Trade?

[NorthHawk]

Torrey Smith is 6ft tall and 205 lbs which is 4 inches shorter and 25 lbs lighter than Marshall.
They're not really comparable from a matchup against defenders viewpoint.

[c_hawkbob]

And I believe those top ten receiver days are in the past, and don't feel like Marshall could or would bring more to Seattle than a receiver like Smith, who has the same qualities Marshall does, has performed in an offense like Seattles, it younger, cheaper and doesn't cost a draft pick has played in the post season every year he has been in the league, including a SB.

Like I said I'm cool with all of your feelings on the matter, but mine don't jive with yours.

( on a side note I find it funny that many, took the opposite side on acquiring Marshall when he WAS in his prime, when Seattle WAS throwing the ball, WAS cheaper and more productive, yet now, I once again find myself on the "other" side once again.... LOL I guess when it comes to Marshall, I can't win... )

1- One season removed from a 7 year stretch of stellar production and you believe he's on the decline. OK, you're entitled to believe what you want. Pete's continued interest indicates that he might not share that notion.

2- Being a "top 10" receiver is not really relevant is it? Pete likes guys with unique or unusual skill sets that he can take advantage of in our offensive system. Where that player may rank in a more traditional evaluation isn't really that important.

3- Many were more lukewarm on acquiring Marshall earlier because less was known and understood about his mental health issues. To me he's almost a completely different guy now.

4- This is a discussion, not a contest, there are no winners and losers. We're just a bunch of bored mooks passing time waiting for football season to start back up again ...

[HumanCockroach]

Then why are you trying to win Bob? In most of my repsonses I've made it clear that I have no problem with anyone's position, I just don't share it ( just like I didn't share it when he left Denver and Miami, by the way, that 7 year stretch that was productive is the years, I wanted Marshall for, right?), if the Hawks deem that he is the guy they want, I have also said I can accept it ( unlike the never accepting positions of some in regards to Rice or even Harvin, though they obviously hit on that one) I'm simply explaining my position on it, and why I feel the cost doesn't equate to the value in this circumstance. If Marshall was a FA, cost no picks, and wasn't going to cost 8-10 million dollars a season, my position would be different.

That isn't the situation, so I am saying why I don't want them to make this move. I also haven't endorsed a deal for Suh at 16 million a year or so, though I would have less issue with that move, than this one. Suh at least IMHO is worht the loss of a couple players now and down the road, Marshall isn't. I would prefer Seattle signs Maxwell, than pays Marshall that kind of money, keeps the pick, and signs a younger receiver. I don't see that position as crazy by any stretch of the imagination.

[c_hawkbob]

Not trying to win anything, just countering your position with my own. That's how this whole forum thing works, you say what you think and I say what I think about what you said and then somebody else says what they think about what we said.

I think you're being too quick to close the door on a guy whose productivity has only dipped for a single season during which he had a couple of injuries (neither of which appear to be chronic or ongoing) and his team was a mess, particularly at QB. WR's don't tend to hit a wall or fall off a cliff (or whatever terminology you want to put to it) the way RB's tend to.

And of course I know you're not adamant in your position and are open to whatever the Front Office decides to do, I don't mean to imply that you are, I'm just addressing your repeated insistence that you think he's not the player he was when you did wan' him. I mean, we're not talking about a great passage of time here, it's only been a season.

[NorthHawk]

I can see where HC is coming from, but I don't think Marshall is at the point in his career where he will be on a downward slide. I think big receivers like him can last a few years longer than speed guys who lose a step. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's my opinion.

[HumanCockroach]

Cost+ opportunity in Seattle don't equate in my opinion. When Marshall was being successful, he was receiving at minimum 10 targets a game(typically more), I don't see that happening in Seattle, so I don't see the value to pay 10 million for Doug Baldwin Production, if others do I'm cool with that.

( Bob, you put up "I was trying to win" I wasn't, and I've made that pretty clear I feel. I wasn't attempting to change anyones opinions. I liked Marshall a hell of a lot, and still do to an extent, but only at a price I feel he is worth, and the price at this point, baring him reworking his contract, or the Bears covering a bulk of it, isn't worth the production he might bring IMHO.)

[NorthHawk]

"Cost+ opportunity in Seattle don't equate in my opinion. When Marshall was being successful, he was receiving at minimum 10 targets a game(typically more), I don't see that happening in Seattle, so I don't see the value to pay 10 million for Doug Baldwin Production, if others do I'm cool with that."

