Trade?

[mykc14]

I am still having trouble understanding the issue people are having with his contract. I know his cap hit is 9.5 mil next year and that's high, based on what he might produce 'statistically' here. But lets say the Hawks are determined to upgrade the WR position, which we all agree is a huge area of need, and want to spend 6-7 mil on that position by signing a different FA. BM is 'only' 3 mil more and fits the body type/skill set which we currently don't have established on this team (Matthews is not established, he could be that guy but he isn't yet). Here's where the finances get important, IMO. If he doesn't work out you can cut him next year with 'only' 3 mil in dead money. If they were to sign a 6-7 mil guy this offseason there is almost no way they could cut him next year for that little cap hit if he didn't work out. If Marshall does work out then your still paying him 9 mil/year, its not like his contract goes way up. If he has a bad season in year 2 or you are simply ready to move on it is only 1 mil in dead money to cut him at that point, again not really prohibitive and IMO worth the risk.

[c_hawkbob]

First of all Bob, getting pretty sick of your "you are trying to win" crapola. I have numerous times said I could care less if you ( or anyone else) likes the move, and have said if they pull the trigger I can live with it, should they pull it. Doesn't mean in any way I have to "like" it or agree with it, whether you do or not.

Secondly, Marshall has NOT had a "successful" season without those targets, and I provided the link backing that up, if you want to claim "I don't know" what he can or will do in this offense, fair enough, but spare me the " I don't know what he'll do" but somehow, you have ANY inkling what so ever, that you do either. At least my opinion has some ACTUAL investigation, and backing. Everyone is guessing what he could or will bring, and my opinion that he isn't going to magically turn into a receiver that doesn't need targets to be worth 10 million dollars a year, and pick/s.

Third, just because I break down WHY I feel that way, doesn't mean diddly squat, except that I am trying to make my opinion and feelings about it clear, so I can avoid people claiming erroneously, and arrogantly that I am "trying to win" something that has NO winners.

You like the Marshall move, great, you are entitled to that opinion, I would prefer they spend that capital in another way, and that feeling whether you approve or not, is irrelevant to me. I'm not "out on a limb" because I don't want the Seahawks to give up picks, and that much cash to an aging player, that for his ENTIRE career has needed targets to succeed.

Rice and Harvin did NOT succeed on the field, period. If you want to tell yourself they did, that is your self dillution, and you are welcome to it. Hell, it might work this time, but spare me the claim that I should as well. One couldn't stay on the field due to injury, and one couldn't stay on the team do to dooschiness.... Might as well claim that Houschyourdaddy and Branch also showed the traits that the team found desirable ( because they both at times most certainly did) you don't pay that money for flashes, you pay for production.

OK, in order:

- it's not my winning thing, never was. review the tape, it's yours. But I can see it's become a sore spot with you so i'll leave it be.

- Again, "successful" is where we part ways, You try to apply the term to success as measured by a modern pass oriented offense even while saying that no one will have those sort of numbers in our offense ... does that not require a different determination of "successful"?

- I have no problem with you substantiating your position, feel free to fill up as many pages as you want. I apologize for the excess verbiage comment. I post (and read) much of the time from my desk in my control room at work (as I am now) and find an economy of words easier both to read and write. I'd do best to keep in mind that not everyone here shares that situation. My intent is to get you to think outside of your comfort box, not to make you angry.

Carry on.

[NorthHawk]

The problem with draft picks is they usually take a couple of years to reach their full abilities.
Marshall is there now, and we have the opportunity to win now and for a few more years.
That leaves the FAs and I don't see others with the same skill set as Marshall (including the blocking ability) at the moment.
Keep in mind that some or many of those currently heading into FA will be re-signed by their own teams.

So where we are at right now is he is the best option - and really not that much money.

[RiverDog]

The problem with draft picks is they usually take a couple of years to reach their full abilities.
Marshall is there now, and we have the opportunity to win now and for a few more years.
That leaves the FAs and I don't see others with the same skill set as Marshall (including the blocking ability) at the moment.
Keep in mind that some or many of those currently heading into FA will be re-signed by their own teams.

So where we are at right now is he is the best option - and really not that much money.

Marshall is not "there now.". He peaked in 2012. The last two years have shown a sharp decline in his productivity, especially last season.

