HawkShack.com

Please, say it ain't so!

Seattle Seahawks 'Have Kept In Touch' With Jamal Adams

https://www.si.com/nfl/seahawks/news/se ... interested

When we released him last month, I thought that we had finally purged ourselves of this POS. I can see no upside to bringing him back, even on a vet minimum deal.

Adams is a liability in coverage, and his pass rushing contributions come at the expense of leaving the secondary a man short. We overused him in 2020 because our front 7 was so inept at applying pressure on the quarterback that Adams was able to thrive in the void. In 2021, when Adams was still relatively healthy, his sack totals dropped from a record setting 9.5 to zero. Offenses had gotten wise and started to account for him anytime he threatened to blitz, and as a consequence, our defense was ranked 28th against the pass

He's too small to be lined up at OLB where he'd be going up against players that are 2-4" taller and 50-80 lbs heavier. They'd run straight at him, and Adams would look as if he's wearing roller skates. Besides, after his injuries, he was playing tepid, avoided contact like any normal human being would if they'd been hurt as much as he has.

Plus, he doesn't play on special teams. There are only 53 spots on a roster, and the best he'd be able to contribute would be some sort of third down nickel or dime back package where he could rush the QB. He'd be occupying a spot at the expense of some up-and-coming unproven rookie.

And that's not to mention that the guy is a first-class jerk. I see no upside whatsoever in bringing him back.

No. NO. And Oh yeah, NO………

I guess a veteran minimum contract to try to revive his career would be ok. Not like we're deep at safety right now. It will be a few drafts to rebuild given how empty the cupboards were in Seattle due to five years of pretty poor drafting prior to the last two.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I guess a veteran minimum contract to try to revive his career would be ok. Not like we're deep at safety right now. It will be a few drafts to rebuild given how empty the cupboards were in Seattle due to five years of pretty poor drafting prior to the last two.

He's not worth the roster spot. No matter what, he's not part of our long-term future, so why deprive an up-and-coming rookie of an opportunity for an injury prone, one trick pony/situational player who doesn't participate on special teams and has an attitude?

River_Dog wrote:He's not worth the roster spot. No matter what, he's not part of our long-term future, so why deprive an up-and-coming rookie of an opportunity for an injury prone, one trick pony/situational player who doesn't participate on special teams and has an attitude?

If he wants to compete for a job on a veteran minimum contract, what do I care? If the rookie beats him out, he loses his spot. Not like it sounds like we're signing him to some guaranteed long-term contract as a starter. If he wants a vet minimum contract to compete, then I don't have a problem with it.

There is a reason why no teams have signed him yet to a minimum contract. Injury prone and his lack of off field discipline is something a team doesn't want in their local headlines. I would say let him go to the 49ers, and they can squeeze what is ever left out of him. I would rather not see him as a Hawk going forward.

We don’t have much Cap space-somewhere around $1.5 Million so another player would have to be cut.

River_Dog wrote:He's not worth the roster spot. No matter what, he's not part of our long-term future, so why deprive an up-and-coming rookie of an opportunity for an injury prone, one trick pony/situational player who doesn't participate on special teams and has an attitude?

Aseahawkfan wrote:If he wants to compete for a job on a veteran minimum contract, what do I care? If the rookie beats him out, he loses his spot. Not like it sounds like we're signing him to some guaranteed long-term contract as a starter. If he wants a vet minimum contract to compete, then I don't have a problem with it.

As North Hawk said, we don't have that much cap space even for a veteran minimum contract. We're ranked 31st in the league in cap space at $2.2m. We sign Adams and it deprives a rookie of a chance.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/_/year/ ... mum_space2

What is already known about Adams takes him out of the mix: He's injury prone. He can't cover. He's not a ball hawk. He's apprehensive in his tackling. He doesn't play on special teams. He has an attitude. The minute Adams sets foot on the field, someone has to step off to make room for him.

