Seahawks trade CB Kelly Jennings to the Bengals for DT Clinton McDonald
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 11:34 AM PDT
in Seahawks News & Rumors
Email
PrintNot too long after signing Kelly Jennings to a 1-year, $1.8 million contract, the Seahawks have traded the former 1st round pick to the Cincinnati Bengals, as announced by the Seahawks. Kelly Jennings has always got a lot of fan ire and this pre-season has been a good reminder why, as he simply looked out of his league going up against #1 or #2 wide receivers. He has a role to fill in the NFL as a quick slot corner, which I would assume the Bengals want him for, but we have a ton of options in the secondary. I personally expected Jennings to stick because we don't quite have anyone with his shifty makeup to cover the quick slot receivers of the world, but looks like I was wrong. The FO might have someone in mind for that role, or put Pinkard on it as he is taking over for Babineaux who often played slot coverage for us. Jacson was speculating on Jennings getting cut before this trade happened, so we're not losing a ton of value here.
In return, we get a 2009 7th rounder in Clinton McDonald. McDonald has played all of 8 games of season football in his career, getting only four total tackles. He racked up a handful of tackles against the Lions and a half-sack against the Jets this pre-season. He's 24 years old and Pete Carroll and John Schneider might see something they like.
Looking at the Cincy Jungle post on the pick, it seems McDonald scouts as a pure pass-rusher, undersized and bad against the run. He's got great work ethic and is a tremendous athlete, turning heads at his pro-day, though he did not get a combine invite. but at 6'2 and 283 pounds is definitely undersized for an interior linemen (pro day weight, he's listed as 297 on Bengals.com). He could see time as rotational depth on different spots on the line, including end and 3-tech. I don't know if he's more as a camp body which is certainly the first impression you'd get, but considering our depth at the 3-tech he might just stick. Pro Football Focus notes that from their game charting McDonald had two QB hits on 20 pass-rushes, which is good, but he didn't look as good on 39 snaps defending the run.
220 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mike Brown is the worst owner in the NFL.
I don't have a gun, but if I did, I would shoot a baby deer in the mouth and feel nothing. Louis CK
by Lo Pann on Aug 29, 2011 11:37 AM PDT reply actions 6 recs
Al Davis would probably do something similar if he was in that situation
1) Brown
2) Davis (but not too far behind)
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Aug 29, 2011 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Every year it's neck-and-neck between these two in Michael Silver's owner rankings--
but this year Silver isn’t doing his rankings, so if memory serves, Brown retains worst-owner status by default.
By the way, Silver’s annual column is a must-read.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
mike brown has never paid to retire one players number
its the reason there are several bengals on the field this year wearing numbers from guys that have hall of fame stats. brown is an abomination of frugality to the extreme.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
There is a cost to retiring a number?
Is it for the ceremony?
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
And yet, he could probably make another ~$10M/year selling stadium naming rights
but instead has chosen for years to keep it named after his father.
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 29, 2011 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions
its the only class move he's ever managed
of course that stadium you speak of, the deal was rated the worst city contract in all of sports. he mugged the city of cincy badly. so keeping the stadium named after his father, he can do.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
And Davis at least has won...
. . . Won a lot, won SBs, and been in contention. The Ben-gals? Not as much.
Davis used to be a great owner
Before he slipped into what he is now, Brown has always been an idiot
actually the bengals were from 68-89
an entirely different team. one that was always in contention in the toughest division in football and tended to come in 2nd most seasons with one of the top defenses in the nfl. with a coach/owner who is in the hall of fame. don’t confuse paul brown’s bengals with mike browns team.
2 different creatures.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
by palewook on Aug 29, 2011 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
sorry, fat thumbs
1.8 might be the key number.
Maybe they brought Jennings back only to remember why they brought in so many CBs this offseason to begin with.
Now use the 1.8 towards something useful!
by vertigoman on Aug 29, 2011 11:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Or.. maybe they got him for his Ankles...
