"No way" Shawn Alexander will be back in Seattle (1 Viewer)

[jeter23]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

 

[zamboni]

I could see them in the running for Michael Turner. While the rookie RB crop is plentiful, this is a team that's not far away from doing some damage in the playoffs, and they may want to go with an NFL-tested guy.

 

[jeter23]

I could see them in the running for Michael Turner. While the rookie RB crop is plentiful, this is a team that's not far away from doing some damage in the playoffs, and they may want to go with an NFL-tested guy.

This makes some sense. I could see them starting with a Turner/Morris RBBC, eventually moving to Turner as the starter.

 

[H.K.]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

Any question of what to do about the rushing offense gets back to Shaun Alexander and the financial specifics. Beware. What follows is a highly nerdy description of the financial specifics of the whole transaction in which terms like pro-ration and post-June 1 cuts will be used. So get out your slide rule as we delve into the salary-cap-onomics of the NFL.

Start with this qualifier. This is a hypothetical exercise. The Seahawks have given no public indication that any decisions have been made on his future. However, the salary-cap math does show the decision Seattle is facing.

Start with Alexander's salary. According to the database of the league's players association, his contract calls for a base salary of $4,475,000 in 2008. Now this is the NFL. Contracts are not guaranteed. Seattle can cut him and owe him none of that money. It can ask him to restructure his contract, changing the salary. Or it could keep him at the current deal.

Salary isn't the only consideration, though. Signing bonuses are the crux of NFL contracts. Since the future years of a contract aren't guaranteed, the players seek as much up-front money as possible. The athlete gets a lump sum, but the NFL salary-cap accounting procedures allow that lump sum to be pro-rated.

Alexander received an $11.5 million signing bonus in 2006. That total is pro-rated over five years against the team's salary cap at an amount of $2.3 million. The upshot is that only $4.6 million of that $11.5 million has been accounted for under the salary cap. That leaves $6.9 million that must be accounted for even if he does not play for the team again.

If the Seahawks kept him on the current deal, he would count at least $6,775,000 against the team's salary cap in 2008.

Now, the rules do provide some flexibility in how that accounting can occur. If he is cut after June 1 -- or designated a post-June 1 cut -- that total of $6.9 million would be spread over two years with $2.3 million counting against the cap in 2008 and $4.6 million in 2009.

link

 

[TitusIII]

Mendenhall would be perfect in that system...

 

[zamboni]

I could see them in the running for Michael Turner. While the rookie RB crop is plentiful, this is a team that's not far away from doing some damage in the playoffs, and they may want to go with an NFL-tested guy.

This makes some sense. I could see them starting with a Turner/Morris RBBC, eventually moving to Turner as the starter.

If they did get Turner, I doubt it would be RBBC. They'd likely bring him in as the man.That said, my guess is that they go the rookie route to save some money.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I could see them in the running for Michael Turner. While the rookie RB crop is plentiful, this is a team that's not far away from doing some damage in the playoffs, and they may want to go with an NFL-tested guy.

This makes some sense. I could see them starting with a Turner/Morris RBBC, eventually moving to Turner as the starter.

If they did get Turner, I doubt it would be RBBC. They'd likely bring him in as the man.That said, my guess is that they go the rookie route to save some money.

Agree. A late 1st round rook is going to cost a couple mil less that the hottest FA RB.

 

[Banger]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

I don't see any team taking that salary on in a trade. If they cut him some team may take a shot at him but the chances he gets traded are next to nil IMO. Since it costs just as much to keep him as it does to cut him I'd expect that they keep him but his role may be changed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they drafted someone to hand over the reigns to.

 

[H.K.]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

I don't see any team taking that salary on in a trade. If they cut him some team may take a shot at him but the chances he gets traded are next to nil IMO. Since it costs just as much to keep him as it does to cut him I'd expect that they keep him but his role may be changed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they drafted someone to hand over the reigns to.

Yep. $$$ is the key factor here.

 

[cacksman]

I could see them in the running for Michael Turner. While the rookie RB crop is plentiful, this is a team that's not far away from doing some damage in the playoffs, and they may want to go with an NFL-tested guy.

