HawkShack.com

A comment on PFT suggests that since the Seahawks didn't pick up Irvin's 5th year he could be traded to Atlanta.
I know, it's the silly season, but could this actually happen, and what might be the compensation?

I suspect we wouldn't get Atlanta's 1st round pick, but maybe their 2nd (#42) round pick if it does happen?
Or might it be a lower pick like a 3rd? I don't see anything less than a 3rd if it happens.

NorthHawk wrote:A comment on PFT suggests that since the Seahawks didn't pick up Irvin's 5th year he could be traded to Atlanta.
I know, it's the silly season, but could this actually happen, and what might be the compensation?

I suspect we wouldn't get Atlanta's 1st round pick, but maybe their 2nd (#42) round pick if it does happen?
Or might it be a lower pick like a 3rd? I don't see anything less than a 3rd if it happens.

Interesting. There's sure been a lot of rumors involving possible trades between us and Atlanta. I wonder why that is?

Probably because DQ was the DC when we won the Super Bowl and our players will be used to his system.

NorthHawk wrote:Probably because DQ was the DC when we won the Super Bowl and our players will be used to his system.

I couldn't find the sarcasm symbol. Does it look like this?

Ahh.
I didn't catch it at first.
What could we expect to get in return?

maybe the Falcons have a good Guard or Center they'll trade. I don't see a first rd pick either, unless they allow sign and trades in the NLF. With only one year left before he can go FA, his trade value would be maybe a 3rd.

Edit: interesting that the rules, if we trade him before May 3, allow the new team to exercise the 5th year option on him, which improves his trade value for us.

js

The easiest story in sports to write is speculation about a new coach wanting one of his former players in trade. Besides, when is the last time Schneider had one of his trades leaked in the media ahead of time?

The only thing that makes me think there is something to it is the fact that the Hawks didn't pick up Irvin's option, so we'll see.

Edit: Danny O'Neil is hearing that the "chatter" reported on PFT wasn't coming from the Hawks' FO: http://mynorthwest.com/292/2754786/Dont ... -be-traded

The Hawks have until the 3rd next month, not many teams picking up options until necessary. Someone in the media saying "I heard they are not going to" does not mean much of anything. Also , some of these guys get contract extensions at lower cap hits than that fifth year. I wouldn't be surprised if they let him walk ( after an honest attempt to re sign him), but just because someone tweets it out? Nah.

I know that the Seahawks are definitely Capologists and the trade that brought Jimmy Graham to the Hawks pretty much (to me) is sealing the fate of Bruce. Basically, we added Jimmy's salary and contract made us take one away, and Bruce is the one.

Also, resigning Bobby Wags is more important then Bruce is, IMHO.

Sure it isn't Okung? Wagner? Mebane? There are plenty on that roster that could go, not saying who it will be, or if it is only one guy, just that to speculate it has to be Irvin seems way to premature. For all any of us know, it could be an established player like Lynch ( who is basically signed to 4 one year deals).

With Atlanta taking Beasley, it would seem there's no need for Irvin now.
To me, they are almost the same player with Irvin better against the run.

NorthHawk wrote:With Atlanta taking Beasley, it would seem there's no need for Irvin now.
To me, they are almost the same player with Irvin better against the run.

Jon Gruden really ripped apart Dan Quinn's first pick.

Talked about how weak he was against the run - Gruden also said that he takes "Way too many plays off" - they then showed some film clips of Beasley against the run - he did NOT take just these plays off - He actually left the field completely and sat in the stands...... Good luck with that one Quinn.

NorthHawk wrote:A comment on PFT suggests that since the Seahawks didn't pick up Irvin's 5th year he could be traded to Atlanta.
I know, it's the silly season, but could this actually happen, and what might be the compensation?

I suspect we wouldn't get Atlanta's 1st round pick, but maybe their 2nd (#42) round pick if it does happen?
Or might it be a lower pick like a 3rd? I don't see anything less than a 3rd if it happens.

I thought I read somewhere that the Seahawks would have had to pay $7.2 million to Irvin this year if they exercised the fifth year option for Irvin?

Seahawks don't have that room in their cap.

Seahawks don't think Irvin is wroth $7 Million - and he is not. $3.5 to $5 Million? Probably.

HumanCockroach wrote:Sure it isn't Okung? Wagner? Mebane? There are plenty on that roster that could go, not saying who it will be, or if it is only one guy, just that to speculate it has to be Irvin seems way to premature. For all any of us know, it could be an established player like Lynch ( who is basically signed to 4 one year deals).