I am hearing good things about this guys Ankles. Okung needs a pair, this guy will do just fine.
How long is the recovery time for an Ankle replacement surgery?
There's some question now whether that was all guaranteed anyway.
But it’s moot now.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Not the Seahawks-Bengals trade people were predicting, eh?
Nevertheless, it’s basically a free trade for us, since we signed Jennings and then traded him away. McDonald is young and has some upside, so hey…
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
EXACTLY.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 29, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
My thinking is that they decided they were going to cut him.
Might as well try and get something out of it. This McDonald guy isn’t super impressive, but Joe Goodberry (Bengals beat guy) is pissed about losing him so that’s nice.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 29, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but I really like the fools golden Tate reference.
Pyrite Tate it is.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Man, Jennings has to be pissed.
Passed up multi-year deals to sign here on advice from his agent. And we turn around and trade his ass to the bungles.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Aug 29, 2011 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Unless Jennings OK'ed it,
it was kind of a dick move that could hamper our ability to sign guys in the future. Maybe should have just cut him, instead of jacking him out of his free agency.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He really should fire Agent 86.
Anyone? Anyone…?
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
by shams on Aug 29, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Only if the other Maxwell doesn't make the team.
Oh, and a point for you.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Had to look it up. Well done!
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Aug 29, 2011 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions
So Jennings will be playing in Cincinnati, for the bungles, owned by Mike Brown, coached by Marvin Lewis, playing against the Steelers and Ravens four times a year...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand loving it.
by John Edwards on Aug 29, 2011 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don't think you get it.
Come, step over here and let me explain the joke to you…
by John Edwards on Aug 29, 2011 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Excellent!
I was hoping that Jennings was only a camp body this year. I didn’t know if that nightmare would ever end. Now we just need to flush “Bronze” Tate, and maybe we can focus on moving forward…
So Much for the Jennings Era
5 seasons, and plenty of grey hairs. Thanks Kelly!
Win Forever: Live, Work and Play Like a Champion
Goodbye, turtle arms.
And Mike, while we have you on the phone…
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 11:48 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Something for a look trade?
We traded Kelly Jennings (marginal something) for the chance to look at Clinton McDonald (nothing special)? I guess PC/JS believe that the newcomers have caught up to Kelly Jennings in the depth chart. Really though…a marginal 1st rd pick for a 7th rounder? Couldn’t the front office do better then that?
It wasn't cause of lack of asking.
Carson?
Carson?
Carson?
Carson?
No?
Ok, we will take Clinton.
by goatweed on Aug 29, 2011 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
brown wouldn’t trade carson for a 1st round pick, he has to sit on palmer until he has no trade value, then he’ll trade palmer for a 5th/7th rounder
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
Ahem. Please use the subject line on this site.
BUT…thanks for coming. :)
I’m super high on Benson behind that line (nice work getting slim, Andre Smith!) and I’m drafting for FF tonight. Just thought I’d share.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
gl on drafting benson
he turns 29 this year, averaged 3.5 yds per carry last year, and the o-line lacks depth.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
I picked up Benson on the whole "someone has to carry the ball" logic
Somewhere in round, I dunno…uh…seven?
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions
29...when you put it that way, he sounds old.
Still, uh, contract year?
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Wow, love the timing on this
Just sentenced to 20 days in jail while settling two separate assault charges.
Anything over a 10th round pick is overpaying at this point.
Hmm...sentence to be served when?
He has looked really good and the Bengals S.o.S. for the first five games is the numero uno most favorable for the ground game in da league. Thanks for the tip but I still doubt his ADP falls to the 10th round.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Plea agreement allows him to serve time in the bye week
And it’ll be cut down to one week if he behaves. Barring a suspension, he should be fine.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
If they were going to cut Jennings anyway, and the way he ahs been targeted in the preseason suggests they should,
Then they did good getting any player. If this guy is a quick penetrating 3 tech that works well on 3rd and 6+, all the better.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Probably not, no.
Jennings has been pretty bad. The fact we got anything at all for him is nice.