If that's your view, then we will never be able to keep a drafted #1 WR after his first contract as we would let him go rather than pay the money he deserves.
I don't happen to agree with that equation, though.

[mykc14]

Cost+ opportunity in Seattle don't equate in my opinion. When Marshall was being successful, he was receiving at minimum 10 targets a game(typically more), I don't see that happening in Seattle, so I don't see the value to pay 10 million for Doug Baldwin Production, if others do I'm cool with that.

( Bob, you put up "I was trying to win" I wasn't, and I've made that pretty clear I feel. I wasn't attempting to change anyones opinions. I liked Marshall a hell of a lot, and still do to an extent, but only at a price I feel he is worth, and the price at this point, baring him reworking his contract, or the Bears covering a bulk of it, isn't worth the production he might bring IMHO.)

His receptions and yards may be similar to Doug Baldwin with a similar amount of targets but his TD's certainly aren't and in my opinion that part wouldn't change. 9 million dollars for 8-10 TD's wouldn't be horrible production, IMO.

[monkey]

And I believe those top ten receiver days are in the past, and don't feel like Marshall could or would bring more to Seattle than a receiver like Smith,

I don't know exactly why you think his top ten receiver days are past, you are certainly entitled to believe that, but I don't see any reason to.
I saw a team in complete disarray and an extremely frustrated receiver as a result. I saw a team which had high expectations because of the talent on one side of the ball, implode when it realized that the "franchise QB" they had just paid huge long term money to, was in fact, reincarnated Jeff George.
That's really not what I wanted to ask you about though, because either, neither or both of us could prove to be right about that one, only time will tell.
What I really wanted to ask about is, did you really mean it when you said you don't feel like Marshall would bring more than Smith would?

Those two are VERY different players. I'm not even quite sure how you could say that...I mean the height difference alone is enough to make anyone evaluating the two, grade Marshall MUCH higher in terms of expectations.

Don't get me wrong, I like Smith, I think he's even been somewhat underrated through most of his career, but I've never even once looked at those two and thought that, they were in any way even remotely comparable.
Smith brings virtually nothing to the table that we don't already have right now, on this very roster.
He'd just be another receiver here, a more polished one admittedly, but one that really brings no more special ability than guys we have on the team who didn't even crack the Super Bowl roster, like Kevin Norwood for example.
Kevin Norwood could quite reasonably be expected to become a reasonable facsimile of Torrey Smith...no reason he couldn't.
Whereas, Marshall is THE prototypical body type for #1 "X" wide receiver. He's the very definition of #1 receiver, and not one receiver on our team is even CLOSE to exhibiting the combination of size, speed and skill set that it would take to become a facsimile of Marshall.
The differences between the two really couldn't be more obvious to me anyway...just saying.

[HumanCockroach]

Smith in my opinion is still growing, in THIS offense he fits better IMHO because he has played on a similar offense, where production isn't directly tied to opportunities, costs about half of what Marshall will, has more experience in big games, excells in the endzone, runs better routes, has more speed, stretches the field more, and has always seemed to me at least to be able to high point the ball in contested situations. There are other areas I feel his game translates better than Marshalls, but over all those are the things I see.

Whether anyone agrees with those opinions or not really doesn't phase me. We went round and round about Marshall Monkey in the PI days, and a large portion of my personal debate in that, was that Seattle ran a pass first offense, which meant more opportunities, and more success, Seattle does not run that offense any longer, and so my priorities shifted with the teams change in philosophy. Do I want a big goal line threat? Of course I do, the only difference here, is that I don't see a 10 million dollar player as necessary to attain that. I'm not one that thinks that having Marshall automatically improves the offense, when the focus is to run the football..

If body "shape" is what everyone desires, Matthews is already ON the team, or there are a number of cheaper options. I don't discredit Marshalls value as a player in the past, nor am I insisting he won't be good in the future ( though I decline to go along with "true number 1 receiver" status that many here say he is, as he wasn't even that the last two years on the Bears, regardless of Cutler forcing it to him) I am weighing cost vs future production I see on THIS team in THIS offense only. He may be able to make hay somewhere else ( GB, Miami perhaps, Denver etc) that has a Pass first philosophy and be worth every penny, Seattle isn't that offense, doesn't adhere to that philosophy, and I'm content with that.