Yes, it could be any of them or none of them. But Wagner is not worth 7m this year and I think that Okung and Mebane are harder to replace.
The story was someone's blog and I responded to that scenario. I hope it's not true, but I'd rather see a lot of other players get that money before him and i wouldn't object to a trade, if we got something of value for him.

js

[quote="RiverDog"][quote="NorthHawk"]Probably because DQ was the DC when we won the Super Bowl and our players will be used to his system.


What do you think River, were we right on him or wrong? I'm prepared to say it was a push!!

Yeah, picking up the option on Big Bruce and paying him more than 7 mil. would have been yet another slap in the face to Russell Wilson who continues to get low-balled by our F/O.

If we end up letting B-I become a F.A. after this season or trade his rights it will be an admission that he has been some what of a disappointment. Pete thought he was drafting the next "Freak" who would eat QB's for the next ten years and it never developed. It took them 3 seasons just to find the best way to play him to get production.

Now, after he has developed into a pretty good player I would hate to seem him go, especially if he indeed turns in to another Osi or Kearse for his new team.

One question a person can ask; Who is more valuable or productive, M. Bennett or Big Bruce???

After belittling and dogging Big Bruce for his first couple of years I have become a fan of Bruce Irvin and like I said, I will hate to see him go after watching him develop the last three years. No, he didn't replace Chris Clemons in the LEO LB spot but Irvin IMHO found his sweet spot in our defense. His speed when he drops in coverage combined with his tackling ability has been a marvel watching him develop his game. Great Coaching by Ken Norton Jr.

Norton has now left the Seahawk staff of course, maybe because he wasn't promoted to DC...

Well was a waste yes and no. IF we had taken him as a 3rd rounder and RW as a first they would be looking like genuineness. So its a matter of semantics. The problem I had at the time is we passed on guys like Dante Hightower, (NE) and Dave DeCasto, OG out of Stanford, who started all 16 games last year for the Steelers. He was a no brainier. So would we be better off with him vs the other 2, in hindsight, yes. Has he been a total bust? No, he has played well at times but he is not that sack freak that PC thought he would be. So he's gone, another 1st rounder wasted. I guess it could be worse, we could all be Jets fans.

Sorry Obi, but if Decastro is someone you think is better than Irvin, I recommend you talk to a Steelers fan. Dude has played poorly, and two years ago intentionally blew out the knee of his OWN pro bowl center

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000 ... t-for-year

obiken wrote:What do you think River, were we right on him or wrong? I'm prepared to say it was a push!!

Given that Irvin was a top half of the first round pick, we were right. He never developed into that full time Leo/pass rushing monster that we were told to expect. But he was far from a bust, and has developed into a decent starter, although he's not worth a long term contract and should be able to be easily replaced, perhaps even upgraded.

The book isn't closed yet. If he's traded, I want to see what we get in return, and if he plays out his contract, I want to see how he performs in 2015. But at this point, I'll go along with your assessment of it being a push.

I won't enter the argument of who we would have taken had it not been Irvin. There's no way we can know how Player X would have performed in our system and with our coaching. I'm just going to say that he was not worth the #15 overall and leave it at that.

Getting a player who becomes a starter on one of the best defenses in the history of the league certainly sounds better than a push to me. Sure, he didn't live up to Pete's pie-in-the-sky dreams, and sure it took him a few years to get to this point, but I think if we're disappointed in that it's our fault, not his. I just don't think it's reasonable to expect a player taken in the middle of the first to become a pass rushing monster in two years.

Really the only question IMHO that needs to be asked and answered is did the player positively affect the success of the defense? With Irvin no one can really claim he didn't each and every season in Seattle. So in my book it isn't a push, or remotely close to a bust, dude has started on in my opinion the best defense in NFL history 2 of the three years in the league, learned a position he has never played along the way, provided pass rush, and explosive plays, so in no way do I view him as anything other than a successful pick. He wasn't LT, but anyone expecting LT at pick 15 was insane to begin with.

First Round draft picks, it seems, tend to be bigger "crap shoots" than in second rounds. I say "seem," because I do not have the numbers ... but it would be interesting to look. I think part of the prob with First Round players is the pressure placed upon them that they along with most young adults are inadequately prepared to handle. Also, there's the money thing ... 1st round commands more money, and some may think they've "arrived" after getting selected, when in actuality they have to go and prove themselves.

So with this as my frame of reference, I think that Bruce Irvin has been a success for us. He contributes, and in doing that, has proven himself more valuable than most first round picks. Wasn't he on the ballot - even though not selected - for Defensive Rookie of the Year? He does some dumb stuff on the field every once in a while, but in general, he is a presence and has done well for our team.