No, they couldn't
Player-for-player trades always happen around cut-downs for fringe guys, it’s basically just trading first looks at guys you would want if they’re dropped into free agency.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
So basically, you are saying
that Clinton McDonald was going to get cut from the Bengals, so we give up a former 1st rd pick to get first dibs on the guy?
I'm saying Kelly Jennings was going to get cut at a point we had a lot of depth
So we gave him up to get a look at a young guy at a position of need.
You seem to think 1st round pick confers some kind of eternal value on Jennings. He’s entering his 6th season in the NFL and has well established himself to be at best a decent nickel corner and a huge liability at CB1 or CB2. Him being a 1st round pick back when doesn’t change that
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
AGREED on Jennings value
but to give up on “at best decent nickel corner” for an unknown. Yes, I understand Jennings was most likely to get cut and him being a former 1st rounder has no merit. But couldn’t the FO get a better deal? I guess not …. thus the trade.
It's more than we got for Lofa, who certainly seemed to have more value.
by Kryten on Aug 29, 2011 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
perfect example
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Aug 29, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I guess you must be right then, we should have kept Jennings, cut him and got nothing, or only traded him for a corrosponding first rounder.
Yes, I snarked. sorry. I don’t want anybody raining on the party that is Jennings departure.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions
I could careless that Jennings got traded
I have an issue with the FO under valuing players. They did it with Mebane and the initial tender offer before the lock out. I believe they also did it with Lawrence Jackson.
Lawrence Jackson 2010 season with the Lions wasn't much better than his 2009 season in Seattle.
He’s more of a rotational guy now and he plays on a beastly D-line. I don’t miss him.
by StealthHawk on Aug 29, 2011 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Have you seen Mebane's contract?
He was a free-agent and stayed with us. They obviously did not undervalue him.
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Aug 29, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
By tendering him they had right of first refusal if the tendering rules had actually applied.
Other wise I think Mebane worked out perfectly. Would you rather he was franchised?
Just because Ruskell took Jennings/Lojack/Curry/Spencer in the first round does not confer that value upon them to 31 other teams.
I would give more credence to your musings if you would propose an alternative. What do you think LoJack could have brought, and from who?
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
uh oh, this oughtta be good
Okung - Gallery - Unger - Moffit - Carpenter
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Aug 29, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
You wouldn't have gotten more for LoJack
I think the idea is that they should have kept him instead.
No franchise, but not for original round (3rd)
for a few more $$$ they could have up it to a 1st or a 1st and 3rd.
LoJack could have possible gotten more value in Chicago, because Ruskell is there. Just as we got value from Seneca from Cleveland, via Holmgren.
And just like we got value for Rob Sims via Holmg--
—wait a sec.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
We signed Mebane for 5 years
for about twice what it would have cost us to franchise him.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
I love that people forget multiple tender levels
1st and 3rd – highest level
1st -next highest
Original rd. – lowest level
I hated that Mebane was offered the lowest tender amount.
And yet on the open market, it was only us and Denver bidding for Mebane
Maybe, just maybe, this front office had a pretty good idea of the demand out there for Mebane. They were shopping him, that is clear.
Tender him at first and third and nobody even sniffs at him.
And please do not assume that I or anyone else “forgot” about the tender levels. In fact, the highest tender is Franchise, which calls for two first rounders in trade.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I think Chicago and St. Louis had some interest as well
but it’s not clear how much.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Or maybe we just got lucky. Who is to say?
I think LostLeader’s point (which I’m not saying you missed but is worth emphasizing) is that assigning too-low a tender to a player isn’t only a mistake if it turns out we lose that player, a la Steve You-know-who-tchin-son. Maybe we got lucky.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Yeah, I don't hear that nearly enough.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Okay, but in the specific case of Hutch the Vikings dropped in some stuff in Hutch's contract that you flat-out can't do anymore.
