HawkShack.com

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... n-seattle/

Interesting to me that he even would say that. Maybe it puts him closer to his wife out here in Hawaii, I don't know.

He didn't exactly play at a Pro Bowl level at the end of his stay here and his behavior that was reported the year he 'gave up' didn't exactly endear him to Pete or (I would hope) some of the players. Ignoring the coaches in meetings by wearing headphones and reading a book is what I remember.
and I really doubt Pete would want him back, even if he's an improvement on the DLine somewhere.

Is this the same Michael Bennett that played for us before? I never remember him appreciating what he had here back then.

Through the Super Bowl, he was our best DL - played everywhere and disrupted most teams offenses that we played against. Great FA signing for JS. After the end of the 2nd SB to the end of his time in Seattle, he didn't seem to care at all. He also was one of the 'stand-ups' for the National Anthem. No respect for the flag or our country.

Personally I don't care about his politics or that he made himself out to be whiny little b!tch at times, he was our best D lineman on our best ever team and if he's got anything left in the tank I'd welcome him back. as long as Russ is good with it ... I don't know whether he was one of those that thought Russ was the problem or not, if he was then no way.

c_hawkbob wrote:Personally I don't care about his politics or that he made himself out to be whiny little b!tch at times, he was our best D lineman on our best ever team and if he's got anything left in the tank I'd welcome him back. as long as Russ is good with it ... I don't know whether he was one of those that thought Russ was the problem or not, if he was then no way.

None of us know for sure, but judging by his outspokenness, his off field behavior (accusing LV cops of being racists), the comments he made in his book, and the way in which he left here (see JS's comments), I think it's a fair assumption that he was one of a group of defensive players that subscribed to this "Russell isn't black enough" narrative that permeated the locker room at the time.

My sense is that Bennett burned his bridges. Bruce Irvin is apparently available, too, but I don't hear any serious talk of bringing him in, and he is a bit younger (32) and put up some respectable numbers last season (8.5 sacks). If they're not interested in Irvin, it's likely they're not interested in Bennett, either, perhaps for the same reason.

But I'm not one to hold grudges and believe in 2nd chances. If he can convince Pete (and to a lesser degree Russell and some of the other team leaders) that he'll play hard and keep his nose clean, I'm OK with bringing him back.

I know what the common assumptions were (are) and why, just say I don't know for myself. That's why I put it on Russ. Being the subject in question, I imagine he'd know more about it than I.

I'd take him back in a minute if he still has some gas in the tank and he fits this teams culture.
We're not in a position to give up productivity because of some petty grievance.
Sometimes when you leave a situation for greener pastures, you look back and only then
do you realize how good you had it. Perhaps Bennett is nearing that point.

NorthHawk wrote:I'd take him back in a minute if he still has some gas in the tank and he fits this teams culture.
We're not in a position to give up productivity because of some petty grievance.
Sometimes when you leave a situation for greener pastures, you look back and only then
do you realize how good you had it. Perhaps Bennett is nearing that point.

Maybe so:

"My time in Seattle was great because I didn't just grow as a player, I grew as a man, and I grew as an individual. I could never say anything bad about Seattle," Bennett said. "I feel like Seattle was such a great part of my life. I'm so thankful for the city."

It's an interesting idea. I loved him as a player, but there are obvious question marks about his fit in the locker room at this point. Obviously PC would have to welcome him back which might not happen. He basically said that PC's overall message got stale and was becoming ineffective. It's hard to imagine that an attitude like that would be a good fit in a locker room and coaching style built on positivity. With that being said maybe (albeit doubtful) he has been humbled in the last two years and realizes how good he had it here... or maybe he is just looking for a place to play in 2020 because he has burned so many brides. At the end of the day if PC, and I agree with Cbob Russ, are both OK with it then it's probably a low-risk decent-reward type of signing.

or maybe he is just looking for a place to play in 2020 because he has burned so many brides.

He'll never play in the NFL again if that's the case.

NorthHawk wrote:
He'll never play in the NFL again if that's the case.

Maybe, maybe not. It all really depends on his contract and how desperate a team may be. He is still productive, but it is unlikely that a team will sign him to a contract with many guarentees. In that case he isn't much of a risk and a team might be willing to take a small risk on him knowing that they can cut him without any real penalty. The question is whether or not he would be willing to take on a contract like that. Remember last off-season he was complaining to the Eagles that he wanted a pay raise- only one year after signing a 3-year extension.