Marshall, isn't going to stretch that field ( if Harvin couldn't Marshall will NOT be able to) nor does he take the top off any longer. If Seattle is looking to spend that capital, and want that type of goal line threat, I would hope they would look to younger players ( Julious Thomas for instance could be had for the money Marshall would cost). Ultimately, I want whats best for this team moving forward, and I don't see Marshall as that guy.

[kalibane]

I would not be in favor of trading for Marshall at his current number. The rumor is that he possibly could be cut. If that happens you have my attention.

I tend to agree with HC that I see Marshall as a guy who will be headed into his decline so I get that part.

What I don't get is why Torrey Smith would be a better fit here. Torrey Smith is a deep threat but he is purely a deep threat. He doesn't win jump balls. He doesn't consistently get open on short to intermediate routes and he doesn't create a physical mismatch. If it's a choice between Smith and Marshall, count me in on team Marshall. This offense hasn't had a big physical safety blanket type WR since Joey J had his career year (and even that is kind of a stretch).

Of all the potential "top" WRs on the market Smith is probably the one I'm least interested in.

[monkey]

Smith in my opinion is still growing, in THIS offense he fits better IMHO because he has played on a similar offense, where production isn't directly tied to opportunities, costs about half of what Marshall will, has more experience in big games, excells in the endzone, runs better routes, has more speed, stretches the field more, and has always seemed to me at least to be able to high point the ball in contested situations. There are other areas I feel his game translates better than Marshalls, but over all those are the things I see.

Whether anyone agrees with those opinions or not really doesn't phase me. We went round and round about Marshall Monkey in the PI days, and a large portion of my personal debate in that, was that Seattle ran a pass first offense, which meant more opportunities, and more success, Seattle does not run that offense any longer, and so my priorities shifted with the teams change in philosophy. Do I want a big goal line threat? Of course I do, the only difference here, is that I don't see a 10 million dollar player as necessary to attain that. I'm not one that thinks that having Marshall automatically improves the offense, when the focus is to run the football..

If body "shape" is what everyone desires, Matthews is already ON the team, or there are a number of cheaper options. I don't discredit Marshalls value as a player in the past, nor am I insisting he won't be good in the future ( though I decline to go along with "true number 1 receiver" status that many here say he is, as he wasn't even that the last two years on the Bears, regardless of Cutler forcing it to him) I am weighing cost vs future production I see on THIS team in THIS offense only. He may be able to make hay somewhere else ( GB, Miami perhaps, Denver etc) that has a Pass first philosophy and be worth every penny, Seattle isn't that offense, doesn't adhere to that philosophy, and I'm content with that.

Marshall, isn't going to stretch that field ( if Harvin couldn't Marshall will NOT be able to) nor does he take the top off any longer. If Seattle is looking to spend that capital, and want that type of goal line threat, I would hope they would look to younger players ( Julious Thomas for instance could be had for the money Marshall would cost). Ultimately, I want whats best for this team moving forward, and I don't see Marshall as that guy.

Smith is still growing, I agree, he's only 26, so to that point, I agree.
I completely disagree that in this offense he would fit better, however. We have guys like Smith already under contract, we don't have anyone like Marshall. Matthews isn't as fast, and isn't nearly the route runner that Marshall is. Marshall has proven his value over a career or outstanding production, Matthews had to get activated to the roster before the game, and has exactly ONE GAME of real production. He's proven nothing yet.

It's not body shape, it's about SKILL SET. It's about having a unique ability. The Seahawks actively scour the market for unique skills. In Marshall's case, what he has that Smith doesn't to the same degree is, the ability to high point the ball over the top of a defender, and a large catch radius, which makes him a superior (to Smith) red zone target.

[Hawk Sista]

I love Brandon Marshall. I love the way he plays (including finishing his blocks) and how courageous he has been to openly address his horrible personal reality. He has, no doubt, positively impacted many people/families by not shying away from public discussion of bipolar disorder...and for the record, he's sooooooo HOT!

That said, I would have to see contract #s (and draft compensation if there is any) before I could comment on this further. Whether or not he is right about his comments about his coaches and team-mates, his very public display on the field and subsequent lambasting was childish and took place just days after I saw the 30-30 piece on him. It seemed this was the exact type of behavior he is working hard to quit. Clearly his issues will be a life-time battle, and I don't expect him or anyone else for that matter, to be perfect. He reacted VERY negatively to not getting the ball, which is a likelihood in our offense. We have been down the prim donna WR road too often for me to like this move. He could have been a Hawk, not once - but twice and opted for greener pastures. So while I am a fan - I hope he goes/stays elsewhere.

