Doug Baldwin Receives an Extension

[SonnyCID]

Those guys were important parts on their SB winning team, all good starters on that roster. I'd say no different than Baldwin is... I didn't go with starters like Maxwell/Clemons/Browner/McDaniel/Smith for the non-core reason even though they were starters 2-3 years ago too.


And it isn't like they replaced them with equal level talent to when Seattle was a SB winning team. If you wanted to say "hey they'll keep 5 really good players, but let the rest move" then fine. But I would say that the reason their offensive line is a big question mark isn't just that they let 4 of the 5 starters leave the past 2 seasons, but they weren't replacing them with similar known talent.

But that's how the NFL is in the cap area, you pick and choose what ones you keep and which ones you put a high priority on replacing with a high pick/big FA, and which ones you hope to get by with a lesser pick/FA.

Important part is not the same as a core player.

Every team is competing with same cap. Some teams lose actual core players, some lose important player. I'll take losing important players and trying to replace them, than losing bonafide studs and trying to replace them. And the Hawks have their share of those players. The comment that kicked this whole thing off was about how a couple years ago, the narrative was that the Hawks wouldn't be able to keep all their core players (which I consider your star players), but they have. Have they made concessions? Sure.

The only real cap casualties they've had were Tate, Maxwell, Sweezy and Giacomini. Guys that they were flat out outbid and their hands were tied. The other losses were about age, trade, or confidence in the depth behind them (which could be argued in Tate's case too). Hell, you mentioned Irvin. He was deemed expendable a year ago when they declined his option. But now he's a big loss?

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Agree no prob at all with that, and you are right, kinda became what they were hoping out of Graham (Red zone threat, security blanket). Def 2nd tier money (14+ is the top tier guys). Cobb, Maclin, Hurns, Vincent Jackson money.

Now for fun, what does Denver do? Sanders is on the books for 5 mil right now but they want to do a deal there. Now his market is clearly around 11+ mil a year, maybe 10 if he does a home town deal. Of course the flip side is it would cost them 19-20 mil to hold his current deal and franchise him after this season, so 10 mil a year.

 

[cdumler7]

Agree no prob at all with that, and you are right, kinda became what they were hoping out of Graham (Red zone threat, security blanket). Def 2nd tier money (14+ is the top tier guys). Cobb, Maclin, Hurns, Vincent Jackson money.

Now for fun, what does Denver do? Sanders is on the books for 5 mil right now but they want to do a deal there. Now his market is clearly around 11+ mil a year, maybe 10 if he does a home town deal. Of course the flip side is it would cost them 19-20 mil to hold his current deal and franchise him after this season, so 10 mil a year.

Unfortunately I do think he is one of our top players that does get away. I can live with guys like Malik and Trevathan and Osweiler as they were good but replaceable players. Sanders though would hurt if he gets away. He has been huge in the biggest moments and really became our go to guy on 3rd down when we needed a catch. At the same time hard to have $12 million a year going to DT and then maybe $10-11 million going to Sanders as well. Just a lot wrapped up in our WR position.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Important part is not the same as a core player.

Every team is competing with same cap. Some teams lose actual core players, some lose important player. I'll take losing important players and trying to replace them, than losing bonafide studs and trying to replace them. And the Hawks have their share of those players. The comment that kicked this whole thing off was about how a couple years ago, the narrative was that the Hawks wouldn't be able to keep all their core players (which I consider your star players), but they have. Have they made concessions? Sure.

The only real cap casualties they've had were Tate, Maxwell, Sweezy and Giacomini. Guys that they were flat out outbid and their hands were tied. The other losses were about age, trade, or confidence in the depth behind them (which could be argued in Tate's case too). Hell, you mentioned Irvin. He was deemed expendable a year ago when they declined his option. But now he's a big loss?

Everyone is competing against the same cap, but when you have a flush of young talent, you are a lot better off than when you have those guys hitting their prime year contracts, which is why so many changes have happened the last couple years.

I don't think anyone said it would be impossible for Seattle to not keep 5 elite players they wanted on that roster if the rest was fair game to throw away. If someone really said that, then yeah they are wrong. I'll agree with you 100% there.