I was making light of the autocorrect of burning brides,

NorthHawk wrote:I was making light of the autocorrect of burning brides,

Got it... nice!

Yes, burning brides is frowned upon by the NFL.

NorthHawk wrote:I was making light of the autocorrect of burning brides,

Funny how I read right over that and saw the word "bridges".

If he can play, I'd take him back for the right price.

I'm not sure how wise it would be to have both Bennett and Clowney on the field at the same time. They both draw a horrendous number of encroachment penalties. I certainly wouldn't want them both in there vs. a QB with a great hard count like Aaron Rodgers.

I'm going with the burned his bridges and just wants a place to play theory. Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on team chemistry and Bennett is not good for that IMO.

Nope. 2 SB appearances and a ring after Seattle rescued him from the Bucs and he was a cancer the last year, from arguably one of the best D lineman in the league to a malcontent talking crap on the way out the door.Not to mention a couple of offsides a a game No no no..

Unless they make some FA deals, I'm not sure we can summarily dismiss the idea of adding any player that could help us.
Sometimes you have to put pride aside and do what's best for the team.

At 34 years of age I'm guessing there's no gas left in the tank anyway. The DE position is very speed dependent and energy/stamina dependent. Guys seem to have two to five good years and then production drops way off.

trents wrote:At 34 years of age I'm guessing there's no gas left in the tank anyway. The DE position is very speed dependent and energy/stamina dependent. Guys seem to have two to five good years and then production drops way off.

I don't know, in his last two seasons he had 9 and 6.5 sacks respectively. I imagine he can still be a bit of a disruptive force in the right situation. I agree his years are numbered but it wouldn't be a shock if he were to get 5+ sacks somewhere next year.

trents wrote:At 34 years of age I'm guessing there's no gas left in the tank anyway. The DE position is very speed dependent and energy/stamina dependent. Guys seem to have two to five good years and then production drops way off.

mykc14 wrote:I don't know, in his last two seasons he had 9 and 6.5 sacks respectively. I imagine he can still be a bit of a disruptive force in the right situation. I agree his years are numbered but it wouldn't be a shock if he were to get 5+ sacks somewhere next year.

Bennett wasn't just an edge rushing DE, he was good at applying pressure up and down the LOS, and he held his own in run defense. Whether or not any of that is left in his tank remains to be seen, but as mykc said, he put up some very respectable numbers playing for two different teams.

It all depends on whether or not Pete trusts him. If he wants to bring him in, it's fine by me.

Old but Slow wrote:In the same vein (...but do we really want him back?): J. Graham TE was cut, so, do we want him back?

They seem to be looking at move tight ends recently, and that is kind of what Jimmy is, except that he is more of a WR in my eyes.

Worth a look-see. But with the signing of Greg Olsen, I'm not sure how many roles we have available for 33-35 year old tight ends. Some of those tight ends are going to be asked to play on special teams.

We already have own Michael Bennett, his name is Rasheem Green!

He improved a lot in his second year, hopefully an even bigger step in year 3.

Regarding Bennett, though, I could see him back on a one year deal only as a last resort if FA and the draft doesn't fall their way.

Easy pass on Jimmy Graham, though. Pats seem like a good fit.

The only reason Jimmy didn't fit the first time was our insistence on fitting a square peg into a round hole. If we were to pick him up now and use him according his capabilities he could be a decent compliment.

That's a pretty big caveat though, I don't think it'll happen.

c_hawkbob wrote:The only reason Jimmy didn't fit the first time was our insistence on fitting a square peg into a round hole. If we were to pick him up now and use him according his capabilities he could be a decent compliment.

That's a pretty big caveat though, I don't think it'll happen.

I was saying that at the time, too and it was frustrating we did that, but I doubt our FO will change their
Offensive scheme for any player.

I remember reading an article about the scouting staff who were told that on Defense they looked for
players with special talents and if selected they would tweak the Defense to take advantage of those
abilities. Either they don't do that or they don't do it on Offense, which is sad considering how much
production was lost trying to change a diamond into a turd.

I never got the whole disrespect to the Flag thing, its not like they were mooning it. They were kneeling! No on Bennett, no on Graham, time to move on!

obiken wrote:I never got the whole disrespect to the Flag thing, its not like they were mooning it. They were kneeling! No on Bennett, no on Graham, time to move on!

Bennett didn't kneel, he sat on his pooper.