HawkShack.com

Do we have higher expectations now?

My expectation for this season is to reach the NFC Championship game or better

Next season is all the way

If we don't the long fingers will be pointing hard

I don't. It's not like we added or lost anything.

While we all want to see the Hawks win the big one, considering the RW deal a bust if they don’t (w/in 2 years, no less) is a bit of a reach IMHO.

If we lose Frank Clark (without replacing him) and possible Jerron, then it's not a good deal. If JS can keep all the main cogs, even with Russell's mega deal, then we should be OK. We certainly can't expect much from the draft or near-term free agency with only 4 picks and no Cap space.

I think the two DEs that JS signed already are in preparation of letting Clark walk.

As always, I predict 19-0 this year...

No higher expectations. Russell brings his best every year which is all I expect.

NorthHawk wrote:I don't. It's not like we added or lost anything.

I am with you! I expect 8 wins a year but no more titles.

Noooooo Expectations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL

Seaboys shot their wad for the next 20 years

5-11

Aseahawkfan wrote:No higher expectations. Russell brings his best every year which is all I expect.

AGREED!!!

There's an article about the No Trade Clause in Russell's contract sealing the deal. That's interesting as it's extremely rare for a QB with SB / Pro Bowl linage to be traded for any reason until they're really old, like Joe Montana age, so I wonder if some of the 'talk' before he signed was actually true about us looking to trade him must of got back to him or his team --
Why else would that be so important for a Top QB to want it in and make it a 'stopper' if we didn't comply?
Other question is why wouldn't the team give it to him? It's 'only' 4 years.. not like Trout's baseball contract.

It's important to a player because he could veto a trade to a lousy team.
It also means he can give a list of teams he would be OK with being traded to
if that scenario ever came up.

NorthHawk wrote:It's (no trade clause) important to a player because he could veto a trade to a lousy team. It also means he can give a list of teams he would be OK with being traded to if that scenario ever came up.

It's pretty much a moot point because a trade would normally occur in the last year of the contract or during a FT and thus include the expectation of a new contract with their new team, which by definition implies player approval. It's more window dressing than anything else. If the term of the contract was longer or if Russell was older, I could see it being a factor.

RiverDog wrote:
It's pretty much a moot point because a trade would normally occur in the last year of the contract or during a FT and thus include the expectation of a new contract with their new team, which by definition implies player approval. It's more window dressing than anything else. If the term of the contract was longer or if Russell was older, I could see it being a factor.

Honestly, and I know this is completely cynical, but I think it's a little bit of face saving by RW. I highly doubt the no-trade clause was what finally won him over. I am sure it had much more to do with the 35 mil/year he got. His camp did a lot of negotiating through the media in the months/days leading up to the April 15th deadline and there was some frustration amongst Hawk fans. I am not saying that it was nothing. I am sure he likes to have that power but anybody actually believe that he doesn't sign that contract if the Hawks never offer the no-trade clause?

mykc14 wrote:Honestly, and I know this is completely cynical, but I think it's a little bit of face saving by RW. I highly doubt the no-trade clause was what finally won him over. I am sure it had much more to do with the 35 mil/year he got. His camp did a lot of negotiating through the media in the months/days leading up to the April 15th deadline and there was some frustration amongst Hawk fans. I am not saying that it was nothing. I am sure he likes to have that power but anybody actually believe that he doesn't sign that contract if the Hawks never offer the no-trade clause?

What? You don't think RW is as pure as the driven snow???? Say it aint so....

Here's an article from ProFootballRumors.com about his contract:

https://www.profootballrumors.com/2019/ ... n-seahawks

RiverDog wrote:It's (no trade clause) pretty much a moot point because a trade would normally occur in the last year of the contract or during a FT and thus include the expectation of a new contract with their new team, which by definition implies player approval. It's more window dressing than anything else. If the term of the contract was longer or if Russell was older, I could see it being a factor.

mykc14 wrote:Honestly, and I know this is completely cynical, but I think it's a little bit of face saving by RW. I highly doubt the no-trade clause was what finally won him over. I am sure it had much more to do with the 35 mil/year he got. His camp did a lot of negotiating through the media in the months/days leading up to the April 15th deadline and there was some frustration amongst Hawk fans. I am not saying that it was nothing. I am sure he likes to have that power but anybody actually believe that he doesn't sign that contract if the Hawks never offer the no-trade clause?

I don't think you're being cynical at all. Russell is very conscious of his public appearance and tries to avoid controversy almost at all costs. It would be well within his character to sign an otherwise useless clause in his contract if he thought it would soothe a few butt hurt fans he made nervous with his comments to Jimmy Fallon and the rumors that were circulating about his wife's unhappiness in Seattle.