[mykc14]

Marshall is not "there now.". He peaked in 2012. The last two years have shown a sharp decline in his productivity, especially last season.

I wouldn't say there has been a sharp decline the past 2 years, as he was a Pro-Bowler in 2013. In fact his 2013 stats (2014 stats in parentheses) were very good 100 (118) receptions 1300 (1500) yards and 12 (11) TD's. With that being said I would agree his number certainly declined last year. The question is why was his 2014 down? Was it because of a decline in ability, personal issues, an erratic QB, lack of chances, or injuries? My guess is some sort of a combination of some (or all) of those factors. Even if we don't get him I would expect him to be closer to 80 receptions 900-1000 yards and 9-10 TD's than the numbers he put up last year (heck if he played all 16 games last year he would have been close to those numbers). Coming here he might not get the targets to put those numbers up but he is still that type of player, IMO.

[NorthHawk]

That's the problem with statistics.
Taken in isolation, they may look like he's on the decline, but the whole team underachieved so the data is questionable at best.

If Lynch doesn't come back, I would expect we throw more to make up for his lost production.
Having another big target will be a necessity.

[monkey]

This is a response to both Human Cockroach and Riverdog, because I've now seen both of you use the same fallacious arguments repeatedly.

There's a difference between putting up big numbers, and still having the ABILITY to put up big numbers.
Adding another dominant receiver (Alshon Jeffrey) to the Bears passing game took away from Marshall's numbers, but it's anyone's guess how much age has taken from his ability, which is all I am concerned with.

Let's not pretend to "know" where he's at in terms of what he's still capable of.
You are guessing he's over the hill, he might be, but using statistics completely out of context to support that assumption isn't going to convince anyone.
If you could show a measurement that indicates a loss of speed, or a loss of ability in some way, THAT would mean something. It's a given that those things WILL start to happen eventually, and at his age, sooner rather than later, but you guys are acting like he's 40, when the truth is he's only 30! (Will turn 31 in March.)
31 is NOT old for a receiver! Plenty of receivers have remained in top form well into their late 30's and to say otherwise is ridiculous. 31 is hardly over the hill.
One should reasonably expect him to AT LEAST be able to finish out his current contract without any noticeable drop off.

What you guys are doing is taking a fact, (that his numbers dropped off last year) out of context (a lousy quarterback, a team in turmoil, a top flight receiver in Alshon Jeffrey taking away targets) and saying it means he's gotten old, when there is NO REAL REASON (his actual age is only 31!) to assume that!
In the span of just a few posts, I've read several red herring arguments, even more straw man arguments, and seemingly non stop circular reasoning...all classic logic fallacies.

Bottom line, he's not old in football years, for his position!
If you want to argue that his numbers dropped off due to age, then you have to actually prove that by showing a loss of ABILITY, not a drop in numbers! There can be any number of reasons for a drop off in production, but making the claim that the drop off is due to age, when he's only age 31, MUST be proven by more than just the drop off in production!
You cannot use the numbers to prove the numbers! Good grief people!

[RiverDog]

This is a response to both Human Cockroach and Riverdog, because I've now seen both of you use the same fallacious arguments repeatedly.

There's a difference between putting up big numbers, and still having the ABILITY to put up big numbers.
Adding another dominant receiver (Alshon Jeffrey) to the Bears passing game took away from Marshall's numbers, but it's anyone's guess how much age has taken from his ability, which is all I am concerned with.

Let's not pretend to "know" where he's at in terms of what he's still capable of.
You are guessing he's over the hill, he might be, but using statistics completely out of context to support that assumption isn't going to convince anyone.
If you could show a measurement that indicates a loss of speed, or a loss of ability in some way, THAT would mean something. It's a given that those things WILL start to happen eventually, and at his age, sooner rather than later, but you guys are acting like he's 40, when the truth is he's only 30! (Will turn 31 in March.)
31 is NOT old for a receiver! Plenty of receivers have remained in top form well into their late 30's and to say otherwise is ridiculous. 31 is hardly over the hill.
One should reasonably expect him to AT LEAST be able to finish out his current contract without any noticeable drop off.