PS - I heard the Bears were going to out and out cut him. If they did that and we could get him at a reasonable rate, I may reconsider.

[NorthHawk]

I think his actions were a result of frustration from not winning, and from thinking that his contributions could have made a difference.
I doubt he would be the same if the team was winning.

If he was cut, it might cost us even more. All it takes is one team.

[HumanCockroach]

I guess in regards to Smith I see things differently, and being a freind to a die hard Steeler fan, I've watched far to many "jump ball" situations Smith has indeed won, to dismiss that ability from his game ( especially in big game, endzone passes). Smith is far from "solely a burner" and IMHO runs far better routes than Marshall ever has, Marshall creates seperation with his physical play ( much like Boldin does) and while I agree that is a desirable trait, I simply don't believe that trait is worth 10 million dollars a year and a draft pick.

I obviously do not agree the majority of people that believe Marshall is not on the backend of his "prime" and don't believe for a second that in 3 or 4 years he will be able to replicate any sembelance of his production from 2012 that took 194 targets to produce. Call me overly catious, or a curmugeon, or whatever else you feel I am being, but ultimately, I do not feel the investment meets the production Seattle would be able to receive from Marshall.

I am fully aware that Matthews has only had one game, and I have been honest with my assessment that he "may" help in that regard, and I am certainly not putting all my eggs in that one basket, however, there are "big physical" receivers all over the place ( Norwood, Matthews ON this team) and I haven't honestly seen enough of them to say that they can't effectively fill the role that people want to lose Maxwell, or Okung or some other player over.

I like Norwood in that role a lot, and Matthews certainly hasn't done anything on the field to make me say he is a waste of space ( and as a reminder, not playing a lot this season doesn't sour me on him, as I seem to remember another receiver that happens to play in Detroit now, that spent most of his rookie year inactive as well)... Until I am sure that neither can grow, or contribute this season, or at the very least, flounder on the field when given the opportunity, I am content to wait, have the Hawks sign a medium to low range FA, draft a receiver or two, and see if these guys can develop given a chance ( also interesting that many emphatically stated to improve, a player HAS to play, when Wilson was the topic, yet here, they want to force big athletic strong receivers to the bench, or off the team entirely).

Whatever Seattle does, I'll be OK with, I simply don't like the COST of Marshall ( which is NOT the same as not liking Marshall as a player) I also don't feel like he is right for the offense Seattle runs ( again not the same as not liking Marshall) don't feel he'll get the necessary Targets to even replicate last seasons numbers, and as such, hope they pass on paying that cost for him.

[NorthHawk]

We really only want him for 3 or 4 years, and he won't be thrown the ball enough to get even close to his totals.
No WR in the current Offense will do that - probably not even if we got Dez or Megatron.

Can he be a factor in short yardage situations or the Red Zone? Obviously, yes he can just by virtue of his size.
That ability to draw extra attention or score in the Red Zone can equate to being worth a larger salary even if he never gets more than 50 catches and especially so if 10 are TDs.

[HumanCockroach]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... bile=false

I don't see ten touchdowns as a viable, realistic goal in the offense Seattle runs, do you? He has 10 TD's in three of his 10 seasons, and all of those occured when he received over 165 targets, on pass dominated offenses. Even IF he somehow magically was able to hit that mark, I'm not sure I would think 1 million dollars per TD was a good return.

Realistically, even should Marshall perform at the highest level, in this offense, you are looking at somewhere around 800 - 950 yards a season, with 5-8 TD's, unless they are going to change their philosophy ( or right around DB numbers).

I most certainly would prefer a big athletic target on this team, but I'm not convinced one doesn't already reside here, nor am I convinced one can't be attained at 1/2 the cost should they feel he doesn't.

[Agent 86]

I've often thought how a perceived "#1" WR would do in the 'Hawks offense. Also, how happy he would be. As many have mentioned a guy like Marshall's number would drop dramatically in targets, recpts, and yards. We have been to 2 Super Bowls without this "#1" WR.

That being said, I couldn't help but feel the entire playoffs this year that it would be nice to have that legit red zone target, that legit go to 3rd down target (ADB#89 has done well here, but is not the physical threat needed sometimes).

So a guy like Marshall makes sense from that standpoint. But I lean to the side HCR is on, not sure if he is worth that kind of money if indeed it is done through trade. I like the idea, but not sold on what it may mean elsewhere.