And the Seahawks, of course, forced the NFL’s hand by doing it right back to them with Nate Burleson. In Hutch’s case it was some huge bonus he got if he played 6 or more games in Seattle in any one year or something like that (we got a bit more creative with Burleson if memory serves). Had Minnesota abided by the spirit of the rules, Seattle would have matched the contract and Hutch would have played alongside Walt for another 5 years.
So no, actually, I don’t see that as a mistake either.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 29, 2011 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually, if memory serves me
Hutchinson poison-pill was that he was the highest paid OL men on the team or else the whole deal was guaranteed. The way the deal was structured the $$$ was below Walters, so if the Seahawks matched the entire contract would have been guaranteed.
Hurch knew of the poison-pill and signed it wanting to leave.
In addition...
If Hutch wasn’t the highest paid O-lineman at the time of the signing, the entire amount was guaranteed. Jones restructured to accomodate, but the team scientists screwed up by failing to invent a time machine.
He wanted to go back home
and hunt. It’s a bummer, because we had a window for another super bowl.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Correct.
The term that Johnny Slick mentioned — no more than x games per year played in a given state — was Seattle’s term in the Burleson deal, and it amounted to basically forcing the league’s hand by including a patently artificial clause. The highest-paid-o-linemen clause was quite defensible by comparison. At any rate, Ruskell should have known better than to use the Transition Tag, as we’re all aware, but don’t tell mangolover I said that.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
I think neither one was terribly defensible.
In fact, I think Seattle made theirs utterly ridiculous on purpose, to spite Minnesota in particular but also for the rest of the league to say “oh crap, that’s going to negate the transition tag entirely unless we add more rules.”
I don’t think the Transition Tag is that bad of an idea if you want to gauge how much the league thinks a player is worth, particularly if, for instance, the player’s estimate of his worth is wildly different from yours. The danger in doing it is that you might be the one underestimating the guy or else one team has decided he is worth a lot more than you thought he was and you have to choose between overpaying and letting him go for nothing. On the flip side, as implied by the full franchise thing, you’re never going to get teams offering market value for a guy if they also have to give up 2 first round picks for him, so in this situation that particular tag is all but worthless – yeah, you get to keep the guy for a year, but you also get an entire year of the guy complaining or at least thinking that he’s getting the shaft from you.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 29, 2011 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
You do realize pretty much everyone knew almost for sure the new CBA would negate the RFA tenders for 4+-year players?
It wasn’t guaranteed, but it was pretty much a sure thing, and everyone knew that
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
"...everyone knew that..."?
Everyone knew there’d be an 18 game season too.
No, that was a point of speculation
The old CBA had a 4-year UFA system in place and it was only the temporary anomaly between CBAs that left us with a ton of restricteds in the 2010 season. There was no reason to believe the restricted nature would be applied beyond year 4
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Transition tag
not RFA.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
But what was the whole point of the poison-pill clause if not to foil Seattle's right to match an offer?
I’m confused.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Transition tag gives you the right to match the offer, like a franchise tag, but doesn't give you any picks if you fail to match the offer
Transition tags are basically right of first refusal tags, cheaper than franchise tags
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions
He hasn't yet
Its not clear whether that’s his choice (looking for a multiyear deal for more than the vet minimum) or the teams’ (don’t want to sign him for more than the vet min).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
What does the fact that Jennings was a "former first round pick" have to do with anything?
He was awful. You don’t keep him simply because Ruskell took him in the first round.
by Kyle Rancourt on Aug 29, 2011 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Really, anything for that turd was a miracle. Kelly Jennings is so bad, only a team as crazy as the bengals would decide he was worth trading for.
by David Kelley on Aug 29, 2011 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions
Subject line must be used
them is the rules, David Kelley. Don’t make us trade two Kell(e)ys in one day.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
I hope you're not thinking of trading me too.
Proactive-like-Nonstop
FIELDGULLS
by Danny Kelly on Aug 29, 2011 12:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes! Traded for goatweed, high upside.
The days will start with daily tweets from Curry instead of a list of useful articles.