And yes keeping or finding equal replacement for that line which had talented players at the time would be what I would consider keeping a core together. If it's just a difference of what the word means, fine. To me, they had a solid offensive line core. Sweezy, Okung, Carpenter, Unger, Giacomini. I don't think they kept that level of talent together.

My point was when people were saying they'd have a tough time keeping that team together, the options were keep the elite guys together and go more basement prices as other contracts popped up where they have important starters that are not superstars, or keep more players together and let a few top guys fall off.


I would say while they are still a very good team, and their star players you mentioned are playing great, but the team did not look as good overall as they did a few years ago. Call them core players, or solid starters on cap friendly rookie deals, or failures to replace guys who were top talents as they got older with similar performers, but they've taken a step back as a team.


Yes Irvin was a core player (or solid performer on a great D, whatever name you want to give it). They declined his option because it was a huge jump in pay for a team struggling to keep players and stay under the cap as their rookie contracts come up. Like you say, Wilson/Wagner were more important. I agree 100% with you. But he was a 3 year starter. Wasn't like they were sending him to the bench even though they knew that would be his final year there, now the guy that failed to beat him out is the replacement, and instead of a 5 year vet in the system backing up a proven starter, they have a rookie type player backing up an unproven starter.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Unfortunately I do think he is one of our top players that does get away. I can live with guys like Malik and Trevathan and Osweiler as they were good but replaceable players. Sanders though would hurt if he gets away. He has been huge in the biggest moments and really became our go to guy on 3rd down when we needed a catch. At the same time hard to have $12 million a year going to DT and then maybe $10-11 million going to Sanders as well. Just a lot wrapped up in our WR position.

That is... they are going to have to answer some big questions in the receiving dept this year. Where they are going with Sanders (not a fan of Fowler, and Latimer would be a huge surprise if he doesn't bust). And TE. I know they like Heuerman, but the guy hasn't produced at a great level since he was in high-school.


Kinda makes me wonder if the paying a bit more before a player breaks out is worth it, even if you are stuck with that contract if he busts. Because getting to sign Osweiler after Bradford, Von after Vernon and Cox, and now Sanders after guys like Hurns and now Baldwin is making it tough for them to stick to their plan. All 3 I think they could have gotten for a lot less if they started working on those deals a bit earlier.

 

[cdumler7]

That is... they are going to have to answer some big questions in the receiving dept this year. Where they are going with Sanders (not a fan of Fowler, and Latimer would be a huge surprise if he doesn't bust). And TE. I know they like Heuerman, but the guy hasn't produced at a great level since he was in high-school.


Kinda makes me wonder if the paying a bit more before a player breaks out is worth it, even if you are stuck with that contract if he busts. Because getting to sign Osweiler after Bradford, Von after Vernon and Cox, and now Sanders after guys like Hurns and now Baldwin is making it tough for them to stick to their plan. All 3 I think they could have gotten for a lot less if they started working on those deals a bit earlier.

Hindsight is always easy to say "they made a mistake." Elway has been negotiating this way since he got to Denver and well I would say so far it has worked out well. The only players that have signed early are the ones that have taken quite a home town discount to stay with the team. So I do think Elway starts negotiating early with a lot more players than people realize he just lowballs them and if they won't sign that then waits until the last possible moment to try again. So far that method has worked out well where they have found cheaper replacements that have for the most part even outperformed the player they are replacing.

Now with Sanders I hope they can get something done but I just don't see it happening. The only reason I have some hope is the fact that after locking up Von Miller they really don't have any other core players coming up for contracts other than Sanders and they still have quite a bit of cap space to make it work. Having a QB on a rookie contract like Lynch gives the Broncos quite a few options cap wise of taking some chances but I could see Elway deciding to go ahead and move on. We have seen quite a few rookie WR's step in and perform well and we will just have to see how the guys on the roster continue to develop. They are from what I have been reading very impressed with the growth of Latimer and Sunshine. Latimer is a better fit for the Kubiak system as he is not the brightest tool in the shed which is why he struggled with Manning who would change the play 3-4 times sometimes at the LOS. So going to the LOS knowing the one play that has been called and it not being audibled like crazy should help him to not have to think quite as much and take advantage of his superior athleticism. Have to see it on the field but I could see the growth of some of our younger guys also being why we haven't locked up Sanders.