I was also wondering if a guy like Vincent Jackson might be worth looking at? I believe the 'Hawks had interest in him before as well. I know he makes a lot of coin as well, but again, he would be that big target. He seems a little more flakier than Marshall though.

This should be another interesting off season, with RW3's contract being the top dog.

[HumanCockroach]

Players like Marshall, VJackson, Megatron, and Boldin can overpower DBs without pushing or grabbing, and that is what makes them valuable.

Huh? I like all those receivers ( you can add Bryant to that list as well as D Thomas) but not a one og them doesn't push.

Mattews does have a slighter frame, I don't see it as incredibly dissimilar to a player like Green though, though admittedly with less speed and explosion. He is also young, and muscle can always be added (especially a "physical" receiver that is looking to not necessarily utilize speed, but strength).

Boldin has made a career out of pushing and grabbing, Marshall, Mega Tron do more than their fair share in that regard. ( to a lesser extent Jackson) all big receivers due it ( Matthews did so in the SB as well, and showed some polish while doing so)..

Jackson 6'5. 230

Marshall 6'4 230

Matthews 6'5 220

Mega Tron 6'5" 236

Bryant 6'2" 220

Boldin 6'1" 220

Jones 6'3" 220

Green 6'4" 207

If it's body shape you are looking at, Matthews fits right in there. I am not saying he belongs on the same level, but I certainly would be interested in finding out ( since he has only played one game, and seem to do a'ight in that one to me).

[HumanCockroach]

I suppose Browner locked him down ( or that is at least what I keep hearing, though I don't remember Browner covering Matthews but one play in the second half, that was a reception and first down for Matthews) but lets not pretend like that wasn't and isn't Browners strength, he also limited Marshall, Mega Tron etc, Browners weakness is his inability to cover guys like Richardson, smaller, lightning quick guys ( anyone needing refreshers should go back and watch the Colts game, or the Lions from a few years ago).

Even WITH that said, how many Brandon Browners are playing corner in the NFL currently? I didn't see a whole lot of them last season. All the receivers you are saying Matthews isn't like haven't had a ton of success against Browner, and I might add they have had years to perfect their crafts, Matthews had one game and his judgement is done in your eyes? Something seems off there to me.

The BULK of corners playing in the NFL will parallel the corners he was shredding, not the monster that is Browner, ( which I might add is WHERE those you have listed, made their names, and living). I am not saying Matthews is as good as Marshall, or any other "physical" receiver, because to me it takes consistency to reach that level, and Matthews hasn't had an opportunity to do so yet, however, he will NOT be able to do so, or to polish his game, improve, without seeing the field.

It's a "gamble" I suppose, but so is taking on a receiver that costs what Marshall does. Matthews costs next to nothing, and does indeed have the body style of these other "physical" receivers that you are discussing, I'm content to wait and see what he brings for at least next season, before endorsing the loss of other players, and picks attaining Marshall ( who for all anyone knows could be literally just an older version of Matthews anyway).

[NorthHawk]

What was the nature of Matthews injury?
I am concerned he won't be able to last the season if he's injury prone.

It would be interesting if they traded for Marshall and drafted another tall WR like Funchess or some other in the later rounds. We could change from having a small WR corps to a big one seemingly overnight.

[HumanCockroach]

What was the nature of Matthews injury?
I am concerned he won't be able to last the season if he's injury prone.

It would be interesting if they traded for Marshall and drafted another tall WR like Funchess or some other in the later rounds. We could change from having a small WR corps to a big one seemingly overnight.

To the best of my knowledge and a cursory look at google, he has never been injured while on the Seahawks. He has a turf toe in college and a hamstring in the CFL but nothing else...

[NorthHawk]

I thought injuries was why he didn't play until the end of the year.

If he wasn't injured, it doesn't bode well for him making much of an impact for a full year as we needed a big WR all season but he couldn't get on the field until one of the WRs got hurt.

[HumanCockroach]

I thought injuries was why he didn't play until the end of the year.

If he wasn't injured, it doesn't bode well for him making much of an impact for a full year as we needed a big WR all season but he couldn't get on the field until one of the WRs got hurt.

Neither did Tate his first two years, I'm not writing off a rookie simply because he was on the PS for a year. Here's another physical receiver that had issues getting on the field as a rookie...

http://www.nfl.com/player/brandonmarsha ... areerstats

[NorthHawk]

Tate played. He got reps at WR, Matthews didn't which means if he was healthy, he wasn't good enough to start on a team looking for big receivers.

