights to(and a rookie pay scale in the next CBA), is far more valuable than a Top WR with behavior problems, who’s demanding a huge contract, and who will be an-unrestricted free agent next year if you don’t pay him…did i mention he has issues with gang members and a murder case in denver?
we could fucking draft dez bryant at #14, and keep the #6.
we have the power, we have the leverage, and i hope we don’t fuck it up.
Any one else wondering what Housh thinks of all this Marshall talk?
I sure do…on the one hand, he’d see lighter coverage. On the other hand, he came here to prove he’s a #1 receiver, and with Marshall he is squarely back in #2 territory. Can you imagine if both of those guys got unhappy simultaneously? Eesh.
Marhsall will espentially be replacing Nate Burleson in the lineup
As far as “#1” and “#2” designations, I don’t think guys like Housh get worked up about it so much. Coaches and players don’t line up in WR1 and WR2 positions; we just make those distinctions so we can determine which ones are better.
And since Housh already got his contract, I don't think he would mind staying healthy enough to receive all of it.
It’s not like Housh being the No. 1 receiver is going to earn him more money. He has no reason to complain.
Thanks for bringing this up; I hadn't thought about it yet.
Would Marshall play flanker? That really would relegate Housh to the slot.
by jacobstevens on Mar 8, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
I think he came here to win AND to prove he's a #1 receiver
and i think he’s smart enough to realize that with less defenders on him means he’ll look better than when the whole secondary is watching him.
besides, when jeremy bates was about to come here, housh said he called brandon marshall to ask about him, and marshall said good things….if i remember right? so maybe marshall and housh are friends?
But that's exactly how it went down in Cincinnati right?
He racked up all the stats while Ochocinco got double coverage but still wanted to be #1 (er, I’m not sure if him wanting to prove himself is common knowledge or my faulty memory – please correct if that’s just nonsense/speculation/whatever).
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I don't think it would matter much.
Houshmandzadeh thinks Marshall is the best WR in the league anyway.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 7, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
Obviously it's not something we can know, it's tied up in ego versus team...
…and I don’t want to speculate on that. It’s just a very interesting situation, considering the fanfare he came in with, to be pursuing another #1 WR the year after we signed him.
Back in 2008, Holmgren said we'd be interested in Tubbs after
he recovered from his injuries. Wonder if he’d be worth a minimum contract?
My procrasturbation reached a high enough level today that I read another team's SBN site
This is a rarity for me.
I read the MHR’s article on Marshall’s value when seen through the lens of the Boldin trade. I was actually pleasantly surprised by the author; it was not what I was expecting. I don’t know if others have read it, but they may find it interesting.
Ya I read it.
Wasn’t expecting much, but it was pretty solid. Namely, he did a good job laying out why Marshall simply isn’t really worth a 1st round pick. It took him a lot longer to get to his point then was necessary, and really the point he was making was pretty simple:
Marshall is riskier then Boldin, but better. So probably pretty close in value, taking a 1st for him would make him worth roughly 4-9 times more then Boldin, depending on where the 1st was. According to the draft value chart anyway. Therefor, not likely.
Took him a lot of words to say that, but he’s still essentially right in my opinion. Marshall is a great talent, but expensive and a suspension risk. And our 1st rounders are incredibly valuable because of their spots (the 14th is almost as good as the 6th, just because it’s so cheap and yet still has elite talent available).
Now with more lemon bars!
If you look at the comments, you'll see an interesting conversation between
j-man, Fearless, and ninjasocks.
I can't believe Curry worked his way into the conversation.
Hilarious…
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Fearless manages to somehow get Curry bitching into a conversation?
Well I for one am shocked.
also see: overrated
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
by Wayward Llama on Mar 8, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
I was actually more amused further down in the thread.
Ninjasocks mentions poison pills and then this awesomeness happens. Considering that he was banned from FG for being argumentative, Ninjasocks is much more polite with his reply than I’d have been.
Wow, seriously.
Apparently those guys are a bunch of angry shit heads. Plus, the Rockies aren’t that big and their beer sucks.
This gave me a good laugh. Let's do it!
…Here’s what the Seahawks should do. They should communicate to a team like the Saints or the Colts or anyone who picks below No. 14 the terms they’d be comfortable paying to Marshall, and the Seahawks should offer to those teams the 14th overall pick for Marshall’s contract. Then, one of the teams picking below No. 14 should sign Marshall to an offer sheet.
It would be a lot easier for the Broncos just to take the 14th overall pick and send Marshall to Seattle. But if they refuse to relent, then the Seahawks should give some other team an easy chance to upgrade to No. 14 — and to stick the Broncos with a pick a lot lower than No. 6.
Stick the Broncos with the 31st pick in exchange for Marshall if they balk at #40. Sounds like that scenario would have to include a poison pill of some sort to keep Denver from matching. I wonder if the NFL would allow such cunning trickery?
Collusion...indeed.
Are there rules present in the NFL regarding collusion, or is it simply something that generally harms relationships and is frowned upon?
We need a QB to throw to him
and an offensive line to keep him upright. Receivers are not as hard to find now that should be a piece addressed next year.
Give me an offensive line or give me death!
Again, tell me why picking up a WR means we can't do anything else.
He’s available now, so if you’re interested in him, you try and get him now. Takes a need off the table come draft day.
Also, as I mentioned before, WR’s take a while to break in. LT’s do not. So it makes sense to get the WR this year and the LT the next… IF you have to take one or the other.
Worst case scenario:
6 Clausen
14 Marshall
40 LT
But I’d prefer to only give up the 40… which is very possible. Then we can pick up a QB and an LT in the first. RB in the fourth, and hello, there’s the Seahawk offence for a half decade.
Falcons trade Chris Houston for Lions sixth round pick and switch fifth round picks
I can’t say that I’ve watched a single down of Houston but that seems super cheap for a former second round pick. Probably a pretty smart move by the Lions.
And now Reggie Brown is traded for a sixth round pick.
Am I the only one that thinks the Hawks should be making these kinds of moves?
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
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
- Terrell Owens is still clinging to the NFL dream
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.