What you guys are doing is taking a fact, (that his numbers dropped off last year) out of context (a lousy quarterback, a team in turmoil, a top flight receiver in Alshon Jeffrey taking away targets) and saying it means he's gotten old, when there is NO REAL REASON (his actual age is only 31!) to assume that!
In the span of just a few posts, I've read several red herring arguments, even more straw man arguments, and seemingly non stop circular reasoning...all classic logic fallacies.

Bottom line, he's not old in football years, for his position!
If you want to argue that his numbers dropped off due to age, then you have to actually prove that by showing a loss of ABILITY, not a drop in numbers! There can be any number of reasons for a drop off in production, but making the claim that the drop off is due to age, when he's only age 31, MUST be proven by more than just the drop off in production!
You cannot use the numbers to prove the numbers! Good grief people!

Yes, I am well aware that stats are not always a true reflection of a player's performance or ability to perform. (Note to Anthony:) As the saying goes, there are liars, damn liars, and then there are statisticians. As always, you make some very good points. But Marshall's numbers are facts, and the fact is that his career did peak in 2012 and that his 2014 production was way below his norm. Last season, he caught way fewer passes for way fewer yards than in any year of his career except for his rookie season.

It's difficult for me to rationalize the entire drop off in Marshall's 2014 production to Alshon Jeffery's impact. Jeffery had better numbers in 2013 than he had last season and it didn't seem to hurt Marshall's productivity then. Why would lesser numbers by Jeffery this season contribute to Marshall's falling off a cliff? Plus you cannot deny the fact that Marshall has some significant character issues in his closet. We just got through getting burned on a trade for a wide receiver that had known character issues. I'm not anxious to repeat the same mistake.

Signing Marshall if he's cut would be one thing. Nothing ventured, nothing lost. But I would be skeptical in offering very much in terms of a trade.

[briwas101]

Paying a high-priced WR will hurt the team UNTIL and UNLESS we do ALL of the following:
1. Make sure we actually get the RIGHT high-priced WR
2. Improve the pass-blocking so we can effectively use him.
3. Change our philosophy of spreading the ball around so much.

There is not a single WR in NFL history that would be worth $10m as a part time player and part time decoy. Even Calvin Johnson doesn't attract enough attention to make a WR like Bryan Walters good. Our "other" WRs are not going to suddenly put up much better numbers because Marshall is on the field.

The only way it makes sense to pay a WR big money is if you are going to make him the focus of your offense (and he's good enough to carry the load).

There just isnt enough cap space to pay a WR $10m to give us 500 yards. If we pay someone $10m we need 1000+ yards and 10+ tds, no exceptions.

So unless the Hawks can successfully improve the OL (failed the entire Carroll era), and choose the right high-priced WR (again, failed the entire Carroll era) and they change their offensive philosophy it wont make sense for us to pay a WR a bunch of money.

[NorthHawk]

We saw what a big WR can bring to our Offense a month ago.
People are getting stuck on numbers. It's about production and moving the chains - nothing more.
Getting first downs that continue drives and TDs in the Red Zone are invaluable even if the numbers don't show that importance.
Remember Chris Carter? The line about him was all he did was score Touchdowns. He never had the real big yardage numbers, but he was a great WR.

[mykc14]

Paying a high-priced WR will hurt the team UNTIL and UNLESS we do ALL of the following:
1. Make sure we actually get the RIGHT high-priced WR
2. Improve the pass-blocking so we can effectively use him.
3. Change our philosophy of spreading the ball around so much.

There is not a single WR in NFL history that would be worth $10m as a part time player and part time decoy. Even Calvin Johnson doesn't attract enough attention to make a WR like Bryan Walters good. Our "other" WRs are not going to suddenly put up much better numbers because Marshall is on the field.

The only way it makes sense to pay a WR big money is if you are going to make him the focus of your offense (and he's good enough to carry the load).

There just isnt enough cap space to pay a WR $10m to give us 500 yards. If we pay someone $10m we need 1000+ yards and 10+ tds, no exceptions.

So unless the Hawks can successfully improve the OL (failed the entire Carroll era), and choose the right high-priced WR (again, failed the entire Carroll era) and they change their offensive philosophy it wont make sense for us to pay a WR a bunch of money.

