HawkShack.com

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496672/article/evan-mathis-released-by-philadelphia-eagles

I know the O-line is a concern to many. With Bailey and Sweezy set to be the starters, looking at the depth chart, there doesn't look like much there on paper. It does mention that the 'Hawks are one of the teams that match Mathis' skill set.

I only know this guy through media stuff, I know he is pretty highly regarded, but sounds like the Eagles have a younger, cheaper replacement they are happy with. Not sure if that guy is somewhere amongst our depth, but if not, I would guess Pete and John will kick the tires on this one.

Below is another article breaking down some potential suitors, with the 'Hawks being one of them.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000496735/article/four-potential-landing-spots-for-evan-mathis

A one year deal for a quality veteran role player is a very Seahawk thing to do. I'd be more surprized if we weren't interested than if we were.

I saw that. Yes, of course we should be interested. We're really thin along the OL, especially at OG.

From a talent/ability perspective, yes by all means. He was let go apparently because of contract demands.
I'm not sure he fits into our financial plans, but the FO knows better than us about that.

More than likely there is no chance because of lack of salary cap space.

"Interest" and reality are far apart here. Too bad, as he is seen as a 'fit' with the Seahawks type of run game. No way we can afford him and no way he will only get a one-year offer. There are teams with millions still out on the table to spend and he'll get close to or better then what he had with the Eagles. Someone will overpay him.

By the way, does anyone wonder what would of been said if he was 'black' and cut?

Of course not, why would I?

jshawaii22 wrote:By the way, does anyone wonder what would of been said if he was 'black' and cut?

You lost me with that one. Please explain.

Probably referring the controversy surrounding some of the guys released or traded by Chip Kelly (McCoy, D. Jackson) where it created a bit of a media buzz that Kelly had an issue with "black" players.

I am sure if Mathis was "black", it would have added fuel to the fire, but in the end would have been much ado about nothing. I am sure this controversy is completely media driven as is most things.

Ah, I'd forgotten about a released player using the race card on Chip already ... that gives it some context.

Thanks, 86. I hadn't heard about that controversy. JS's comment makes more sense now that you've explained it.

Sorry for going off track with the "race" comment. Blame Shady and others on the Eagles. They seem to think every roster decision that Chip makes is race related... even when they aren't.

js

Here's an article about Mathis that is interesting. He might be wanting too much for us but he could be a good fit from a talent perspective.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/06/19/evan-m ... chip-kelly

NorthHawk wrote:Here's an article about Mathis that is interesting. He might be wanting too much for us but he could be a good fit from a talent perspective.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/06/19/evan-m ... chip-kelly

I don't think there's any question that he could be a big help to us. The only problem would be money, and Pete has a history of looking for OL's in the bargain basement, not on the main floor. So unless the lure of a possible SB ring means more to Mathis than maximizing his income, I don't think he'll be coming here.

PFT has an article that suggests Mathis is asking $6.5 million and his agent (if you can believe him) says as many as 10 teams have inquired about him.
I doubt we make a play for him after reading his reported salary expectations and our seeming philosophy on the OL.

The only philosophy I am aware of in Seattle is big, strong, aggressive, athletic o-lineman . They refuse to overpay for free agents that are average, but are willing to sign them if they deem them a "fit" in their system ( or re sign them at least) Gallery, Unger. Mathis certainly "fits" the first part, and I have zero doubt if there wasn't bigger fish to fry they would indeed be one of the ten teams that called( and might have been anyway), that said, there ARE bigger fish to fry, and unless you want to dump Wilson or Wagner for an old lineman, the $'s make zero sense.

There is only so much cheddar for so many mice.

If the trend continues, Okung will be gone next year. Maybe Sweezy as well, if he asks too much.

HumanCockroach wrote:The only philosophy I am aware of in Seattle is big, strong, aggressive, athletic o-lineman . They refuse to overpay for free agents that are average, but are willing to sign them if they deem them a "fit" in their system ( or re sign them at least) Gallery, Unger. Mathis certainly "fits" the first part, and I have zero doubt if there wasn't bigger fish to fry they would indeed be one of the ten teams that called( and might have been anyway), that said, there ARE bigger fish to fry, and unless you want to dump Wilson or Wagner for an old lineman, the $'s make zero sense.

There is only so much cheddar for so many mice.

I was not complaining, I was simply pointing out a fact, that our FO does not rate OL needs at the same level of priority as they do other positions. Pete has been very successful with this philosophy, at least to this point. Even if we had more "cheddar", he wouldn't be sharing it with the OL.

NorthHawk wrote:If the trend continues, Okung will be gone next year. Maybe Sweezy as well, if he asks too much.

