Something I think the Colts should copy

[Superman]

Delusion at it's finest. I'm not going to reference Trich so much but if you can give that guy time before declaring this trade a dud than I expect you do the same for Harvin. It was  great trade for them if Harvin stays healthy, his production is great and much better than C. Patterson. 

 

What are you talking about? I don't like the Richardson trade, and never really did (particularly the cost). I just think Richardson will play better moving forward.

 

I also expect Harvin to play better for the Seahawks, but never liked the trade or the contract they gave him. He doesn't have a 1,000 yard season or a 10 TD season. His best year was 87 catches for 967 yards and 9 total TDs. Even 100% healthy, I wouldn't want to give up a 1st, a 4th and a 7th AND pay Harvin $10m+/year. If he stays healthy and produces at the level he did in 2011, I still don't think he's worth those picks and that contract. And, as the kicker, they could have just drafted Patterson, who will probably be a more complete receiver and just as dynamic a special teams player. And even if he's not, there's the issue of them paying Harvin ten times as much as Patterson would have cost. And if they keep Harvin on the contract he's currently on, it's going to cost them other good players, because they're up against the cap moving forward. There's just NO WAY this was a great trade for Seattle.

 

And that's IF Harvin stays healthy, which is unlikely, given his history. (But again, illustrating my point, we give other teams and players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injury history, while burying our own guys, like Toler.)

 

I'm not trying to vindicate the Richardson trade or tell anyone why it wasn't bad. It was bad. My point is that other teams -- even good teams -- make bad trades sometimes. We praise those teams and give them the benefit of the doubt, but are hyper-critical of our own front office when moves don't pan out to the ultimate degree right away.

[Gavin]

I think when it comes to the Seahawks and Harvin trade that it comes down to 1 thing more then any other and that is that it was right for them, They already had a great team, They did however need that one playmaker at wr, I think thats what Sidney Rice was supposed to be...That hasn't worked so they went out and got that difference maker and it worked, They could afford to. Just my opinion

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

You kidding me? Harvin hardly did anything all year, then he has a couple big plays in the SB when they probably didn't even need him. They gave up waaaaay more for Harvin than we gave up for Richardson, Harvin did less than Richardson did (even with the SB included), and they gave him $14.5m in Year 1. He's due $21.5m over the next two years. And they still owe a 4th rounder in 2014.

 

I'm not a fan of the Richardson trade, but just because the Seahawks won the Super Bowl that doesn't excuse them for the Harvin trade, which, IMO, was far worse. And, in response to the previous poster, who said you only give up a first or second rounder for a QB, Harvin is NOT a QB. 

 

That doesn't mean it's okay to make mistakes, especially big mistakes like this one. I'm just saying that, if people are going to buy into this Seahawks fever, they ought to acknowledge that the Seahawks front office and coaching staff have had miscues in their four years, including this year when they won the Super Bowl. 

Harvin is a PROVEN good player. Not to say the Seahawks don't make mistakes, but Richardson is FAR from a proven big league back!

[Superman]

Harvin is a PROVEN good player. Not to say the Seahawks don't make mistakes, but Richardson is FAR from a proven big league back!

 

Worth a 1st, a 4th and a 7th, and a $64m contract? No.

 

His production has been above average, at best. I don't dislike him, just don't think he should be paid like a #1 receiver, nor do I think it made sense to give up the picks they gave up for him.

 

Richardson had decent production in 2012 as a rookie. Not great, and I'm not all that thrilled about his future after this year. But he wasn't anywhere near the bum he looked like in 2013. 

 

Just one more time, I'm not defending the Richardson deal, nor am I really interested in having the Richardson debate til the end of all time.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

What are you talking about? I don't like the Richardson trade, and never really did (particularly the cost). I just think Richardson will play better moving forward.

I also expect Harvin to play better for the Seahawks, but never liked the trade or the contract they gave him. He doesn't have a 1,000 yard season or a 10 TD season. His best year was 87 catches for 967 yards and 9 total TDs. Even 100% healthy, I wouldn't want to give up a 1st, a 4th and a 7th AND pay Harvin $10m+/year. If he stays healthy and produces at the level he did in 2011, I still don't think he's worth those picks and that contract. And, as the kicker, they could have just drafted Patterson, who will probably be a more complete receiver and just as dynamic a special teams player. And even if he's not, there's the issue of them paying Harvin ten times as much as Patterson would have cost. And if they keep Harvin on the contract he's currently on, it's going to cost them other good players, because they're up against the cap moving forward. There's just NO WAY this was a great trade for Seattle.