BTW, Pete Carroll was just on ESPN, and stated that someone started a rumor about Irvin being traded, and continued that the Seahawks weren't considering it.

GO SEAHAWKS!!!

I think what you want from a 1st round pick is a starter.
Anything above that is a bonus.
Naturally, we all want our first picks to be All Pro's, but that's limited to only a few special players.

Irvin has become a solid player so it turned out to be a good pick.
I wanted Fletcher Cox at the time, and I still think he would have been the better choice, but I can't complain about the results on Defense.

HumanCockroach wrote:Really the only question IMHO that needs to be asked and answered is did the player positively affect the success of the defense? With Irvin no one can really claim he didn't each and every season in Seattle. So in my book it isn't a push, or remotely close to a bust, dude has started on in my opinion the best defense in NFL history 2 of the three years in the league, learned a position he has never played along the way, provided pass rush, and explosive plays, so in no way do I view him as anything other than a successful pick. He wasn't LT, but anyone expecting LT at pick 15 was insane to begin with.

He didn't do much for us in 2013 as he was suspended for the first 4 games and virtually disappeared towards the end of the season.

Agreed that he's not even remotely close to being a bust, but I'd be careful in saying that he's not a push. If he was significantly more than a "push", we'd be picking up his option.

RiverDog wrote:If he was significantly more than a "push", we'd be picking up his option.

I think this has more to do with a) paying ~7M for a SAM, and b) paying ~7M for anyone other than Wagner and Wilson.

You feel free to continue to go the "dissapear" thing if you would like, but the truth is, he was a starter each and every game he was available for during the season, at a position he never played. This team is nit nearly as hung up on snaps as you seem to be RD, and Irvin was sat based on matchups, something that no longer occurs hence why Smith seldom saw the field last season.

Irvin has positively contributed since he got here, in one form or another, just because people still carry biases, doesn't remove that from history. Expectations continue to be skewed beyond belief, , he has been a productive player, and a starter for two seasons, what more is expected from the 15th pick in a week draft with a position change?

HumanCockroach wrote:You feel free to continue to go the "dissapear" thing if you would like, but the truth is, he was a starter each and every game he was available for during the season, at a position he never played. This team is nit nearly as hung up on snaps as you seem to be RD, and Irvin was sat based on matchups, something that no longer occurs hence why Smith seldom saw the field last season.

Irvin has positively contributed since he got here, in one form or another, just because people still carry biases, doesn't remove that from history. Expectations continue to be skewed beyond belief, , he has been a productive player, and a starter for two seasons, what more is expected from the 15th pick in a week draft with a position change?

I would think that one of the expectations out of any given first round pick would be that he would play well enough that a team would pick up his 5th year option. I haven't seen the results from this year's options, but last season, only 11 out of the 32 first round 5th year options were not picked up. Is an expectation that they perform within two thirds of their first round draft class skewed beyond belief?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... on-tracker

Last I checked the numbers for THIS season aren't out, and unless you are prepared to claim the other 31 teams have the same depth, salary structure, all pro's on the roster, as well as a franchise QB and numerous other players needing contract extensions next season, and they happen to ALSO be playing OLB than yes, I think the expectation that he has the option exercised creates any barometer for actual playing success is absolutely " unrealistic" NO team or situation is the same


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cap ... inebacker/

Just a general idea of outside LB salaries, and who is getting them.

Add in that several of said players had it exercised, but were THEN signed to extensions to lower cap hits, and it makes the whole thing moot.

HumanCockroach wrote:Last I checked the numbers for THIS season aren't out, and unless you are prepared to claim the other 31 teams have the same depth, salary structure, all pro's on the roster, as well as a franchise QB and numerous other players needing contract extensions next season, and they happen to ALSO be playing OLB than yes, I think the expectation that he has the option exercised creates any barometer for actual playing success is absolutely " unrealistic" NO team or situation is the same


http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/cap ... inebacker/

Just a general idea of outside LB salaries, and who is getting them.

Yea, the 5th year option numbers for this year aren't out yet, so I used what was available.

And I agree with you and Oly that whether or not a team picks up their 5th year option may not be the best barometer of whether or not a draftee meets expectations since as was pointed out, the reasons for not picking them up vary from team to team (salary cap, injuries, or in the case of Nick Fairley, motivation). But I don't think that it is some heavily skewed, highly unrealistic expectation for a #15 overall draft choice to perform well enough and be of enough value to his team to where they felt he was worth the price to keep when nearly two thirds of the teams excercised that option on their players.