I highly doubt they will even attempt to sign Turner. He will command a good amount of money and this years draft class is LOADED with talented RBs. It would be foolish for them to try and sign Turner when they have a lot of their own guys to sign (Trufant, Locklear, Brown, Hackett, etc). I could definitely see them try to sign a FA guard like Faneca, or one of the Indy guards, and also a FA tight end.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Number of RBs who could put up better stats with that line: 4.

And none of them are coming to Seattle.

 

[guderian]

Number of RBs who could put up better stats with that line: 4.

Who are the other three because one of them must be Morris since he put up a 4.5 YPC with the same line versus 3.5 for Alexander. Before anyone plays the "3rd down RB card", he also put p 3.7 YPC on first down compared to 2.7 for Alexander.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

While Alexander didn't help the situation, the problem lies with the O-line moreso than the running backs.

Instead of getting rid of Alexander with all the cap ramficiation, the logical thing would be to sign a guard like Faneca, Lilja, Jake Scott or even Stacey Andrews.

Sign one of those Guards and then draft Mendenhall or Stewart as quality depth and an eventual starter, with the by-product of also pushing Alexander to hopefully performing better.

Draft and FA needs for the Hawks: Guard, Tackle, RB, TE

 

[Marc Levin]

Seattle is in the perfect division to rebuild - and they have a lot of rebuilding to do. They need to revamp the OL, resign hackett or draft/sign a standout WR, and they should cut Alexander after June 1 and draft a RB (errr, draft an RB, then cut SA). And they still need to address resigning some defensive players, esp. Trufant.

Luckily, with AZ, SF, and StL as their main competition, they will be able to rebuild those pieces over the next two years and still compete each year for the division win and a home playoff game. The best thing to ever happen to that franchise was to move out of the AFC-W and into the NFC-W.

ETA - SA won't be out of a job long - Oakland, Houston, and maybe Pitt would sign him in an instant.

 

[RustyFA]

MAurice Morris is good enough to start. And he will. They invested a 2nd rounder in him and then re-signed him. He is the future at RB for the Seahawks.

 

[mad sweeney]

MAurice Morris is good enough to start. And he will. They invested a 2nd rounder in him and then re-signed him. He is the future at RB for the Seahawks.

No, he is not. He's a great backup and change of pace back but just isn't a starter. He was re-signed after shopping himself around and getting no real takers. For years it was thought that he would make it and from watching him last year and this year getting some good PT, I just don't see it. He'd be the kind of starter you're always trying to upgrade. Not trying to disparage him because he is skilled and is very useful, especially in the pass first philosophy they went to for a while. But he is not the future RB. He may be a member of a future RBBC, but his future with the Hawks is most likely as a good backup.

 

[Warehouse Nasty]

Number of RBs who could put up better stats with that line: 4.And none of them are coming to Seattle.

Alexander is absolutely done. At no point this season did he look like a starting NFL RB.

 

[cacksman]

MAurice Morris is good enough to start. And he will. They invested a 2nd rounder in him and then re-signed him. He is the future at RB for the Seahawks.

If MOMO is the future for the Seahawks, the future isnt very bright. He is definitely not the future. RBBC maybe, but they should draft a RB in the first 2 rounds this year (and get a very good one).

 

[Red Apples]

MAurice Morris is good enough to start. And he will. They invested a 2nd rounder in him and then re-signed him. He is the future at RB for the Seahawks.

If MOMO is the future for the Seahawks, the future isnt very bright. He is definitely not the future. RBBC maybe, but they should draft a RB in the first 2 rounds this year (and get a very good one).

they are going to draft a rookie...spending any type of serious money on turner makes no sense.

 

[cstu]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

I don't see any team taking that salary on in a trade. If they cut him some team may take a shot at him but the chances he gets traded are next to nil IMO. Since it costs just as much to keep him as it does to cut him I'd expect that they keep him but his role may be changed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they drafted someone to hand over the reigns to.

I expect them to keep him - no sense on paying more for him not to be on the team. It'll be his last year though and very similar his situation with Ricky Watters, except reversed.

