HawkShack.com

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/footbal ... 938329.php

This is a tidy little sum, even if we do the usual and re-sign a bunch of them, we should still have 15m or so.

WE have all 22 of those considered starters. Our biggest FA may be our kicker... The next FA of importance is a Luke 'with 2 L's' -- our backup TE. Not bad considering all that's happened the past couple of years.

Do we go for one of the many 'old' men OT's that are suddenly on the market? injury prone Clady is available or maybe trade a third or fourth for Brandon Albert? Okung will probably be available, too. There were other starters coming to FA.
Some on this board will consider all of them an upgrade, no matter who it is.

jshawaii22 wrote:http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/football/article/Seahawks-2017-salary-cap-numbers-10938329.php

This is a tidy little sum, even if we do the usual and re-sign a bunch of them, we should still have 15m or so.

WE have all 22 of those considered starters. Our biggest FA may be our kicker... The next FA of importance is a Luke 'with 2 L's' -- our backup TE. Not bad considering all that's happened the past couple of years.

Do we go for one of the many 'old' men OT's that are suddenly on the market? injury prone Clady is available or maybe trade a third or fourth for Brandon Albert? Okung will probably be available, too. There were other starters coming to FA.
Some on this board will consider all of them an upgrade, no matter who it is.

I'm not sure about Hauschka. He picked a bad time to have his worst season, and we just signed another veteran kicker the other day.

Luke's status will be interesting. I get the sense that he may not get a competitive offer from us, but with Graham's contract coming up next season, they may want him in the fold as letting both go would put us back in the market for a TE.

Nearly every starting OT in the NFL would be an upgrade over our current bookends. But at least with Fant, they may not be ready to end the experiment. I'm not expecting us to spend a lot of money on the OL in FA, it just doesn't fit our pattern.

I don't see Luke resigning with us. He can get more $ elsewhere. Housch also very well could be gone. We are in good shape capwise (lol at Dallas -10 mil in cap space) and could go out and sign a LT, but I don't see us doing that. If a cheap veteran option becomes available than I could see us doing that. Maybe a reunion with okung but only if he is will to get paid in the 7 mil range and not 10+ that he was looking for last offseason. I would love to see us resign Reece. I also see us using this off-season to redo do contacts with a few guys who will be FA next year. Jimmy, Kam, and Britt are all candidates to get new contracts this offseason, imo. the other thing we need to do with our cap space, imo, is beef up our depth. Look for us to spend a little more on guys 23-35 on our roster who are more role players/situational guys. We are also looking for a replacement for Irvin. PC specifically mentioned LB 'depth' as a need and IMO he really is talking about SAM position. I don't know for sure that there is a FA out there that we are going to get but imo if we can't find one in FA look for our first pick in the draft to be a LB.

From their comments, I would expect Pete or John to go after a RT draft choice or FA, but if someone who is a pure LT is available in the draft, they might sign him.
It will be a 2nd or 3rd wave of FA's before we sign someone to compete at the Tackle positions if history is an indication.

26.6 million according to Spotrac but it wasn't clear to me if they factored in the expected increase in the CAP this year.
Still, it's an opportunity to get a couple of impact players if they think they will fit.

I understand Pete & John's philosophy of not throwing tons of money at an FA OL but, man, could this group use an infusion of a decent vet lineman.

IMO, we have the next 2 seasons to get it done with the conerstone pieces we have now. It's the right time to rent-a-vet up front on short term deal, with maybe some incentives as well.

Zorn76 wrote:I understand Pete & John's philosophy of not throwing tons of money at an FA OL but, man, could this group use an infusion of a decent vet lineman.

IMO, we have the next 2 seasons to get it done with the conerstone pieces we have now. It's the right time to rent-a-vet up front on short term deal, with maybe some incentives as well.

Here's an article by Clayton that gives some options:

http://sports.mynorthwest.com/246698/se ... -consider/

Who knows how it's going to unfold.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us welcome Okung back at a lower number than he negotiated for himself with Denver last year, say $4 or 5 million. He's obviously be the most plug and play fit. If I remember correctly we were willing to pay him very nearly as much as he wound up signing for with the Donkeys.

c_hawkbob wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to see us welcome Okung back at a lower number than he negotiated for himself with Denver last year, say $4 or 5 million. He's obviously be the most plug and play fit. If I remember correctly we were willing to pay him very nearly as much as he wound up signing for with the Donkeys.