I'm hearing rumors that the Adams deal was more Schneider's doing than it was Pete's, which if true, would go a long ways in explaining why Pete would say over a year after the trade that they really hadn't figured out how to use him. Why would one of the best defensive minds of this era trade for/resign a player and not know how best to use him? Maybe because his GM insisted?

My take is that Pete had veto authority and could have stepped in and said no to both the trade and the resigning, and it's a mistake that he alone has to bear. But if John Schneider signs him and trots him out on the field, it will confirm those rumors and I'll lose a ton of respect for Schneider.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

This Defense has a chance to be much improved and I don't see where he would fit in.
The interior of the DL should be able to provide a lot more pressure which would make the Edge rushers more effective, so any pass rush skills Adams brought to the table wouldn't necessarily be an improvement as like you said another player would have to be cut to make room. It doesn't mean they would cut a pass rusher, but somewhere on the roster would be diminished.
Besides it would be nice to see him disrupt the 49ers locker room.

I am rapidly becoming doubtful about Schneider. He seems to trend to mediocrity, and I think the job is maybe a step beyond his abilities. He presents well, is likable, and is able to adapt to changes, but does not seem to understand the basic needs. Besides never taking a shot a later round QB, or trading for Adams, or putting a decent O-line together, he does not seem able to make the kinds of moves that make the team better.

But, we all love him. Don't we?

Old but Slow wrote:I am rapidly becoming doubtful about Schneider. He seems to trend to mediocrity, and I think the job is maybe a step beyond his abilities. He presents well, is likable, and is able to adapt to changes, but does not seem to understand the basic needs. Besides never taking a shot a later round QB, or trading for Adams, or putting a decent O-line together, he does not seem able to make the kinds of moves that make the team better.

But, we all love him. Don't we?

Not me. I support John Schneider only because I don't really know how much of the past 14 seasons was truly Pete's and how much of the perpetual mediocrity can be blamed on JS.

I don't think it would have been wise to enter the new era with a rookie GM. Schneider knows the ropes, and his initial results seems to be satisfactory, the way he's put this new staff together and the way our draft went. I would go ahead and start Geno, but unless we come out looking like gangbusters, I'd give Howell a shot at some point in the season.

I was under the impression that it was Carroll's 'Hand of God' in the mix that made some of the worst trades in team history, but just maybe it was Schneider.
In any event we will have a couple of years to see how things develop and any continuing trends or traits regarding player acquisitions/departures.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I guess a veteran minimum contract to try to revive his career would be ok. Not like we're deep at safety right now. It will be a few drafts to rebuild given how empty the cupboards were in Seattle due to five years of pretty poor drafting prior to the last two.

I mean, we have six safeties on the 90 right now. Whether the depth is quality of just in numbers remains to be seen.

It's being talked about that if Adams is re-signed he would play LB and not Safety.
It would make some sense but he would just get beat up quicker when teams run right at him. I don't think he's worth the roster spot and possibly losing a younger player for 8 or 9 games of Adams playing average football.

NorthHawk wrote:It's being talked about that if Adams is re-signed he would play LB and not Safety.
It would make some sense but he would just get beat up quicker when teams run right at him. I don't think he's worth the roster spot and possibly losing a younger player for 8 or 9 games of Adams playing average football.

Spot on

NorthHawk wrote:It's being talked about that if Adams is re-signed he would play LB and not Safety.
It would make some sense but he would just get beat up quicker when teams run right at him. I don't think he's worth the roster spot and possibly losing a younger player for 8 or 9 games of Adams playing average football.

Oly wrote:Spot on

Times 3 (at least, I suspect).

Adams is 6'1", 213 lbs. The average weight of an NFL linebacker is 245 lbs, which likely comes down a few pounds when you're talking about OLB, but even still, that puts Adams at least 30 lbs lighter than the average at that position. Going up against tackles and tight ends, he'd look as if he were playing in roller skates.

Adams signed with the Titans today so that ends the Seattle/Adams saga.