 

[J R]

While Alexander didn't help the situation, the problem lies with the O-line moreso than the running backs.Instead of getting rid of Alexander with all the cap ramficiation, the logical thing would be to sign a guard like Faneca, Lilja, Jake Scott or even Stacey Andrews.Sign one of those Guards and then draft Mendenhall or Stewart as quality depth and an eventual starter, with the by-product of also pushing Alexander to hopefully performing better.Draft and FA needs for the Hawks: Guard, Tackle, RB, TE

Agree with this. Rob Sims looks horrible. They do have a couple of guys drafted in the middle rounds in recent years. Any Hawks homers have anything good to say about Wrotto or Willis?

 

[ImTheScientist]

Seattle is in the perfect division to rebuild - and they have a lot of rebuilding to do. They need to revamp the OL, resign hackett or draft/sign a standout WR, and they should cut Alexander after June 1 and draft a RB (errr, draft an RB, then cut SA). And they still need to address resigning some defensive players, esp. Trufant.

Luckily, with AZ, SF, and StL as their main competition, they will be able to rebuild those pieces over the next two years and still compete each year for the division win and a home playoff game. The best thing to ever happen to that franchise was to move out of the AFC-W and into the NFC-W.

ETA - SA won't be out of a job long - Oakland, Houston, and maybe Pitt would sign him in an instant.

really? How many teams made it further into the playoffs then they did this year?

 

[mad sweeney]

Seattle is in the perfect division to rebuild - and they have a lot of rebuilding to do. They need to revamp the OL, resign hackett or draft/sign a standout WR, and they should cut Alexander after June 1 and draft a RB (errr, draft an RB, then cut SA). And they still need to address resigning some defensive players, esp. Trufant.

Luckily, with AZ, SF, and StL as their main competition, they will be able to rebuild those pieces over the next two years and still compete each year for the division win and a home playoff game. The best thing to ever happen to that franchise was to move out of the AFC-W and into the NFC-W.

ETA - SA won't be out of a job long - Oakland, Houston, and maybe Pitt would sign him in an instant.

really? How many teams made it further into the playoffs then they did this year?

They need help at both OG spots, are dead in the water at TE, and have two RBs that are less than spectacular. And the possible loss of an above average RT. The combination of which all produced a very anemic rushing game. Plus a WR probably going to IR, a FB not as spectacular as thought, another WR that may or may not be on the team next year. A slot receiver as the #1 if those happen backed up by a talented but often inconsistent #2. And then a bunch of 2nd year players with little experience. All while trying to keep several vital D and ST free agents.I would say that there is a LOT of rebuilding to do on the O. Two years in a row they've gotten past the first round by the skin of their teeth. Last year an injury depleted team caught a break at he end (but in no way would've definitely changed the outcome) and this year unable to generate ANY running game while letting the other team keep our D on the field forever. How you can possibly think that the O doesn't need a lot of work just because they made the playoffs again this year is beyond me. All teams have to rebuild on one side of the ball or another every year.

 

[Dirty Hairy]

In listening to him, I would also say that it seems to me there is now way Shaun Alexander is coming back. Holmgren talked extensively about the need to have a running back that can do all three facets of his job well. He said that you can get away from that if you are exceptional at one, as Shaun was in 2005. But when you are only average, you can't be poor at pass catching and blocking and get away with it. When I think back to what he said at his press conference on Wednesday, about Shaun being able to be productive again, I think that maybe he was answering the question, but maybe not entirely forthcoming. Maybe he was saying Shaun can be productive ELSEWHERE, a precursor to trading him.

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2...to_the_seahawks

I don't see any team taking that salary on in a trade. If they cut him some team may take a shot at him but the chances he gets traded are next to nil IMO. Since it costs just as much to keep him as it does to cut him I'd expect that they keep him but his role may be changed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they drafted someone to hand over the reigns to.

I agree, SA is not tradeable at his 08 salary.The last comment about SA costing as much to cut him as to play him needs further explanation.

It costs as much in salary cap to cut him as to play him.

Dollars out of pocket is a lot different.

To play him costs $4.5 million cash, all of which is charged to the salary cap along with 1/5 the signing bonus = $2.3 mil. The team is still left with 2/5 of the signing bonus to recognize in the future.