[HumanCockroach]

Tate played. He got reps at WR, Matthews didn't which means if he was healthy, he wasn't good enough to start on a team looking for big receivers.

Nope, his rookie season Tate didn't play and was inactive for 11 games, his second year in the league he was active but didn't get significant playing time until the last half of the season, when injuries forced him into it( and that on a team a LOT more desperate for any receiver anywhere guys like Obamanu, Stokely,Ruvell Martin, Mike Williams,Butler,Branch all were ahead of Tate). If you don't like the Marshall comparison, how about this physical receiver?

http://www.nfl.com/player/vincentjackso ... areerstats

[HumanCockroach]

Perhaps this "not good enough" receiver that played in 5 total games his rookie year?

http://m.pfref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXGXXGrahJi00.htm&t=1

Thing is, I can give you literally another "big name" guy after another, over and over again North, that wasn't "good enough" to get on the field their rookie seasons in the league, one all pro, after another. Beckham Jr is the exception, not the rule. Until I actually see him perform poorly at least, I'm not buying the " he was on the PS, and he didn't start, so he is no good" thing.

Dude has performed at a high level, wherever he has played professionally, when on the field, and that includes Seattle. Learning a new offense takes a lot of receivers time, and a lot of receivers take time to develop ( far more than don't), including guys like Marshall, Jackson and Graham who I gave you links to, as well as Tate ( who did not have over 400 yards receiving until his third season).

[mykc14]

There is no doubt in my mind that Matthews should get every opportunity next year to show what he can do. Also, I agree HC, if you look at most rookie receiver's stats they struggled their first year. At the same time I don't want to put my eggs in his basket until I see a years worth of production. Also, the history of rookie recovers, which you have eloquently stated, makes me leery of drafting a guy this year and expecting him to produce, which is why I like the idea of Marshall. If we were to trade for Marshall and Matthews is everything we hope he is then we have a great receiving duo for a year. Matching up with us in the redzone would be a nightmare. After the season if we decide we like the idea of a receiving corps of Matthews, Baldwin, Richardson, Kearse (or any other young guy on our roster) we can cut Marshall, only costing us 3 mil in dead money. If none of those other receivers work out we can keep Marshall. If Marshall sucks it up we can still cut him. Like I said before I like him much more at 7 mil, but thats not going to happen and the financial risk isn't as bad as many people think.

[RiverDog]

It's interesting that you mentioned tight ends. I'm wondering how well Zach Miller is recovering from his injury, whether he's going to be able to play significant minutes next season. A buddy of mine is speculating that they may end up cutting him to save salary despite the fact that he just got through taking a big pay cut. Although Luke came up big in several games, such as the first Arizona game, he's been very inconsistent and drops a lot of passes. I could see us taking an in line tight end early in the draft.

I really liked what we saw out of Mathews in the SB and just goes to show you what Russell is capable of if we give him a big target. Sure, Browner shut him down in the second half, but there's not too many 6'4" cornerbacks around the league that will be able to match up with him like Browner did.

[HumanCockroach]

There is no doubt in my mind that Matthews should get every opportunity next year to show what he can do. Also, I agree HC, if you look at most rookie receiver's stats they struggled their first year. At the same time I don't want to put my eggs in his basket until I see a years worth of production. Also, the history of rookie recovers, which you have eloquently stated, makes me leery of drafting a guy this year and expecting him to produce, which is why I like the idea of Marshall. If we were to trade for Marshall and Matthews is everything we hope he is then we have a great receiving duo for a year. Matching up with us in the redzone would be a nightmare. After the season if we decide we like the idea of a receiving corps of Matthews, Baldwin, Richardson, Kearse (or any other young guy on our roster) we can cut Marshall, only costing us 3 mil in dead money. If none of those other receivers work out we can keep Marshall. If Marshall sucks it up we can still cut him. Like I said before I like him much more at 7 mil, but thats not going to happen and the financial risk isn't as bad as many people think.

I just think to "hedge your bets" the wisest thing to do isn't to dump a draft pick and 8-10 million dollars. I'm for bringing in other receivers, just not one that expensive. He has to play to improve IMHO, and opportunities are going to be sparse if Marshall is on the field, and that goes for all of the receivers, not just Matthews.

[NorthHawk]

I'm all for getting Marshall if possible as he's a proven commodity with the size we need, Matthews and/or Draft picks are not.

