HawkShack.com

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29801508/seahawks-re-sign-wide-receiver-josh-gordon-sources-say

Sources described Gordon's reinstatement as "imminent"....it's going to be crowded in the WR room. If he can stay out of trouble and on the field, we will have arguably the most talented WR group in Seahawks history. Imagine a 5-receiver set with DK, Lockett, Gordon, PRich, and Dorsett.

I had no doubt we'd resign him if reinstatement looked good. This is great news!

I-5 wrote:https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29801508/seahawks-re-sign-wide-receiver-josh-gordon-sources-say

Sources described Gordon's reinstatement as "imminent"....it's going to be crowded in the WR room. If he can stay out of trouble and on the field, we will have arguably the most talented WR group in Seahawks history. Imagine a 5-receiver set with DK, Lockett, Gordon, PRich, and Dorsett.

It's a done deal. Josh's agent confirmed it:

https://sports.yahoo.com/seahawks-sign- ... 11317.html

This probably signals the end to the Antonio Brown rumors.

RiverDog wrote:
It's a done deal. Josh's agent confirmed it:

https://sports.yahoo.com/seahawks-sign- ... 11317.html

This probably signals the end to the Antonio Brown rumors.

God I hope so!

I was in the Josh Gordon camp way back - he can be a difference maker. His third down production last year was outstanding......although he was only here a short time, he was productive and it's fairly clear that without him we wouldn't have beaten Carolina. We all know about the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I hope he can keep it between the lines, and enjoy it while we can.

P.S. They also re-signed DE Damontre Moore

We batter have a good supply of Zoloft that's all I gotta say! Yeah this was a mistake.

Yeah this was a mistake.

If he can stay on the field, Gordon might be worth 2 wins on his own, based on what he was able to show last season in Seattle.

This is no different then last year. The issue is Wilson needs time to get in step with his receivers. For at least the first few weeks, Lockett, DK, and the Tight Ends will handle most of the duties.
The plays that were catches for first downs to Josh were fast, quick all timing plays, with minimal dropbacks and slants from the slot. This put him as a #4 receiver for most of the plays that he would be in on, baring injuries to others.
Don't think he's worth 2 wins, but Josh's talent can never be dismissed. He had great hands on most of the receptions, too. Too much talent is never a bad thing.

Josh Gordon creates matchup problems for most secondaries when both he and Metcalf are on the field at the same time. They're both big, physical receivers with a large catch radius. When he's on top of his game, he's one of the best in the business.

The only problem is getting him off suspension, which I'm surprised hasn't happened already.

Sources described Gordon's reinstatement as "imminent" according to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... ources-say

c_hawkbob wrote:Sources described Gordon's reinstatement as "imminent" according to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... ources-say

and since that day, crickets from the Commish... We could of used him on Sunday, now that we know our supposed #3, Dorsett, hid a injury from the team this offseason.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sources described Gordon's reinstatement as "imminent" according to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler. https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/298 ... ources-say

jshawaii22 wrote:and since that day, crickets from the Commish... We could of used him on Sunday, now that we know our supposed #3, Dorsett, hid a injury from the team this offseason.

It's been longer than the week or so since that report was published. Gordon applied for reinstatement back in June after they revised the substance abuse policy. They've had close to 3 months to make a decision.

I can't imagine what is causing the delay. The Commish owes it to both Gordon and the Seahawks to either poop or get off the crapper.

The longer it takes, the less chance he will be reinstated I would think. As well, not reinstating
him means he's getting a longer, if not permanent suspension.

NorthHawk wrote:The longer it takes, the less chance he will be reinstated I would think. As well, not reinstating him means he's getting a longer, if not permanent suspension.

Agreed.

On its face, this seems like a no brainer. Maintaining a suspension under a policy that is no longer the same as it was when the discipline was issued is obviously not fair, and I would think that the league would be opening themselves up to legal action for an unfair labor practice if they refuse to reinstate him. Something else has to be at work here.

There was some talk or an article I read when he was first suspended that said it included PEDs.
If that was just an off the cuff comment or in error, I don't know but if it is the case, it would
fit a longer suspension.

Maybe instead of ragging on the Seahawks for being a "poorly run" franchise, Cowherd should be ragging on the the league for being poorly run. Not sure who I dislike listening to the most, Cowherd or Jake Heaps.

This is the same management that won the Superbowl in 2013 when everyone was praising them for their savvy in uncovering draft gems and getting much bang for the buck. Was that just luck? I don't think management's philosophy has changed. Cowherd is a talking head.

trents wrote:This is the same management that won the Superbowl in 2013 when everyone was praising them for their savvy in uncovering draft gems and getting much bang for the buck. Was that just luck? I don't think management's philosophy has changed. Cowherd is a talking head.

The very big difference is we had Russell Wilson on a rookie contract.

Are you suggesting they paid too much too retain Wilson and should have let him go?

trents wrote:Are you suggesting they paid too much too retain Wilson and should have let him go?

