The process, or at least how I see it
by stufr on Sep 6, 2010 6:26 AM PDT
Email
PrintBlow it up
That’s the process. Don’t rebuild as you go, blow it up and start over. This year and probably next year don’t matter. Two years from now is the target.
If you aren’t a starter on this team, you are completely expendable.
Even if you are a starter, if you have a big contract and are past your prime, you are marked for extinction.
TJ - $7 mil (still have to spend this year, but clears out salary next year)
Lock - $5.4 mil
Vickerson - $1.8 mil
JJ - $2.45 mil
Babs - $2.45 mil
Wilson – Not this year’s money, combination of value, FA, future contract and place on team.
Ellison - $??? Mil
Vallos - $min
Wrotto - $min
Schmitt - $min
Vallos, Wrotto and Schmitt don’t exactly fit the mold in that they are cheap and expendable much like the guys that they are bringing in. They only matter based on timing. If we had chucked them a couple of weeks ago it wouldn’t have upset anyone.
Otherwise, I would say they are bringing guys who are younger, meet their mold at the position, or who are hungry, cheap and can fill the spot for a year. We are definitely cheaper than we were at the start of camp. When we go into next offseason we will have more cap room, assuming there is a cap and not a lock out, than any other team in the NFL. They are cleaning salary off the books. We will have money and positions to be major players in FA next offseason.
This may not be how most people wanted to rebuild, but we are now effectively an expansion team two years into the process. It will be ugly for a year or so, but if they do it right, it might be the quickest way to being a team that can get past round one year to year. Many other teams never get out of the continual rebuilding mode because they don’t blow it up. At least we have picked a direction and are moving forward on it.
46 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Six of the ten players you listed are already cheap and you didn't mention Sims or Tapp, who were also cheap.
All of those guys are also young. TJ’s would have counted for a whopping $1.25 million had they cut him next season. And they’re not just bringing in young players. Andrews, Hamilton, and Siavii are old.
The exact logic behind every move doesn't always fit but..
It is definitely a house cleaning.
Thats the important theme.
And this part of that is exciting:
They are cleaning salary off the books. We will have money and positions to be major players in FA next offseason.
Mebane must be one of our signings.
Red Bryant: surprise us!
True
But Tapp (expiring contract) and Sims didn’t fit the teams schemes and became expendable. And while Andrews, Hamilton and Siavii are old. They are replacing weak links (Locklear, Vickerson) on the team and giving the OL more depth.
See, I have trouble believing Sims didn't fit the scheme.
He played in a ZBS last year and was the most improved O-lineman from last year (and the best, though that is my opinion). He fit Gibbs’ physical requirements and was very athletic.
I saw no clear evidence that he didn’t fit the scheme.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree. But, I think the opposite is true, the ZBS wasn't matched to Sims' strengths.
Which meant, arguably, since he was more valuable to another team with another system, than he was to us, and that 2010 draft extra rich with the flock of underclassmen jumping in to get a payday before a slotting system is put in place, that even though we could be more than fine with Sims, his value to us was greater as a trade piece.
by jacobstevens on Sep 8, 2010 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions
The ZBS wasn't matched to Sims' strengths?
Hm. That may be true, that doesn’t suggest that Sims couldn’t succeed in it, because he has.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 9, 2010 11:04 PM PDT up reply actions
My feeling is they want starters
and only starters on the team. If you’re not going to start or in the future starting there is no point in keeping you. They don’t want career backups.
Josh Wilson was awesome – but is a back up corner. He was never going to beat Trufant and T-3 who was drafted to start whether that was now or later.
Tapp was good but not a starter.
Housh – Not in this teams long term plans so why have him steal gametime and reps from receivers who will be this teams future.
The rest had been given a chance to prove themselves and PC didn’t see them as being on this teams future so he cut them to give other people a shot at being on this team. I suspect this process will continue throughout the next couple of years.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
Almost the entire team can be viewed as not a starter now or not a starter in the future.
And can we stop saying Wilson was a back up? He started the second most games of any Hawks corner over the past two years.
But he's not going to start over Tru or T3
that’s why I think he was expendable.And yes the entire team is expendable, that’s the point.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
I totally agree with you on the Josh Wilson part
I hated seeing him go, but unfortunately he’s a free agent after this year. T3 seems to be the guy they want to start opposite of Trufant. There’s a lot more important things to be spending money on than a talented 3rd corner with the team in the shape it is in now. I’m sure if the Carroll and Schneider could be completely candid they would admit that this will probably make the 2010 Seahawks slightly worse but picking up an extra pick and getting extra playing time for a long term contributor without giving up anyone that will contribute beyond this year is simply the best thing for the long term health of the team.
Personally I couldn’t be more excited with the moves. I’m huge fans of quite a few of the guys that have been cut or traded since Carroll took over, but I’m a bigger Seahawk fan than I am of the individual players. These moves tell me that Carroll knows exactly what he wants for his plan. It doesn’t matter how talented you are, only perfect system fits are being kept. That’s how great teams are made. A well choreographed team will defeat a more talented mess of misfit talent 9 times out of 10.
See, the thing is,
Wilson was a reliable #2 corner, and was solid as a #1 corner when injuries occurred.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Pete Carroll doesn't want great #2 corners
He wants great # 1 starters. Always have someone working hard to take over your position.
Punks jump up to get beat down.
I don't want Matt Hasselbeck, I want Peyton Manning.