I totally agree. He was healthy last year as well although he was said to have a bad year. It sounded like the entire line did not play well. But he allows Fant to continue to develop or slide to the right side and hes familiar with the system.
I like the idea.

I'm not so sure.
They never settled on anyone any RT but did Play Fant consistently at LT and moving Fant to RT would be another big learning curve with it being completely backwards from LT. And they like a bruising RT which Fant isn't.
If they brought back Okung, I think Fant would sit, which means he would get to play 3 or 4 games when Okung gets beat up. I can see it as it would be an upgrade, but I think RT is a higher priority in our Front Offices mind.

NorthHawk wrote:I'm not so sure.
They never settled on anyone any RT but did Play Fant consistently at LT and moving Fant to RT would be another big learning curve with it being completely backwards from LT. And they like a bruising RT which Fant isn't.
If they brought back Okung, I think Fant would sit, which means he would get to play 3 or 4 games when Okung gets beat up. I can see it as it would be an upgrade, but I think RT is a higher priority in our Front Offices mind.

That's actually the way I envision it anyway. Fant is a terrific talent but still incredibly raw to be relied on as a starting LT, let him learn until he's ready and we can draft us a RT.

...until he's ready and we can draft us a RT.

Well, I thought Ifedi WAS drafted as our Right Tackle, but that's the weird part of the Seahawks with Cable. Other than Okung, has any player drafted actually played their college position on the 'Hawks?

I get the impression they WANT to play Fant at LT, but it's just a feeling I have from them not trying others there after he was put in. At RT, they started with Webb, went to Gilliam, then Sowell, and back to Gilliam. I just get the feeling the are set with Fant but are looking for a RT. Maybe Odiahambo can play RT as they are looking for someone with a bit of a mean streak at that position.

JS, I don't recall any other drafted player playing at their college position except maybe Glowinski playing Guard, but I think he was a RG, not LG.

jshawaii22 wrote:...until he's ready and we can draft us a RT.

Well, I thought Ifedi WAS drafted as our Right Tackle, but that's the weird part of the Seahawks with Cable. Other than Okung, has any player drafted actually played their college position on the 'Hawks?

You can scratch Okung as Cable wasn't here in 2010 when Okung was drafted.

But your point is valid, and something I've thought about for a long time. Cable drafted Carpenter and Ifedi in the first round, Britt in the 2nd. All 3 were originally drafted as tackles and never spent more than a season playing that position. Is Cable that bad of a judge of talent that he can't find a starting OT in the top two rounds of the draft or does it show that he's not bound by the mold cast by some college coach and places them in whatever position is the best match with his requirements?

Ever since seeing Carpenter completely whiff at RT, I've leaned more towards the former statement vs. the latter and it's the primary reason why I'm not a huge Tom Cable fan.

Is Cable that bad of a judge of talent that he can't find a starting OT in the top two rounds of the draft or does it show that he's not bound by the mold cast by some college coach and places them in whatever position is the best match with his requirements?

I used to think Cable holds most of the cards with the OL draft picks, but after hearing JS talk about how they selected Britt because there was in their estimation a large drop off of OL talent at the time of their pick it makes me wonder if his evaluations are only as guideposts and not control. That, and in most drafts the best OL potential has been selected before we draft means we have lesser players to choose from.

That being said, there have been good players other teams found in mid to late rounds and we haven't found them so maybe we don't scout very well for OL.
I still have to wonder if our OL scheme is so specific that good players from other teams don't fit. Jhari Evans played pretty well for the Saints so it wasn't talent that got him cut - and he would have been a great resource for the younger players trying to find their way even if he didn't play much. If the OL scheme is too specific, it also limits the pool from which FA's would fit, so maybe it is Cable. I guess I just don't know.

Our "ZBS" may be the issue. The same can be true with teams that covert from 4-3 Defense to 3-4... it takes time and sometimes the personnel doesn't fit. The successful teams have to be able to draft to fit the scheme and we don't seem to be able to do it.
So, is Cable's scheme becoming stale at many levels? I'm surprised there isn't any call to have him replaced or just go to a NFL more normal Oline.