To cut him, you don't spend the $4.5 mil cash but instead get charged 3/5 the signing bonus = $6.9 mil. against the salary cap.

The cap hit of 3/5 signing bonus will eventually get recognized whether his is cut or played; the only question is when it will be recognized.

The real question is whether SA is worth $4.5 mil cash in 2008.

The whole point of the original beat writer's comment is that he is not worth the cash and will definitely be cut,

leaving the Hawks to seek out a better value player.

 

[cacksman]

really? How many teams made it further into the playoffs then they did this year?

They need help at both OG spots, are dead in the water at TE, and have two RBs that are less than spectacular. And the possible loss of an above average RT. The combination of which all produced a very anemic rushing game. Plus a WR probably going to IR, a FB not as spectacular as thought, another WR that may or may not be on the team next year. A slot receiver as the #1 if those happen backed up by a talented but often inconsistent #2. And then a bunch of 2nd year players with little experience. All while trying to keep several vital D and ST free agents.I would say that there is a LOT of rebuilding to do on the O. Two years in a row they've gotten past the first round by the skin of their teeth. Last year an injury depleted team caught a break at he end (but in no way would've definitely changed the outcome) and this year unable to generate ANY running game while letting the other team keep our D on the field forever. How you can possibly think that the O doesn't need a lot of work just because they made the playoffs again this year is beyond me. All teams have to rebuild on one side of the ball or another every year.

Seattle does not need a lot of rebuilding to do. Their offense needs help at the LG spot, no question. Getting a better TE than Pollard shouldnt be too hard since he is one of the worst recieving TE's ive seen play for Seattle in many years. RB's arent great but they arent bad and Seattle will probably draft one in the first 3 rounds this year. Their only big defensive player hitting free agency is Trufant, and if they don't resign him right away they will tag him. No way will he hit the open market. Locklear has already stated he wants to stay. Brown most likely isnt going anywhere, and with Branch's injury, Hackett will most likely be signed as well. Most of Seattle's problems can be solved in either FA or the draft. A new oline coach would help as well. This team is better than you think, judging by your last post. They should have won most of their road games this year and could have easily had HFA. If that were to happen, this thread wouldnt even exist now. The defense will come back just as good, if not better next year and I cannot see the offense taking a step back this year. Rebuilding? Hardly.

 

[mad sweeney]

really? How many teams made it further into the playoffs then they did this year?

They need help at both OG spots, are dead in the water at TE, and have two RBs that are less than spectacular. And the possible loss of an above average RT. The combination of which all produced a very anemic rushing game. Plus a WR probably going to IR, a FB not as spectacular as thought, another WR that may or may not be on the team next year. A slot receiver as the #1 if those happen backed up by a talented but often inconsistent #2. And then a bunch of 2nd year players with little experience. All while trying to keep several vital D and ST free agents.I would say that there is a LOT of rebuilding to do on the O. Two years in a row they've gotten past the first round by the skin of their teeth. Last year an injury depleted team caught a break at he end (but in no way would've definitely changed the outcome) and this year unable to generate ANY running game while letting the other team keep our D on the field forever. How you can possibly think that the O doesn't need a lot of work just because they made the playoffs again this year is beyond me. All teams have to rebuild on one side of the ball or another every year.

Seattle does not need a lot of rebuilding to do. Their offense needs help at the LG spot, no question. Getting a better TE than Pollard shouldnt be too hard since he is one of the worst recieving TE's ive seen play for Seattle in many years. RB's arent great but they arent bad and Seattle will probably draft one in the first 3 rounds this year. Their only big defensive player hitting free agency is Trufant, and if they don't resign him right away they will tag him. No way will he hit the open market. Locklear has already stated he wants to stay. Brown most likely isnt going anywhere, and with Branch's injury, Hackett will most likely be signed as well. Most of Seattle's problems can be solved in either FA or the draft. A new oline coach would help as well. This team is better than you think, judging by your last post. They should have won most of their road games this year and could have easily had HFA. If that were to happen, this thread wouldnt even exist now. The defense will come back just as good, if not better next year and I cannot see the offense taking a step back this year. Rebuilding? Hardly.