Speaking of which, what happened today? I was on the john this morning and I had nothing to read on my iPad. Could barely squeeze one out.
by goatweed on Aug 29, 2011 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Read Bleacher Report
That’ll get your bowels moving
by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 29, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Depends on what we can get for you
A couple up-and-coming bloggers for depth and a conditional draft pick sounds about right.
'Tis a black day for the Kell(e)ys
I've got ridiculous upside.
-
Twitter: @JacsonBevens
by Jacson Bevens on Aug 29, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Damn.
I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
by David Kelley on Aug 29, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Never go cold turkey
wean yourself off with glue stic
by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 29, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Say hi to Michelle Pfeiffer for me.
And by “say hi” I mean…
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
two clubs traded guys that were getting cut
happens. nothing crazy about it.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
Somthing for nothing
with 5 years worth of NFL game tape on Jennings, I’m surprised we got anything for him. Maybe he could be used as a nicle back to cover a slot guy, but he has no ball skills so opposing QBs will target him, I’m just glad I don’t have to watch him get burned time and time again, let some of these young guys with potential get some experience.
This does exacerbate the youth/inexperience problem in our secondary
It’s just Trufant and Bigby now as vets with a shot at making the team, barring further trades/FA pick-ups. Bigby is still a fringe guy. Young secondaries tend to spell problems even if you have amazing talent there (just look at the Patriots of the past few years).
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 11:57 AM PDT reply actions
Too much youth is a problem for teams that want to compete
We’re going to have a lot of growing pains this year across pretty much the whole team.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions
And this isn't to say that veteran leadership isn't helpful
but hopefully Tru (and maybe Atari) can be sufficient.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 29, 2011 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
and the reply button is your friend
Don’t worry, I am new here too. Still learning myself.
by Harvey Manfrengenson on Aug 29, 2011 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Good.
You should always be learning yourself.
by David Kelley on Aug 29, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Man, this place has it all!
Posting etiquette tips, English lessons. I am sold on this being the best Seahawks forum out there!
by David Kelley on Aug 29, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
You strike me as a very confused individual..
Welcome aboard. The misspelled “Kelly” will hand you the Kool Aid.
If Memory Serves
Last year it was the tall(er) receivers that seemed to be beating us consistently. e.g…… Bowe, Nicks, Roddy White. Jennings couldn’t cover any of the tall guys anyway. He’d just get outmuscled because he’s so slight. Maybe with Browner and Press Coverage, the Seahawks D will hopefully make jumpballs an actual contest this year. I think the first preseason game where he was obliterated by Vincent Jackson confirmed for Carroll and co. that Jennings wasn’t the guy that they wanted to slot in as # 3. Forget “help over the top” let the DB battle to make a play and (hopefully) knock it away or possibly even intercept it, instead of solely having the ability to rope in the receiver after an additional 10 yard gain (after the catch) as Jennings repetitively showed. Jenning is suited towards being a nickelback in this league that might be able to handle Welker or an Amendola for 3 or 4 quarters. Jennings shouldn’t be expected to be anything more than that/ Thankfully he’s now the Bengals’ problem.
Unfortunately
We have to play good QB’s this year, so they’ll just crush us outright as opposed to by size.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 29, 2011 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I fear you're right...
Young secondary and all. But hopefully some individual battles will be won. I just hope that in the games we lose, it’s at least an exciting contest as opposed to one of the numerous blowouts that we witnessed last year. However, that said….. Any Given Sunday….. Right?
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
Superbowl 46 here we come!
From the initial comments at Cincy Jungle, they seemed to like the guy
I guess we’ll see him in game 4?
Fits a need we have no one currently good or even servicable at
Passing rushing at the interior. I don’t expect to ever see him in on run downs. If he really does end up being good at pass rushing, awesome pick up.
Is Clint McDonald...
Chocolate Craig Terrill? :)
I kid, but it sounds from the write-up that he brings the same basic skill set to the table. A rotational tackle, who could get some passing down burn.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Aug 29, 2011 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
But can he sing?