Sure there is, although your numbers are a bit off, currently we are paying a receiver 7+ mil and he won't have any yards, receptions, or TD's for us next year. If his salary plus 3 mil were to go to a guy who could produce 850-1000 yards, 8-12 TD's, require double coverage in the Red Zone, and be well above average as a blocker I would say money well spent. Like others have pointed out its not about numbers. Teams can't afford to pay a QB who 'only' throws for 3000 yards and 20 TD's 22 mil/year (or 18 mil/ year all guaranteed) either, but that is what we do because we LOOK PAST THE NUMBERS.

[mykc14]

Paying a high-priced WR will hurt the team UNTIL and UNLESS we do ALL of the following:
1. Make sure we actually get the RIGHT high-priced WR
2. Improve the pass-blocking so we can effectively use him.
3. Change our philosophy of spreading the ball around so much.

There is not a single WR in NFL history that would be worth $10m as a part time player and part time decoy. Even Calvin Johnson doesn't attract enough attention to make a WR like Bryan Walters good. Our "other" WRs are not going to suddenly put up much better numbers because Marshall is on the field.

The only way it makes sense to pay a WR big money is if you are going to make him the focus of your offense (and he's good enough to carry the load).

There just isnt enough cap space to pay a WR $10m to give us 500 yards. If we pay someone $10m we need 1000+ yards and 10+ tds, no exceptions.

So unless the Hawks can successfully improve the OL (failed the entire Carroll era), and choose the right high-priced WR (again, failed the entire Carroll era) and they change their offensive philosophy it wont make sense for us to pay a WR a bunch of money.

Sure there is, although your numbers are a bit off, currently we are paying a receiver 7+ mil and he won't have any yards, receptions, or TD's for us next year. If his salary plus 3 mil were to go to a guy who could produce 850-1000 yards, 8-12 TD's, require double coverage in the Red Zone, and be well above average as a blocker I would say money well spent. Like others have pointed out its not about numbers. Teams can't afford to pay a QB who 'only' throws for 3000 yards and 20 TD's 22 mil/year (or 18 mil/ year all guaranteed) either, but that is what we do because we LOOK PAST THE NUMBERS.

Also, he doesn't have to make Bryan Walters look good. He would help to free up guys like Baldwin and Kearse. With him we wouldn't have to be throwing to Bryan Walters. Combine a guy like Marshall with our receivers and a healthy Richardson and you will see an elite offense.

[obiken]

Ok, I know this sounds crazy but Brock Huard calls Russell Wilson a compact Marcus Mariota. So, we trade up with Wilson and get Mariota and we are set for life!

[NorthHawk]

Ok, I know this sounds crazy but Brock Huard calls Russell Wilson a compact Marcus Mariota. So, we trade up with Wilson and get Mariota and we are set for life!

For 5 years, anyway and much less Cap costs.
Sounds like a fine business decision...

[Agent 86]

Don't have to worry about this anymore....sounds like Marshall has been traded to the Jets today.

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyfootball/update/25095430/report-bears-trade-wr-brandon-marshall-to-the-jets

[Agent 86]

And on that note, what do you all think about pursuing Randall Cobb?....still young, and to me seems more like the fit the 'Hawks would look for in a receiver.

Also is money in the return game.

I would like this addition to our team on the surface. He is a current UFA as the Packers balked at his asking price. Sounds like he asked for alot and if he got it great, if not, he gets to go test the market which I think every player really wants.

Who wouldn't want to be wined and dined by multiple teams looking for your services?

[NorthHawk]

There are some good things about him with his Kick returning ability as a bonus.
Unfortunately he's only 5'10 and we need size at WR.
I think I read he wants about 10 million/year.

[mykc14]

Don't have to worry about this anymore....sounds like Marshall has been traded to the Jets today.

http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyfootball/update/25095430/report-bears-trade-wr-brandon-marshall-to-the-jets

Dang, I was really hoping we would find a way to get him, maybe even using the Jets 4th rounder, but this could also mean that 4th rounder turns into a 6th as I doubt they pay Marshall 10 mil and Harvin 12 mil next season, although you never know. Poor Marshall he is never going to get an NFL caliber QB to throw him the ball. Cutler had a few good years but his other years he was abysmal, then throw in the Miami years and now the Jets, yikes.

[Hawk Sista]

With this trade, that 4th rounder might have just become a 6th. We will have to see.