NorthHawk wrote:I used to think Cable holds most of the cards with the OL draft picks, but after hearing JS talk about how they selected Britt because there was in their estimation a large drop off of OL talent at the time of their pick it makes me wonder if his evaluations are only as guideposts and not control. That, and in most drafts the best OL potential has been selected before we draft means we have lesser players to choose from.

That being said, there have been good players other teams found in mid to late rounds and we haven't found them so maybe we don't scout very well for OL.
I still have to wonder if our OL scheme is so specific that good players from other teams don't fit. Jhari Evans played pretty well for the Saints so it wasn't talent that got him cut - and he would have been a great resource for the younger players trying to find their way even if he didn't play much. If the OL scheme is too specific, it also limits the pool from which FA's would fit, so maybe it is Cable. I guess I just don't know.

Being that in addition to his OL coaching duties Cable is the assistant head coach, I would suspect that he has quite a bit of influence over personnel decisions, perhaps more so than any other position coach and that his opinion is taken for more than simply a guidepost.

As we've discussed before, we have to keep in mind that we have yet to sign an OL to a second contract since Cable's arrival, and that includes FA acquisitions as well as draft picks. And to defeat some sniper from noting that once upon a time Unger was resigned, he was a carry over from the previous regime.

RiverDog wrote:
As we've discussed before, we have to keep in mind that we have yet to sign an OL to a second contract since Cable's arrival, and that includes FA acquisitions as well as draft picks. And to defeat some sniper from noting that once upon a time Unger was resigned, he was a carry over from the previous regime.

That's true but we don't know exactly why. Many of our guys have gone back n to sign very good contracts with other teams that we were unwilling to match. I think that might be a philosophical thing at this point. It seems like they feel that they have to save money somewhere and with a D minded head coach it is not going to be on that side of the ball. You can't skimp on the QB in this league so that leaves OL, WR, and RB positions. Our WR spending isn't terribly high (although it gets up there if you consider Jimmy in that category, which I do). Basically we are left with going cheap on the OL and RB positions right now. I believe this also has to do with the teams complete faith in Cable to turn lemons into lemonade something he has done with multiple OL in his tenure (Breno, Carp, Sweezy, Britt, and Okung). 3 of the guys on that list are high draft picks but 2 are practice squad/UDFA. In the next year we easily could be adding Glowinski to that list and possibly Fant as well. Anyways all that to say IMO it's probably a team philosophy that we are not resigning our OL as opposed to them not being worth another contract.

Our Offensive Line play has been described as being very physical so maybe players are getting beat up early in their careers more than other players throughout the league.

Regarding Cable being the Assistant Head Coach, he probably does have significant influence up to the Draft, but have you ever seen him in the "War Room" during the draft? I haven't but maybe I've just missed him.
It's John's show on Draft days according to Pete and he runs it according to how it falls before our picks.

I find it concerning that we haven't heard any rumblings about negotiations with Britt yet. Maybe we will during OTA's or TC.

NorthHawk wrote:Our Offensive Line play has been described as being very physical so maybe players are getting beat up early in their careers more than other players throughout the league.

Regarding Cable being the Assistant Head Coach, he probably does have significant influence up to the Draft, but have you ever seen him in the "War Room" during the draft? I haven't but maybe I've just missed him.
It's John's show on Draft days according to Pete and he runs it according to how it falls before our picks.

I find it concerning that we haven't heard any rumblings about negotiations with Britt yet. Maybe we will during OTA's or TC.

I don't know about "Physical Line" -- seriously, that may of been the case a couple of years ago with Okung and Carp (in our dreams), but ever since the end of the Pat's game where we didn't run the ball... that's not a sign of a confident "physical" O line at all and it hasn't gotten any better since. JMHO

The way I heard it was they demand more physicality than other OL's and it beats them up earlier.
Whether they are successful whle being physical is another question, but it's apparently hard on them.
I've heard it a few times from different people in the media (former FO personnel and coaches). How they define it isn't something I've ever heard, rather they've said these things in passing while discussing the OL.