I realize that the question was directed to Cbob, but I'd like to weigh in on it, too.

It would be nice to have a great QB on a rookie contract as it makes the GM's job a lot easier, but that doesn't happen very often. Kansas City is the only team besides us since the CBA put a cap on rookie salaries that won it all with a QB on a rookie contract. But the alternative you suggested, ie let Russell go so we would have greater payroll flexibility, would have reduced our odds of getting back to the Super Bowl by a factor of 10. There aren't too many perennial contenders that don't have a Pro Bowl-caliber QB, and finding one in the draft (see the Jets, Browns, Bears, et al) and overpaying for one in free agency (49'ers, Vikings) hasn't won any Lombardi's, either.

The salary cap can be manipulated quite well if a team wants to do so.
Just in the last 2 years KC has signed 3 $100 million contracts and still are paying good money to other players.
They still have good flexibility in the future, too.

NorthHawk wrote:The salary cap can be manipulated quite well if a team wants to do so.
Just in the last 2 years KC has signed 3 $100 million contracts and still are paying good money to other players.
They still have good flexibility in the future, too.

Not a good example. KC has/had an MVP QB on a rookie contract. His new deal doesn't take effect until next season.

trents wrote:Are you suggesting they paid too much too retain Wilson and should have let him go?

I am not, just pointing out the big difference between then and now. Also, I tend to agree with Colin where Russ is concerned.

Not sure why people complain about this pay stuff. You pay to keep your core foundational players who help you get to the playoffs year and year out. For every great QB on a rookie contract like Russell or Mahomes that win a SB, there is 10 or more QBs on a rookie contract who do nothing. Don't win anything ever. Teams that win Super Bowls are rare. The contract is not the best determinant of a Super Bowl win. Not sure why people argue about it. There is a lot that goes into a Super Bowl win. Why people focus on some small aspect like contracts is beyond me.

Once you find a Russell, you pay him until he retires or can't perform. A good QB under a rookie contract may be a huge advantage, but a good QB is nearly a requirement to compete for the playoffs annually. That's why they get paid. You can't find another Russell or Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady on a yearly basis or there wouldn't be so many bad teams with bad QBs.

I look at it this way: The QB handles the ball on every offensive play and has the responsibility to make good decisions about what to do with it. If you are going to pay big bucks to anyone on the team it rightly ought to be that player if he proves to be an exceptional talent. But yes, I wish Russ had settled for somewhat less money than he ended up resigning for so as to leave more cap space for signing other talent. But you don't see that very often. I guess I read Brady did last time around.

I hope DK Metcalf breaks the mold of the crazy, selfish WR and takes a little less to stay here with a great QB. Him, Russ, and Lockett sticking together would be great for the offense. Tyler "First Down" Lockett and DK "Freak of Nature" Metcalf as a tandem for the next five years would suit me just fine.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I hope DK Metcalf breaks the mold of the crazy, selfish WR and takes a little less to stay here with a great QB. Him, Russ, and Lockett sticking together would be great for the offense. Tyler "First Down" Lockett and DK "Freak of Nature" Metcalf as a tandem for the next five years would suit me just fine.

Metcalf's stats yesterday was 4 receptions in 8 targets for 95 yards and a TD with one drop. I like Metcalf a lot and think he has the potential to be an elite receiver, but those aren't eye popping numbers that's going to earn him OBJ type money.

Russell completed passes to 9 different receivers yesterday. Of his 31 completions, 16 were to WR's, 8 to RB's, and 7 to TE's. That's an excellent distribution. Lockett seems to have taken over Doug Baldwin's spot as his go-to receiver, but he's not focused in on him.

If Wilson continues to distribute the ball like yesterday, no receiver on this team will have the eye popping
results you speak of except on occasion. The first real live play of the year was pretty good but I think the
reliability will get better as the year wears on. DK will be that player who will make the big play, but not a
lot of them each game. He has to command special attention, so just his presence will cause the Defense
to modify their game plans somewhat.

NorthHawk wrote:If Wilson continues to distribute the ball like yesterday, no receiver on this team will have the eye popping
results you speak of except on occasion. The first real live play of the year was pretty good but I think the
reliability will get better as the year wears on. DK will be that player who will make the big play, but not a
lot of them each game. He has to command special attention, so just his presence will cause the Defense
to modify their game plans somewhat.

IMO that was Russell's best attribute yesterday, his willingness to throw to the open receiver and not force the ball into a covered receiver, and the distribution between receiving targets and his resulting high completion percentage bears out that observation. This is one aspect of his game that seems to have matured. One of my biggest complaints about Russell's past play in previous seasons was his penchant to hesitate and wait for the big play to develop rather than throwing to an open receiver in the 10-15 yard range.

As far as DK, goes, he had a good but not spectacular performance. All 4 of Russell's incompletions came on passes intended for Metcalf, including one horrendous drop that could have been a drive killer. He's not going to get a lot of 3rd down targets if he doesn't improve on his consistency.

Greg Olsen looks like he's going to be a big part of our offense.