The topic was the offense rebuilding, not the team. And yes it does need some rebuilding. Not a complete rebuild, but a lot of work. The OL was unacceptable at both guard positions, as was the TE. That's 3/11 right there that NEED to be addressed. locklear would like to stay but this is a business and that may not happen. That could be 4/11. Hackett may or may not stay either. He's put up good numbers when healthy and could be looking for more money than the Hawks can afford with their few "must haves". I doubt we keep both Locklear and Hackett. So we're still at a minimum of 4/11 positions. The RB situation was in part due to the OL but also in part to a serious lack of effort on SA;s part, you being one of the few who think he's still good. They will daft a RB in the 1st round most likely. If they end up parting ways with SA, that's possibly 5/11. Oh and Branch won't see the field til midseason if at all so that's another spot that has to be filled. Even with backups already on the team they still need to replace the depth. Also they'll need a better blocking FB than Weaver. I know you think we only need work at LG but Holmgren has already said that RG Gray will not be the starter there (if he's even there at all) and there aren't enough good OL on the team to replace him from within while still addressing the LG.So by my count there are at a minimum of 4-5 spots that will need to be replaced or upgraded, probably more and all the way up to 7 or even 8 in a worst case scenario depending on free agency. If replacing half your starting unit isn't rebuilding, I dunno what is. And of course they're going to solve their problems through FA or the draft, how else would they do it?Whatever you took from my post regarding the state of the team is completely wrong. I don't think they are in bad shape, but they have some work to do to rebuild it into a dominant unit. Despite the passing game's good stats, the O was far from dominant or even consistent. That needs to be fixed. And if it doesn't get fixed, I don't see how they don't take another step back, despite your unending and unfounded optimism about it. From the way you sound, they're going in with a new G and a new TE and going to be just fine. Rebuilding? Definitely.

 

[TheHosers]

Later in that Holmgren interview he states that they are not going after 1st tier FA's because they have Trufant, Brown, & Locklear as priorities. He specifically mentions no Faneca but that also entails any RB's (Turner).

I've got to say I like what our young players have to offer. Trufant is not going anywhere and the other 10 starters on Def are signed. 2nd yr Ben Obomanu at WR looked great during his limited PT this year and I think Burleson is finally ready to earn his huge contract so the loss of Hackett, which is probable, and Branch is not devastating. They were hardly ever on the field this year anyways. They're high on 3rd yr WR Courtney Taylor as well. Ray Willis will plug in at one G and he is ready to become a monster.

Weaver at FB should be much better at blocking after a full offseason of knowing he is now the man and will also become a nice additional weapon to work with. That leaves TE which is disgusting. However, we draft 1 each of RB (Mendenhall-Ill, Stewart-Ore, Jones-Ark), TE (Davis-USC,Bennett-TexA&M,Rucker-Miz,Carlso-ND) & an OL in the 1st 3 rounds and I don't see where rebuilding comes in this year.

 

[cacksman]

The topic was the offense rebuilding, not the team. And yes it does need some rebuilding. Not a complete rebuild, but a lot of work. The OL was unacceptable at both guard positions, as was the TE. That's 3/11 right there that NEED to be addressed. locklear would like to stay but this is a business and that may not happen. That could be 4/11. Hackett may or may not stay either. He's put up good numbers when healthy and could be looking for more money than the Hawks can afford with their few "must haves". I doubt we keep both Locklear and Hackett. So we're still at a minimum of 4/11 positions. The RB situation was in part due to the OL but also in part to a serious lack of effort on SA;s part, you being one of the few who think he's still good. They will daft a RB in the 1st round most likely. If they end up parting ways with SA, that's possibly 5/11. Oh and Branch won't see the field til midseason if at all so that's another spot that has to be filled. Even with backups already on the team they still need to replace the depth. Also they'll need a better blocking FB than Weaver. I know you think we only need work at LG but Holmgren has already said that RG Gray will not be the starter there (if he's even there at all) and there aren't enough good OL on the team to replace him from within while still addressing the LG.So by my count there are at a minimum of 4-5 spots that will need to be replaced or upgraded, probably more and all the way up to 7 or even 8 in a worst case scenario depending on free agency. If replacing half your starting unit isn't rebuilding, I dunno what is. And of course they're going to solve their problems through FA or the draft, how else would they do it?Whatever you took from my post regarding the state of the team is completely wrong. I don't think they are in bad shape, but they have some work to do to rebuild it into a dominant unit. Despite the passing game's good stats, the O was far from dominant or even consistent. That needs to be fixed. And if it doesn't get fixed, I don't see how they don't take another step back, despite your unending and unfounded optimism about it. From the way you sound, they're going in with a new G and a new TE and going to be just fine. Rebuilding? Definitely.