I don't have a gun, but if I did, I would shoot a baby deer in the mouth and feel nothing. Louis CK
Not that this deal clinches it exactly...
but Pete and John are going “all in” on the rebuild if that wasn’t already obvious. And in truth, that’s what we need to be doing. We need to move our focus off the “winnable division” booby prize, and let the guys who are likely to be part of the next competitive team get on the field and take their lumps.
(For the record, I don’t think either Whitehurst or Jackson will be part of said “next competitive team” either.)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Agreed, there's zero downside to this
The rebuild goes on and Kelly was never going to be a part of it. Every OC in the West is sulking a bit today, because the gameplan for beating us through the air for the last five years has been to throw it up high against 21. Whether or not McDonald sticks is irrelevant, it’s still the right move to make
funny point
OC’s are sad… Well they’ll pick on the guy.
by paul2 on Aug 31, 2011 5:35 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
What about Roy Lewis?
I don’t know how long he’s going to be out but Lewis is someone (IIRC) who performed well in nickel situations last year and is a guy I’m certain is in the Hawk’s future plans, despite the lohjam at corner. Getting rid of Jennings seems to me a way to open space for Lewis to come back painlessly.
Certainly a factor, yes
Babineaux and Lewis rotated at the nickel depending on who was in the slot. I’d expect Pinkard and Lewis to continue to do so if Lewis comes back
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not even sure Bigby makes the 53
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Dang it, getting my non-DK authors confused again.
Jacson wrote the 53 man article, you wrote the Jennings trade article. Sorry
From what I've read as well, Lews is the new Milloy in the locker room.
He doesn’t have the resume that Lawyer had, but he seems to be that veteran presence and vocal leader that Milloy was. He is also great with the fans, at the two practices I’ve been to, one this year and one last, he would be talking it up(not just signing silently) with the fans and waited till everyone there got an autograph.
I recall him being quite a solid player at the nickel last year too. I look forward to having him back and very much believe he has place on this team.
by Dizzy Saturn on Aug 29, 2011 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Veteran presence?
I think people forget how young he is. He was an UDFA back in 2008, he is 26 years old fer Pete’s sake.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions
You can't measure leadership!
He’s got it in spaaaaaaaades
by Stay Off the Flowers on Aug 29, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Point taken. Still that is pretty damn old in our secondary.
Only Tru and Bigby, who I’m still not entirely convinced will make the team, have more NFL years under their belt.
by Dizzy Saturn on Aug 29, 2011 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, this oughta make Mike Zimmer feel better about losing Johnathan Joseph.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
So he's the anti-Colin Cole?
Also from Jonathan Joseph to Kelly Jennings? Ouch!
$1.8 million
is way too much for a backup CB. This move clears some cap space which is always a good idea. We can pick up another FA next off season with the money we save.
This doesn't save any money for next offseason
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions
In the new CBA doesn't teams have to spend 90%+
of the salary cap each year. There is no saving of $$$.
I thought...
That didn’t take effect for awhile.
Anyone that thinks Yuniesky Betancourt outplayed anyone last year, you're a moron, and I hope your genes are stricken from the world to prevent further breeding.
Nope
2011 and 2012 season have no salary floor. There’s a league-wide 99% cash spending that is resolved by performance bonuses at the end of the year, then in 2013 the cash spending drops to 95% and an 89% floor is put in place. No floor right now.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I'd pay that to a good backup CB for a year, easily.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Aug 29, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Or rather, for a nickel CB
Nickel CBs are going to see the field more and more in the NFL. The Eagles have three starting CBs and they want three starting CBs. That’s just the reality of the NFL now. Getting a good nickel CB for $2 million is decent.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
O/T: Chester Taylor is getting dumped by the Bears.
But this post is not about Chester Taylor.
Can we get an Omnibus FA thread to discuss potential suitability as Seahawks for all these players about to get shitcanned by their teams?
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
Can you call it "Etude in taupe" or something retardedly pretentious?