It will be interesting to see how many teams didn't pick up the 5th year option on their draftees this season and why they weren't picked up.

I suppose River, the beat goes on.

RiverDog wrote:It will be interesting to see how many teams didn't pick up the 5th year option on their draftees this season and why they weren't picked up.

Here is your answer - 20 of 32 were picked up - Irvin wasn't one of them.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/04/fifth-year-options-picked-up-for-20-of-32-first-round-picks/

For reference sake, the Texans didn't exercise the 5th year option for Witney Merciless, but signed him to a long term contract. Maybe our FO wants to do the same.

Details from PFT

John McClain of the Houston Chronicle reports that Mercilus will get a $5.25 million signing bonus, $10.8 million guaranteed and $26 million over the life of the contract, which keeps him tied to Houston through the 2019 season

According to reports, and the Seahawks this is exactly what they want to do, and they were saying it prior to today. Truth is, while Irvin is a Hell of a player, and would be desired by a majority of teams in the NFL, the quality and timing of when his fifth year came up, couldn't have happened at a worse time for him. He is important, but not as important in Seattle's eyes as Wilson, and Wagner, does that mean he isn't wanted, or valuable, or as some seem to believe, didn't play well enough? Abso-positutly not.

“If we pick up Bruce’s option it’s a great thing, if we don’t pick up Bruce’s option it only means we aren’t picking it up… We want him to be here for a long time," Carroll said, via the Seattle Times. "We met with Bruce (Thursday) before we got going, and it went very well. We discussed what our plan is and what we are planning on doing, still knowing that maybe something could happen that could change the decision. It has nothing to do with the statement of how we feel about him in our program. We expect him to be here for a long time and we will work to get that done.”

savvyman wrote:Here is your answer - 20 of 32 were picked up - Irvin wasn't one of them.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/04/fifth-year-options-picked-up-for-20-of-32-first-round-picks/

Thanks, savvy. It's nearly identical to the number picked up last year.

I heard PC downplay the failure to pick up Irvin's contract. All I can say is we'll see.

You could say it was 21 out of 32 as Merciless was signed to a long term contract instead of adding the 5th year.

LOL RD, "failure" like they tried, or Irvin tried but just failed.... Seattle had to make choices, like every good team does, not getting a fifth year option exercised, has little to nothing to do with his play on the field. The expectation that Irvins "value" would exceed Wagner's ( the QB of the defense) or Wilson ( the actual QB) is laughable in regards to his "being a push" or being drafted to early.

What would you have done had they exercised it and let Wagner or Wilson walk? Would you then have said he obviously was more valuable to the team? That he isn't a push because they did so? Or, would have been screaming for their heads, because of the stupidity of it? Something tells me, you as well of all Seahawks fans would be pretty Damn hoarse, I don't have an issue accepting Irvin is third or fourth on the priority list, why can't you acknowledge he wasn't a wasted pick, and is a pretty Damn good starter, on a historically great defense?

Depending on the position, it probably makes sense to not use the option but to come to agreement if they want the services of the player longer term.
I don't see it as a slight, but an opportunity to lock him up for a few more years with a contract that would pay him more than the one year extension (guaranteed).

HumanCockroach wrote:LOL RD, "failure" like they tried, or Irvin tried but just failed.... Seattle had to make choices, like every good team does, not getting a fifth year option exercised, has little to nothing to do with his play on the field. The expectation that Irvins "value" would exceed Wagner's ( the QB of the defense) or Wilson ( the actual QB) is laughable in regards to his "being a push" or being drafted to early.

What would you have done had they exercised it and let Wagner or Wilson walk? Would you then have said he obviously was more valuable to the team? That he isn't a push because they did so? Or, would have been screaming for their heads, because of the stupidity of it? Something tells me, you as well of all Seahawks fans would be pretty Damn hoarse, I don't have an issue accepting Irvin is third or fourth on the priority list, why can't you acknowledge he wasn't a wasted pick, and is a pretty Damn good starter, on a historically great defense?

Not once have I ever said anything that could be even remotely associated with the term "wasted" in relation to our drafting Irvin. My argument has always been that he was not worth the #15 overall. That doesn't mean I thought that we "wasted" the pick.

The decision not to pick up Irvin's option does not mean we don't want him on the team, even though that's the way it must have seemed to him initially. What it means is that we don't want his $7M cap hit. He can actually come out ahead with a decent signing bonus on a long term contract that can still save us a couple Mil (or more) in cap space this year to help us shoe horn in Russ and Bobby.