[HumanCockroach]

All I know is, that Marshall requires targets, and lots of them to be successful, and Seattle throws the ball less than all but one team in the NFL, Marshall would in essence be an older, goal line specialist, getting paid 8-10 million dollars. If that is the route Seattle wants to take so be it, but if the want a GL specialist at 10 million a year, I would prefer they go get a guy that is younger, and costs less.

[NorthHawk]

If this trade talk is true, our FO thinks he is worth the money.
I'm not convinced they are as good at judging Offense like they are on Defense, but I think in this case they are right.
The money they will have to pay? If they do trade for him it obviously fits within their plan.

[c_hawkbob]

All I know is, that Marshall requires targets, and lots of them to be successful, and Seattle throws the ball less than all but one team in the NFL, Marshall would in essence be an older, goal line specialist, getting paid 8-10 million dollars. If that is the route Seattle wants to take so be it, but if the want a GL specialist at 10 million a year, I would prefer they go get a guy that is younger, and costs less.

No you don't, you only know that he requires lots of targets to put up the kid of numbers he puts up when he gets lots of targets! Being a "successful" WR in our system isn't measured that way. You have no idea how he'd fare for us, no one does, and won't until he works in our system for a while.

For me, the fact that Pete thinks he'd be a good fit for us is all I need to hear to believe he most likely would do very well here.

As for him being nothing but a goal line specialist, he'd be a red zone target for certain, and that would be important for us, but his size and ability to use his body to box out and shield, as well as to block in the run game would benefit us all over the field.

[HumanCockroach]

For me, the fact that Pete thinks he'd be a good fit for us is all I need to hear to believe he most likely would do very well here

It worked out so well with the Harvin and Rice signings, right? Hell, he could have had Marshall not once but twice if he really wanted to as well Bob. If the Seahawks felt the "need" for that big bodied receiver, there was opportunities aplenty the last 5 years, so you'll forgive me if I use what my eyes tell me, to evaluate how I feel about Marshalls ability. You don't pay a receiver 8-10 million dollars a year for his "run blocking" and " the SAME production you are ALREADY receiving" from guys like Baldwin, Kearse etc... The additional money, would indeed either warrant increased production, or goal line specialist, as you ALREADY receive that which you are claiming Marshall brings from the guys on the team ( run blocking, leadership, etc).

If the claim is "I don't know what Marshall brings" and then it is followed by "he brings this" I fail to see the difference, as you imply, I don't while you and others do. LMAO. NO ONE knows what Matthews brings in this offense either, yet many are freaking about about paying Suh ( an every down difference maker) while wanting to pay Marshall over half of what it would take to bring Marshall in to "find out" what he can bring? Sorry, I don't agree in the least with a move like that. Until I see whether Matthews can indeed provide that, I am willing to wait. Marshall may get cut, or find himself on the market anyway, at which point, the price for his services is driven down, not up. If not, I can live on missing out on a guy we have already passed on twice, in the beginning of the prime of his career.

I don't agree with paying specialists, or aging players that type of money, and never will. I wouldn't endorse spending that kind of capital on Andre Johnson either at this point. If we were discussing Des, Green, Jones etc I wouldn't feel that way as they are all entering their primes, as opposed to leaving them, just like I wouldn't be overly critical of paying Suh, but would Wilfork.... It's how I see it, and no matter how people attempt to paint it, I am not changing that position.

I stringently argued FOR trading for Marshall when he left Denver, and again when he left Miami, I don't see him as a boon to this team and this offense at this point at the cost he carries, and have made it clear if his price tag was in the Tate range, that opinion would change, but he isn't, and so my feelings on it remain consistent. I would rather pay 10 million a year for Thomas than Marshall at this point, I am looking LONG term obviously, not just next season. I want them to "build" that offense, not put a one or two year patch in place.

[c_hawkbob]

Way too many words dude, you don't get to "win" your discussion by burying it in an avalanche of excess verbiage.

I will address a couple things though:

It worked out so well with the Harvin and Rice signings, right?

Yes, at least on the field. Both demonstrated the capabilities Pete was looking for when he signed them. He does tend to overlook things like health concerns and terminal dumbassness but it's evident Pete knows what he wants at least physically.

If the claim is "I don't know what Marshall brings" and then it is followed by "he brings this"

But that wasn't it. It was "I know that Marshall requires this to be successful" and "No you don't, now one does, But Pete thinks he fits here and that's good enough for me".