Thank Dog he won't be a Seahawk. Field Gulls has an article about it, but the picture they posted is perfect. The receiver is catching a TD pass, and Adams looks like his feet are planted and he is reaching weakly toward him. Typical. Good riddance.

Old but Slow wrote:Thank Dog he won't be a Seahawk. Field Gulls has an article about it, but the picture they posted is perfect. The receiver is catching a TD pass, and Adams looks like his feet are planted and he is reaching weakly toward him. Typical. Good riddance.

Yep. Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!

I never did like the trade, so I already had a predisposition not to like the guy personally, but this past season really sealed the deal for me personally with his sideline behavior, going off on common, everyday personnel who were just trying to do their jobs, then his "yikes" comment over social media, insulting a woman who was completely innocent.

So finally, we can turn the page in this gawd awful acquisition. Worst trade in Hawks history.

From an assets given up perspective it is the worst trade in Seahawks history, but in impact to the team I'm beginning to think the Unger for Graham trade is close on it's heels as we've never fixed the Center position and the OL has been in flux for the last decade as a result. Maybe this coaching staff will demand that gets fixed as a priority along with the two Guards. They also have to consider if Cross is the answer longer term and hope Lucas is healthy enough to continue his career long term.

NorthHawk wrote:From an assets given up perspective it is the worst trade in Seahawks history, but in impact to the team I'm beginning to think the Unger for Graham trade is close on it's heels as we've never fixed the Center position and the OL has been in flux for the last decade as a result. Maybe this coaching staff will demand that gets fixed as a priority along with the two Guards. They also have to consider if Cross is the answer longer term and hope Lucas is healthy enough to continue his career long term.

I agree. Graham was an out of character player for Pete's teams. He was a finesse player on a smash mouth team. He just didn't fit with the LOB, Beast Mode, the Mad Russian, and so on. But I don't think it trumps the Adams trade. Even when Adams was healthy, just like Graham, we didn't have a role for him and was under-utilized. Plus, we compounded the mistake we made in trading for him by signing him to a market setting contract. The Adams trade was when I fell completely off of Pete's bandwagon.

When healthy, Cross has been a solid starting tackle, but he hasn't lived up to his draft position. I'm still hopeful that he'll eventually live up to his billing, but there's no doubt that he's been a disappointment. PC/JS just don't seem to have a very good feel for offensive linemen, burning #1 picks on James Carpenter and Germain Ifedi, neither of which we thought enough of to pick up their 5th year option or bring back on a 2nd contract.

At least with Cross and Lucas, they've let them play the position they were drafted for and not shuffled them from Guard to Tackle and vice versa like they did with Ifedi.
Cross isn't big enough to play inside so he has that limitation, but he does have good feet for a larger man. One of the questions of him is will he be aggressive enough for Grubb's Offense (if he employs the same philosophy as he did in College)?
I'm not sure that is something that can be taught. I think they have to decide if they want to give him an extension this year or decide to let him become a FA in 2026.
The IOL? I just hope that Olu is the answer in the middle and last years draft pick Haynes can be a good starter at one of the Guard spots. There's a lot of doubt right now like there has been for 10 years, but I guess we can only hope at this point.

NorthHawk wrote:At least with Cross and Lucas, they've let them play the position they were drafted for and not shuffled them from Guard to Tackle and vice versa like they did with Ifedi.
Cross isn't big enough to play inside so he has that limitation, but he does have good feet for a larger man. One of the questions of him is will he be aggressive enough for Grubb's Offense (if he employs the same philosophy as he did in College)?
I'm not sure that is something that can be taught. I think they have to decide if they want to give him an extension this year or decide to let him become a FA in 2026.
The IOL? I just hope that Olu is the answer in the middle and last years draft pick Haynes can be a good starter at one of the Guard spots. There's a lot of doubt right now like there has been for 10 years, but I guess we can only hope at this point.