Part of what makes the top teams continue to stay at the top is the fact that they let high priced players walk and can find adequate replacements for them. Doesn't mean they always find at the same level or better but at least can fill the hole with a decent player. They are always working to build up the depth and realize the PS and say bottom 10 guys on the roster for the 53-man roster matter more than people think as they are possibly some of the key starters down the road.

 

[GNG]

Remember when everyone on sports SportsHoopla said Seattle would lose the majority of their core players

I don't recall that.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Agree... it's always tougher to keep that talent level where it is because it is so hard to draft and scout in FA at a high level. You hit on a slew of guys to build your team around, you probably aren't doing that with consistency today.

And it's worked both ways...

 

[GNG]

Seattle is lucky SF and LA is in their division this year.

They were in their division last year... Weren't you aware of that?

 

[deanpet21]

They were in their division last year... Weren't you aware of that?

I phrased that wrong. My bad.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Everyone is competing against the same cap, but when you have a flush of young talent, you are a lot better off than when you have those guys hitting their prime year contracts, which is why so many changes have happened the last couple years.

I don't think anyone said it would be impossible for Seattle to not keep 5 elite players they wanted on that roster if the rest was fair game to throw away. If someone really said that, then yeah they are wrong. I'll agree with you 100% there.

And yes keeping or finding equal replacement for that line which had talented players at the time would be what I would consider keeping a core together. If it's just a difference of what the word means, fine. To me, they had a solid offensive line core. Sweezy, Okung, Carpenter, Unger, Giacomini. I don't think they kept that level of talent together.

My point was when people were saying they'd have a tough time keeping that team together, the options were keep the elite guys together and go more basement prices as other contracts popped up where they have important starters that are not superstars, or keep more players together and let a few top guys fall off.


I would say while they are still a very good team, and their star players you mentioned are playing great, but the team did not look as good overall as they did a few years ago. Call them core players, or solid starters on cap friendly rookie deals, or failures to replace guys who were top talents as they got older with similar performers, but they've taken a step back as a team.


Yes Irvin was a core player (or solid performer on a great D, whatever name you want to give it). They declined his option because it was a huge jump in pay for a team struggling to keep players and stay under the cap as their rookie contracts come up. Like you say, Wilson/Wagner were more important. I agree 100% with you. But he was a 3 year starter. Wasn't like they were sending him to the bench even though they knew that would be his final year there, now the guy that failed to beat him out is the replacement, and instead of a 5 year vet in the system backing up a proven starter, they have a rookie type player backing up an unproven starter.

The guys you mentioned on the o-line were injury prone, penalty prone and somewhat average. The line stunk last year but rebounded nicely second half of the season. Only time will tell if they can get off to a better start.

The team looked out sync early on but as they healed, their play got better. So yes they took a slight step back in not making the SB, but what team makes a SB 3 yrs in a row beside the Bills back in the day. A step back to me means a sub .500 record and miss on the playoffs.

Irvin is a very good player but the money needed to be spent in other areas and if you know Seattle well enough, they'll have enough depth to minimize his loss. As you can tell this isn't a team struggling to keep players.

 

[gohusk]

He deserves it. Everybody always talks about the physical shortcomings but he's produced and produced and he's a gamer. Pay the guy. His work ethic and determination have won us games.

 

[gohusk]

Allen is the better WR. Seattle is lucky SF and LA is in their division this year.

I guess they're lucky they play in the NFC because they've been in the SB 2 of the last 3 years and won one of them.

The guy's a key figure in the offense. Some teams get stupid saying locker room guys who also produce aren't worth it because there's some loose cannon that's a freak who has the potential to go 1200+ with 10 TD's is available for the same money. But the fact is that most of those guys just blow up in teams faces. Wilson and him got a good thing going. Why fuck with it?