Rob Sims has talent and will most likely still be a starter next year even if they get a new LG. A new good pass catching TE will do huge things for this offense. Even if Branch and Hackett are both lost for next year(not likely) they still have the starter in Engram. Weaver WILL be the starting FB next year I can guarantee you that. They might sign another one for depth purposes but he will hardly, if ever see the field. Hass, Spencer, Engram, Walter, and Weaver will most definitely be starters next year. It's highly unlikely SA is not on the team next year and odds are they will sign at least one of Hackett and Locklear, maybe both. As I recall, their defense replaced 6 new starters from the previous year. We saw how that turned out.

 

[cstu]

Later in that Holmgren interview he states that they are not going after 1st tier FA's because they have Trufant, Brown, & Locklear as priorities. He specifically mentions no Faneca but that also entails any RB's (Turner).

I've got to say I like what our young players have to offer. Trufant is not going anywhere and the other 10 starters on Def are signed. 2nd yr Ben Obomanu at WR looked great during his limited PT this year and I think Burleson is finally ready to earn his huge contract so the loss of Hackett, which is probable, and Branch is not devastating. They were hardly ever on the field this year anyways. They're high on 3rd yr WR Courtney Taylor as well. Ray Willis will plug in at one G and he is ready to become a monster.

Weaver at FB should be much better at blocking after a full offseason of knowing he is now the man and will also become a nice additional weapon to work with. That leaves TE which is disgusting. However, we draft 1 each of RB (Mendenhall-Ill, Stewart-Ore, Jones-Ark), TE (Davis-USC,Bennett-TexA&M,Rucker-Miz,Carlso-ND) & an OL in the 1st 3 rounds and I don't see where rebuilding comes in this year.

Hmm, my coach-speak radar tells me that they ARE going after 1st tier FA's.

 

[Marc Levin]

Seattle is in the perfect division to rebuild - and they have a lot of rebuilding to do. They need to revamp the OL, resign hackett or draft/sign a standout WR, and they should cut Alexander after June 1 and draft a RB (errr, draft an RB, then cut SA). And they still need to address resigning some defensive players, esp. Trufant.

Luckily, with AZ, SF, and StL as their main competition, they will be able to rebuild those pieces over the next two years and still compete each year for the division win and a home playoff game. The best thing to ever happen to that franchise was to move out of the AFC-W and into the NFC-W.

ETA - SA won't be out of a job long - Oakland, Houston, and maybe Pitt would sign him in an instant.

really? How many teams made it further into the playoffs then they did this year?

??I answered that in the next paragraph. They will always be "fine" so longt as StL, Az and SF lag behind them. They have a lot of re-tooling to do to compete with the top-8 teams in the league.

Or do you think the Seahawks are satisfied with their performance this year and are only a few tweaks from the Bowl?

They need help at both OG spots, are dead in the water at TE, and have two RBs that are less than spectacular. And the possible loss of an above average RT. The combination of which all produced a very anemic rushing game. Plus a WR probably going to IR, a FB not as spectacular as thought, another WR that may or may not be on the team next year. A slot receiver as the #1 if those happen backed up by a talented but often inconsistent #2. And then a bunch of 2nd year players with little experience. All while trying to keep several vital D and ST free agents.

I would say that there is a LOT of rebuilding to do on the O. Two years in a row they've gotten past the first round by the skin of their teeth. Last year an injury depleted team caught a break at he end (but in no way would've definitely changed the outcome) and this year unable to generate ANY running game while letting the other team keep our D on the field forever. How you can possibly think that the O doesn't need a lot of work just because they made the playoffs again this year is beyond me. All teams have to rebuild on one side of the ball or another every year.