I don’t want BMW and Branch and Tate, I want Andre Johnson and Megatron and Fitz. When does reality come in? We start real games in less than a week and I don’t think I can get all those guys onto the Seahawks in time.
Thank you, Walter Jones.
Thank you, Ken Griffey Jr.
by thebyron on Sep 7, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
What would you call Thurmond and Jennings?
Neither are clear #1 starters – at least not yet for Thurmond, but thus far the evidence doesn’t indicate that.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Why not
When we drafted him, the scouts said that prior to his knee injury he would have been a late first rounder. It looks like he has a great recovery and it isn’t an issue. He is showing that he will be the next #1 corner.
Then hopefully we draft another Trufant. Good thing there is one about two years away from the draft and better than the original version.
Because, thus far in the preseason, he hasn't shown us that he isn't a clear cut number #1 corner.
That’s not to say that he can’t or won’t become one. Just that the evidence doesn’t suggest that at this point.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 9, 2010 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
He is a rookie
Not many rookies do that. Especially if they aren’t first rounders who are constantly talked about and shown on film by the commentators. Clearly the coaches saw it.
I agree with you on this.
However I can say for sure that Wilson’s size didn’t fit the profile that Schneider and Carroll are looking for. Schneider had a great deal of success with the pair of 6’1 corners in Al Harris and Charles Woodson and it’s been repeatedly stated that Carroll has always preferred larger corners. Thurmond fits the physical profile and while he was picked in the 4th round, we all know the kind of talent he possesses if he can avoid further injury.
The reason we traded him is because he is a talented player, there was just simply no spot for him going forward. It seems to me that if we don’t have a long term fit we want cheap and easily replaceable. If your not a system fit long term, but talented (Tapp, Wilson etc.) try and squeeze all the value out of them in the form of draft picks and add system depth.
I know we hate seeing some of our favorite players leaving us, but the stock piling of mid-late round picks is extremely useful in a complete overhaul of a franchise. This allows us to target young players that fit our system in masses so that in positions that are filled by franchise cornerstones we have a revolving door of cheap players that may not be stars but because they fit in so well they are able to overcome a potential lack of talent and still be a valuable. It might not be as sexy as having a Josh Wilson on the roster but it’s more effective.
I can buy into the argument that Schneider prefers bigger corners
But as for Carroll, I have seen nothing that indicates that.
Other than that, it’s a great post and I can agree with the reasoning if it’s true as to why a lot of the Seahawks’ younger players were moved.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Correct
But that’s why he was expendable. He was never going to be a starting #1 or #2 starter on this teams. Unless like you said an injury occurred.
He was a starter as a #2 on this team, even without injuries.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Not on what Carroll and Schnieder envision
They didn’t see him as a starter. Thats the main difference. They see a nickle corner and one who will cost a lot of money in the offseason. Thats it. Even if he was a RFA we would have had to offer him a tender to get the pick, which is a gamble. This was cleaner and better for all sides.
It's assumptive to think that Wilson would have cost a lot of money after the season. We can't know that.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 9, 2010 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions
It is completely speculative
I’m guessing its not a guess for the FO. They talk to agents and know what type of money they are going to go after.
He still was not an above-average starting CB.
He was good enough to be a starter, had some limitations, and we all like his strengths. I do think he is still getting better, not sure where his ceiling is as a starter though.
What do you mean by average...?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Wilson was fighting with Jennings to play
Not Trufant.
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
Interesting article which somewhat supports your claims in this post:
Cutdown Fallout in an Uncapped Year
Red Bryant: surprise us!
They replaced quite a few guys with older players
The “they’re just getting younger!” claim doesn’t stick
I would say most of those are just place holders
League min guys who can play at a little below average level and go away when a younger guy shows up and no one will miss them.
There is logic in every move, even if we can't see it
Carroll and Schneider are smart guys. I believe that. I trust that they have a plan. I prefer blowing up the roster and starting over vs. fielding mediocre teams for years, so like most of what I see. They are human and will make mistakes. Whitehurst might be their first big one, or he could replace Hass as the starter in the near future and Hass may be donning a differenct uniform next season. Only time will tell. My guess is that they are targeting a strong armed mobile QB early 1st round next draft. Whitehurst is insurance, a place holder, with potential upside. Hence only the 2 year deal. I’m less concerned about the $10MM than the draft picks, but they had to do something and at the time he may have indeed been the best option. If he becomes a legit starter who can take the team into the playoffs, the picks were more than justified. If he is gone in 6-18 months, it will have to be judged as a mistake, because they could have provided the insurance and place holder with Anderson, Lossman (pick one of numerous others) without sacrificing the picks.
Here's what I want to know. Even though I was not very high on blowing up the roster, and I would be OK with it if they felt they needed to...
Why did they wait to do the biggest shake up a week before the season started rather than before free agency or before the draft?
Then, I can also understand blowing up the roster to get younger, but that is not the case, as many of the young players that the Seahawks got rid of were replaced with older players.
Actually, my feeling is that the Seahawks are targeting an accurate quarterback that can throw on the move. If you think that sounds like Whitehurst, then you’d be correct.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 9, 2010 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Just like the FO said, its the second draft
Getting younger was at most a tertiary concern. They wanted to shed some money and pick up some prospects while doing it. Did we get better? Maybe on the margins. Will it help week 1? Probably not. The o line will suffer continuity. But we are continuing to posture for the off season.
What did these moves have to do with the QB situation?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