I’m in a mood.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
by shams on Aug 29, 2011 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How bout Opus in Nuclear Cabbage?
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Aug 29, 2011 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions
taylor is going to be a solid backup for someone
bears did a crappy job of using him
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
HA! LAY! LOO! YUH!
I couldnt give two fucks bout the correct way to spell halelujah right now. Im trippin on happiness. I saw a Cincy fan sayin Mcdonald was a up and comer but I couldnt care less how good he is at the moment. Schnieder can trade the untradeable
I'd rather see another DB get toasted than continue to see it happen to Jennings.
At least there will be hope that the player(s) will improve with some time and experience and show at least a shred of ball-awareness/skills.
2011: Building the Trenches.
Kelly Jennings GONE?
“For the first time…in the last three weeks I am really….proud of my football team.”
whats the story on him?
soft in zone or man-to-man?
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
Decent in coverage and can typically run with receivers, but doesn't have any ball awareness.
He’s also not very strong and is often muscled off the ball by physical WRs. It will often look like he’s got a WR blanketed only to see the WR make the catch over him with Jennings never knowing the ball was in the air.
Basically you can march down the field on him by throwing jump-balls to a 6’2 receiver all day.
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 29, 2011 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Third opinion, same as the two above me...
But if a QB won’t throw to a “covered” receiver, then KJ just might be your man. He can cover just fine.
He's a dwarf. A little person.
In a league of giants.
by Michael Harp on Aug 30, 2011 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Not true
He’s pretty much exactly the same size as WT3 (maybe a couple pounds shy) and solidly in the middle third of CBs in terms of height (that aren’t fringe guys). Jennings’ struggles have nothing to do with his height.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 30, 2011 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
JOIN US
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/8/29/2391888/seahawks-roster-cuts-free-agency-news-rumors#comments
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2011/8/29/2391888/seahawks-roster-cuts-free-agency-news-rumors#comments
"Beware challenger
Thou hath angered Hawku fan
COME AT ME THOU FOOL"
Hmm, which link to click?
I’m having a Buridan’s Ass moment. Seriously, I could die of internet starvation right here.
If you're not sure if there's a quarterback controversy, there is one.
AWWWWW YEEEEAAAHHHH
One Terrill down, one Jennings to go...
Follow the llama tail
by Wayward Llama on Aug 29, 2011 2:19 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
My sentiments exactly
This is the Superbowl of cuts right here.
WERE GOING TO DISNEYLAND
by The Great Googly on Aug 29, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
36 reps, 4.83 40 time, 4.46 short shuttle.
Is that good for a D.T. ?
Yes
Suh did 32 reps, 5.03 40, 4.44 shuttle
McCoy had 23 reps, 5.04 40, 4.48 shuttle
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but bench press or no, 280 pounds would have been smallish for a DT in the 1980s.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 29, 2011 2:47 PM PDT up reply actions
He's a converted linebacker
So. Yes.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
280 is, OTOH, Levon Kirkland range for a MLB.
He’s an interesting specimen, we’ll go that far. Perhaps his skillset is particularly good for a backup to Red Bryant for instance. I guess we’ll see. One thing about this front seven: PC seems to value skillsets which aren’t nearly as valuable in other places.
"It's okay to have an open mind, just not so open that your brains fall out." - Carl Sagan (well, a lot of guys)
by Johnny Slick on Aug 29, 2011 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think he can play Red's spot
He’s more of a penetrator than a containment player, and that’s the wrong order for Red. He’d be a situational 3-tech and DE, but not a 5-tech DE, closer to a traditional DE.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Who are we going to complain about now?
Without a pass rush, we need a scapegoat in the secondary.
Oh no.
The scapegoat has to be a pre-PC player, for at least another year. Trufant fits the bill quite well (WTF TRU SUX… GET BROWNR IN THERE)
The identity of the scapegoats have nothing to do with the guy that drafted them
Jennings was a goat long before PC was a twinkle in the eye of Paul Allen.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Aug 30, 2011 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
i'm not only a bengals fan, but long time vikes fan too
minny aint missing T-Jack. hope he works out for seattle. might be decent if given a change of scenery.