That's one of the big questions I have about Grubbs: College coaches haven't been very successful at the pro level, especially when it comes to offensive college coaches, with Kliff Kingsbury being the latest example. And, as you have rightfully pointed out, there's a big difference between playing offensive tackle in the colleges vs. the NFL. Cross isn't a very good run blocking tackle.

Cross is only in his 3rd season, so I'm not writing him off just yet. His 5th year option is still two years away.

As far as Olu goes, I'm not holding my breath. One of the big disappointments of the off season is that they haven't brought in anyone to seriously challenge him.

Don't they have to decide after this year whether to extend him for a 5th year? I thought that the decision had to be made going into the players 4th year.
If that's correct then this might be a make or break year for him in Seattle.

NorthHawk wrote:At least with Cross and Lucas, they've let them play the position they were drafted for and not shuffled them from Guard to Tackle and vice versa like they did with Ifedi.
Cross isn't big enough to play inside so he has that limitation, but he does have good feet for a larger man. One of the questions of him is will he be aggressive enough for Grubb's Offense (if he employs the same philosophy as he did in College)?
I'm not sure that is something that can be taught. I think they have to decide if they want to give him an extension this year or decide to let him become a FA in 2026.
The IOL? I just hope that Olu is the answer in the middle and last years draft pick Haynes can be a good starter at one of the Guard spots. There's a lot of doubt right now like there has been for 10 years, but I guess we can only hope at this point.

doubt, sure, but even with Olu and Haynes, they are playing them at the positions they played in college. I like that a lot better than trying to switch guys to a new position in the pros. I'm more hopeful about that approach.

Looking back, it was almost as if they were experimenting as to whether that shifting players to new positions could work. It might have worked if the players had learned their original positions first then tried switching, but I think that all it did for most young players was confuse them and made them doubt their assignments for each play. It ended up with mediocre to bad OL play.

NorthHawk wrote:Looking back, it was almost as if they were experimenting as to whether that shifting players to new positions could work. It might have worked if the players had learned their original positions first then tried switching, but I think that all it did for most young players was confuse them and made them doubt their assignments for each play. It ended up with mediocre to bad OL play.

It's sort of like playing shortstop all your career then suddenly being moved to 2nd base. You see the game from a different angle, and it takes some time to get adjusted. I remember when I was in Colt League (15–16-year-olds) and our 2nd baseman didn't show up for a game and with no other options, the coach put me in that position, the first time I'd ever played it, including practices. During the game, there was a runner on first who started to steal 2nd and I was running to cover 2nd, but the ball was fouled off just as I was about to reach the bag. I let up and was going to step on the bag then return to my position, but my foot landed on the outside edge, slid off the bag and I severely sprained it. I'm sure that wouldn't have happened if I had been playing shortstop.

Kind of a long story to make a point, but I suspect that there are similar experiences that players go through when they're moved from one side of the center to another.

If a player has to think before reacting then at the NFL level he will underperform. The margin of success or failure on each play is so small that anything that negatively affects a reflex action gives the opponent the advantage. So a player learning 2 different positions might get confused or be unsure and then he is lost on that play. It's why I doubted the idea of switching from OT to OG without letting a player settle in and learn the quickness, speed and power at the NFL level. Once he's established at one of the positions, then try out the other - or simply start him out in TC at the position he did not play in college and put him in real games when he shows he's capable of playing at the NFL level at that position.

Speaking of both Jamal Adams and changing positions, Adams was supposedly asked to switch to LB this season. He didn't want to do it, so the team released him. How much weight that carried versus his salary, performance, and health is anyone's guess.

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2024/7/24/24 ... -positions

There was some speculation about it on reddit and the Seattle Times a few months ago. Not sure it would have helped him. He couldn't cover well and couldn't stay healthy.

That's how the local news down here (the Titans are the closest NFL team, about a 2 hr drive) are telling it; that he didn't like the position change and that's what propelled the move.

So I take it that the Titans will play him at strong safety?

Adams would have been a disaster at linebacker. I'm so glad that we moved on from him.