And that is bad now, right? Wasn't long ago many wanted both of those players gone, one because of injury problems, the other because of the round he was drafted. Just clarifying, you have switched to the we need to keep the lineman we have?

Odd, I thought you all for spending tons of money on old, average FA lineman to improve the line, unless of course, somewhere you realise how GOOD Seattle's line actually is, why would you care about losing either?(especially since you have mentioned in numerous other threads, numerous times, how BOTH those players needed to be replaced)

I want quality OL.
The trend is to get rid of those who can play and replace them with lesser and cheaper players.
We lost 2 starters this year.
The players that are replacing them couldn't beat those guys out so by definition our OL has not improved and could be argued that it has declined.
If we lose Okung or Sweezy or both, it will get even worse.
It seems they are depending on Wilson to scramble and Lynch to break tackles to make up for the deficiencies up front.

You're both right. There has been a downward trend in the quality of OL we've been trotting out there. In the past two years, we've lost Unger, Carpenter, McQ, and Breuno all decent starters. There's a good chance that this will be Okung's final season with us, unless we want to overpay him, which we can ill afford to do. We've also let Zach Miller go and have yet to replace him with a blocking tight end of near equal quality. I don't see the replacements, ie, Britt, JPL, Lewis, Graham, et al being anywhere close to equal quality to those we've parted ways with, but admittedly the jury is still out on several of those guys. It's a legitimate concern.

But Pete's formula has been successful, so it's pretty hard for me to complain. He certainly knows a thing or two about building football teams. But you can use that trump card to mute almost any argument, so I'll reserve the right to b#tch if this thing goes south on us as I do feel that we're making a mistake by not placing more emphasis on the OL.

LOL, Breno and Carp were NOT lineman anyone believed were quality starters while they were here, now they are gone and they are all of a sudden? Unger in his third year was a wasted pick according to many, and not a center, who couldn't perform at Spencers level, much like many lineman thus team has brought in, these guys were "bad" and needed to be upgraded or dumped. Seems to be a cycle if complain, let them leave, bemoan their loss by many fans. The truth is, NITHING is static, nothing. Sure, Bailey, and JPL were "behind" Unger and Carp, but I might point out that Unger WAS behind

Spencer

for two years, worked out alright IMHO. Sweezy was behind McQ entering camp as well, which do you guys think is the better play athis point

If Bailey performed at oose to Carpenters level ( which according to the overwhelming majority here wasn't hard to do, which disagreed with at the time and still do) WTF would this FO pay 6 + million a year for the privilege to have the same performance level? Ditto JPL? They would have to be pretty Damn stupid to do that, right? You have a player in Sweezy who has improved every year, and Bailey who has as well, is it written in stone that their ceiling is lower than the guys replaced somewhere? Did I miss the memo? It takes YEARS to develop into a quality lineman, YEARS, yet I see people claiming Britt can't play, Sweezy is average (despite off ranking him as a top five guard in the league already, ahead of Mathis by the way, and Wilson claiming he will one day be in Canton), Jpl is a downgrade despite Seattle's winning percentage being HIGHER with him on the field the last two years, than w/ Unger, Bailey can't be any good because he wasn't a starter in his second season( ignoring that improvement can and does occur EVERY year in the league) this is the same "I want it now!" Philosophy that sent Kevin Mawae from Seattle to multiple all pro selections on other teams.

The claim that they didn't or coud not possibly have improved is based on nothing, as no one can know that prior to them actually playing, using this SAME philosophy, Flynn, Jackson are both better QB's than Wilson because the were ahead of him on the depth chart to start the year, Bledsoe was a better QB than Brady, Kam isn't as good as Milloy was, Sherman is worse than Trufant AND Thurmond, Browner etc... It's foolish to make claims based on last season's depth chart, or how much a player makes, where he was drafted or any other number of variables, because 90% of the time you are simply wrong.

Yeah, HC, you're on target today. I don't see Giocco or anyone else that left us becoming a stand-out somewhere else. My only complaint is the team chose to use most of it's high-round draft picks for backups the last few years (Turbin / Michael / Frank Clark ) instead of at least trying to get better O Lineman and except for Justin Britt all of our newer starters were later round picks or FA's. Maybe drafting high round OLineman doesn't work (see: Carpenter / Moffatt ) but at least it would give the appearance of trying when it's obvious that's the one area that needed the most work.

js

Except for the bonehead penalties, of which he eventually was able to cure himself of, I thought Breuno was a solid starter. He was a good run blocker that brought a certain nastiness to our OL. I'm not saying that we should have resigned him, just that his replacement (Britt) hasn't quite risen to the same level, at least not yet.