" I for one, welcome our new Buffalo overlords. " - Whokebe
Doesn't look like it.
Thanks, though. =)
Finally rid of perpetual losers Craig Terrill and Kelly Jennings!
Follow the llama tail
by Wayward Llama on Aug 30, 2011 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Carpenter
It’s already begun even before Jenkins was traded.
by David Hodgson on Aug 29, 2011 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions
I get it, Kelly Jennings wasn't liked by anybody and everybody is happy to not have him as a starting CB
but does this move actually make us better or did it just save the Seahawks FO some $$$. (Kelly Jennings was likely not going to start at CB and his contract was only for 2011)
I’m not happy about this move because to me it seems like the Seahawks were just trying to make some money by sacrificing depth at CB.
Sacrificing depth at a spot where we're loaded with young talent to get a young talent at a spot where we have almost no talent?
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Do you really have that much faith in any of the CB on our roster to be good?
I see a lot of question marks. Jennings isn’t good but at least he is a known quantity. We have a lot of corners but that doesn’t mean its a strength.
I know DL is a concern but is Clinton McDonald likely to get much playing time (or make the 53 man roster)?
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 29, 2011 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
This year? No
But Jennings wasn’t going to be a part of our future long-term anyway, and it seems our FO is dead set on rolling with the punches.
These are both players that weren’t going to make the 53 for their own teams, like as not, so the two teams switched for players slightly more likely to make it. Makes sense.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions
True. We'll have McDonald for a while.
Is he much different than Livingston?
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 29, 2011 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Fairly different. More of a pure pass rusher
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 7:23 PM PDT up reply actions
And that it something we need
if you’ve been following the preseason, I’m sure you noticed.
Finally rid of perpetual losers Craig Terrill and Kelly Jennings!
Follow the llama tail
by Wayward Llama on Aug 30, 2011 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions
He isn't going to solve our current pass rush problems
If he was, he would have done something with the Bengals. Maybe in the future but I wouldn’t expect anything out of him this year.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 30, 2011 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
He's been pointed out
as one of the bright spots of their pre-season. I know it’s the Bengals, but I’ll take it.
Finally rid of perpetual losers Craig Terrill and Kelly Jennings!
Follow the llama tail
by Wayward Llama on Aug 30, 2011 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions
If Jennings was making league minimum would this deal make sense?
If it still makes sense when no 2011 cost saving exist then I’m ok with it. If it only makes sense because the Seahawks wanted to save $1mil in 2011 then it annoys me.
Maybe this deal makes sense even if Jennings wasn’t getting paid much. I’m not sure and very well could be wrong in my stance.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 29, 2011 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions
There is no way this move was made to save $1.8 million, especially since that's a contract we negotiated just weeks ago
And $1.8 million is peanuts.
Formerly Known As Vasilii
by Thomas Beekers on Aug 29, 2011 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I wasn't actually upset
More just sticking by my principles that I want my team to be as good as possible and I don’t care if the owners make money.
by Edgar for Pres on Aug 29, 2011 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions
The only way to have those question marks answered was to see the young guys play
As you say, we know Jennings isn’t good, but his presence was blocking one of the other guys (Sherman, Maxwell, etc) seeing the field. While those guys may prove to be considerably worse, we’d never know by continuing to roll out Jennings 20-30x a game.
by SmartAssCoug on Aug 30, 2011 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions
Oct. 30th suddenly got more enjoyable.
I went whale watching the other day. I think. There were a lot of people in that lake.
So, what...
No big tribute post for Jennings like there was for Hass and Tats
by central_scrutinizer on Aug 29, 2011 9:30 PM PDT reply actions
You haven't read how many of us are thrilled he's gone?
That’s about as “tribute” as he is going to get.
by Michael Harp on Aug 30, 2011 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