I think this says it all for me.

 

[mad sweeney]

The topic was the offense rebuilding, not the team. And yes it does need some rebuilding. Not a complete rebuild, but a lot of work. The OL was unacceptable at both guard positions, as was the TE. That's 3/11 right there that NEED to be addressed. locklear would like to stay but this is a business and that may not happen. That could be 4/11. Hackett may or may not stay either. He's put up good numbers when healthy and could be looking for more money than the Hawks can afford with their few "must haves". I doubt we keep both Locklear and Hackett. So we're still at a minimum of 4/11 positions. The RB situation was in part due to the OL but also in part to a serious lack of effort on SA;s part, you being one of the few who think he's still good. They will daft a RB in the 1st round most likely. If they end up parting ways with SA, that's possibly 5/11. Oh and Branch won't see the field til midseason if at all so that's another spot that has to be filled. Even with backups already on the team they still need to replace the depth. Also they'll need a better blocking FB than Weaver.

I know you think we only need work at LG but Holmgren has already said that RG Gray will not be the starter there (if he's even there at all) and there aren't enough good OL on the team to replace him from within while still addressing the LG.

So by my count there are at a minimum of 4-5 spots that will need to be replaced or upgraded, probably more and all the way up to 7 or even 8 in a worst case scenario depending on free agency. If replacing half your starting unit isn't rebuilding, I dunno what is. And of course they're going to solve their problems through FA or the draft, how else would they do it?

Whatever you took from my post regarding the state of the team is completely wrong. I don't think they are in bad shape, but they have some work to do to rebuild it into a dominant unit. Despite the passing game's good stats, the O was far from dominant or even consistent. That needs to be fixed. And if it doesn't get fixed, I don't see how they don't take another step back, despite your unending and unfounded optimism about it. From the way you sound, they're going in with a new G and a new TE and going to be just fine. Rebuilding? Definitely.

Rob Sims has talent and will most likely still be a starter next year even if they get a new LG. A new good pass catching TE will do huge things for this offense. Even if Branch and Hackett are both lost for next year(not likely) they still have the starter in Engram. Weaver WILL be the starting FB next year I can guarantee you that. They might sign another one for depth purposes but he will hardly, if ever see the field. Hass, Spencer, Engram, Walter, and Weaver will most definitely be starters next year. It's highly unlikely SA is not on the team next year and odds are they will sign at least one of Hackett and Locklear, maybe both. As I recall, their defense replaced 6 new starters from the previous year. We saw how that turned out.

What does that have to do with anything? I would say they did some rebuilding (replacing over half the starters is rebuilidng) on the D last year and it worked. And that's exactly what they need to do with the O, hopefully with the same success. Sims may have talent, but he got schooled all year long so I am no t entirely hopeful that he will somehow step up. He was replaced at times and/or threatened to be replaced by Womack a lot. The entire O couldn't produce rushing lanes most of the year, and both guard spots were horrible/responsible for it. A new pass catching TE is a priority, but will not improve the running game at all. Hass had a career year passing, the passing game is not the problem. Well, unless they don't re-sign Hackett.

Why is it not likely that Branch and Hackett are both gone? It's already a given that Branch is out for at least half the season (9 month recovery) and will more than likely go on IR. Hackett will want money and knows his price went up. It's at best a 50-50 chance and according to some writers looks less than promising. And as good as Engram did this year, he is not a #1 WR. And neither is Burleson, Obomanu or Taylor.

I realize Weaver will be the starting FB, and never said otherwise. He's a versatile weapon and is still learning. But he isn't as good a blocker as hoped and they will need a better one to come in at times, could be a TE/FB guy but either way that guy isn't on the team yet. Unless they plan on pulling Kirtman up and down from the PS again all year, which I am not sure they can do. I never counted him in my guys that need to be replaced.

I also already said that they will sign one of Locklear or Hackett. Possibly both, possibly not. Depends on Hackett from what I've read. But at this point you can't count on eithor or both of them. They're free agents, if they get a deal they can't refuse, they won't refuse it.