And I still disagree with the "specialist" label you keep wanting to put on him. But that's OK, we're allowed to disagree.

[briwas101]

Way too many words dude, you don't get to "win" your discussion by burying it in an avalanche of excess verbiage.

I will address a couple things though:

Yes, at least on the field. Both demonstrated the capabilities Pete was looking for when he signed them. He does tend to overlook things like health concerns and terminal dumbassness but it's evident Pete knows what he wants at least physically.

But that wasn't it. It was "I know that Marshall requires this to be successful" and "No you don't, now one does, But Pete thinks he fits here and that's good enough for me".

And I still disagree with the "specialist" label you keep wanting to put on him. But that's OK, we're allowed to disagree.

His post only took a minute to read, im not sure why so many people struggle to read anything longer than a tweet.

As for the Harvin and Rice signings working on the field? Youre joking, right?

Rice was vastly overpaid compared to what he provided on the field. He wasn't bad or useless, but he was never the kind of playmaker that OTHER teams get for that kind of money.

Harvin was a total and utter failure on the field. Not only did he fail to make plays or put up numbers but the Hawks had to completely change their offense to weak jet sweeps and bubble screens because Harvin is among the worst route runners in the NFL.

With our salary cap space becoming ever tighter we can't keep overpaying WRs and watch them put up pedestrian numbers.The one position where Pete and John have unequivocally failed to spend money wisely is WR. Not only that, but with their insistance on being a good run blocking team and a bad pass blocking team makes it that much harder for our WRs to get open from running their actual routes. We rely on Wilson to succeed with broken plays.

Even if Suh costs twice as much as Marshall, at least his value on the field would approach his salary. Marshall would just be another mistake from a team that only seems able to make mistakes at WR.

[HumanCockroach]

First of all Bob, getting pretty sick of your "you are trying to win" crapola. I have numerous times said I could care less if you ( or anyone else) likes the move, and have said if they pull the trigger I can live with it, should they pull it. Doesn't mean in any way I have to "like" it or agree with it, whether you do or not.

Secondly, Marshall has NOT had a "successful" season without those targets, and I provided the link backing that up, if you want to claim "I don't know" what he can or will do in this offense, fair enough, but spare me the " I don't know what he'll do" but somehow, you have ANY inkling what so ever, that you do either. At least my opinion has some ACTUAL investigation, and backing. Everyone is guessing what he could or will bring, and my opinion that he isn't going to magically turn into a receiver that doesn't need targets to be worth 10 million dollars a year, and pick/s.

Third, just because I break down WHY I feel that way, doesn't mean diddly squat, except that I am trying to make my opinion and feelings about it clear, so I can avoid people claiming erroneously, and arrogantly that I am "trying to win" something that has NO winners.

You like the Marshall move, great, you are entitled to that opinion, I would prefer they spend that capital in another way, and that feeling whether you approve or not, is irrelevant to me. I'm not "out on a limb" because I don't want the Seahawks to give up picks, and that much cash to an aging player, that for his ENTIRE career has needed targets to succeed.

Rice and Harvin did NOT succeed on the field, period. If you want to tell yourself they did, that is your self dillution, and you are welcome to it. Hell, it might work this time, but spare me the claim that I should as well. One couldn't stay on the field due to injury, and one couldn't stay on the team do to dooschiness.... Might as well claim that Houschyourdaddy and Branch also showed the traits that the team found desirable ( because they both at times most certainly did) you don't pay that money for flashes, you pay for production.

[NorthHawk]

This year we expect to have 10 picks. Maybe more if Schneider trades down.
The realistic number of positions available are perhaps 3 or 4.
Trading picks for a player makes some degree of sense even if we hate to admit it and it means passing on some possible talent if we do.

[HumanCockroach]

This year we expect to have 10 picks. Maybe more if Schneider trades down.
The realistic number of positions available are perhaps 3 or 4.
Trading picks for a player makes some degree of sense even if we hate to admit it and it means passing on some possible talent if we do.

I don't have issues with trading picks, as long as they are either for young players that can grow and move forward with, or possibly packaging picks to move up for a change to get an impact rookie, but as always, value matters, as does cost ( cap space), in the Marshall instance I don't feel those things coincide.

I would be happy as a clam if Seattle packaged multiple picks, and paid a young dominant receiver in a trade, Marshall isn't young, and cost vs dominance don't equate IMHO. The reason I have issue with it ISN'T because I think Marshall is garbage, it is because IMO the value doesn't equal the upside in doing so.