And that's IF Harvin stays healthy, which is unlikely, given his history. (But again, illustrating my point, we give other teams and players the benefit of the doubt when it comes to injury history, while burying our own guys, like Toler.)

I'm not trying to vindicate the Richardson trade or tell anyone why it wasn't bad. It was bad. My point is that other teams -- even good teams -- make bad trades sometimes. We praise those teams and give them the benefit of the doubt, but are hyper-critical of our own front office when moves don't pan out to the ultimate degree right away.

He brings so much more to the table than his receiving, He's the ultimate weapon like Antonio brown but with better running. Also Percy is a beast blocker.

[Superman]

He brings so much more to the table than his receiving, He's the ultimate weapon like Antonio brown but with better running. Also Percy is a beast blocker.

 

I don't think they gave up all those picks and signed him to that contract because of his blocking. Ultimate weapon? That's a bit of a reach...

 

Antonio Brown is better than Harvin, if you ask me, and the Steelers gave him borderline #1 money, $2m/year less than the Seahawks gave Harvin. And Brown doesn't have the injury history Harvin does.

 

We all agree Mike Wallace is overpaid, and he's had more production than Harvin in the past, and doesn't have Harvin's injury history. I don't see how Harvin is different. And then you add in all the picks they gave up.

 

I don't get how anyone can look at the Percy Harvin deal and not think the Seahawks overdid it.

[lennymoore24]

No mystery to why Seattle does well...they have the most talent.  Coaches can either be fortunate or unfortuante.  Carroll failed twice before because he was not in control of his roster.   This time the GM has done a lights out job of getting good talent.  But if the GM was mediocre, nobody would be calling Carroll a good NFL coach right now.

[NewColtsFan]

Homer who Ignores Reality?

Worthless type fan to be Ignored of course.

 

Sorry.    But the danger as a fan is when you mistake your opinion for reality.

 

It rarely is.      That's not a shot at you,  it's an observation on almost ALL fans...

[Gavin]

No mystery to why Seattle does well...they have the most talent.  Coaches can either be fortunate or unfortuante.  Carroll failed twice before because he was not in control of his roster.   This time the GM has done a lights out job of getting good talent.  But if the GM was mediocre, nobody would be calling Carroll a good NFL coach right now.

Wins and losses are not the biggest thing that makes a head coach a good head coach

[Superman]

I think when it comes to the Seahawks and Harvin trade that it comes down to 1 thing more then any other and that is that it was right for them, They already had a great team, They did however need that one playmaker at wr, I think thats what Sidney Rice was supposed to be...That hasn't worked so they went out and got that difference maker and it worked, They could afford to. Just my opinion

 

In what universe did it work? He barely played all season long... Do we ignore that because he had a couple big plays in the Super Bowl, a game the Seahawks dominated from bell to bell and probably didn't need him in? Was that worth the $14m they paid him this year? How many plays would Cordarrelle Patterson have made for them this year, at far less cost? 

 

The Seahawks could have done several different things that would have given them a playmaker at WR, someone who actually saw the field in 2013, and it would have cost them less than Harvin did. 

[NewColtsFan]

Wins and losses are not the biggest thing that makes a head coach a good head coach

 

I don't mean to be splitting hairs....   because I think this is an important point...

 

But I'd say wins and loses ARE the biggest thing that makes a head coach a good coach...   But sometimes things are out of your hands, like with Jim Caldwell in 2011.    Manning goes down,  there's no decent back-up QB, and the team gets old and injured everywhere else.    A Perfect Storm of a recipe for a disastrous season.   And that's what happened.

 

BUT....

 

I'd add that they're not the only thing.   Other factors weigh in...

 

And among them would be this...    what kind of team is a new coach taking over?

 

Is it a cellar dweller that has to be lifted up and taught how to win?   Is patience required?

 

Or is it a 9-7 team that needs the coach to take the team to the next level -- the playoffs.    

 

There are many factors to take into account.   But the NFL is the ultimate bottom line business,  so I'd say wins and losses are the most important.

 

Just another way to look at things....

[MAC]

It's an interesting idea..........................BUT

 

The concept of allowing the best players to start regardless of salary and reputation is admirable.

The goal of motivating players to give their best at all times is admirable.

The goal of motivating players to practice hard and challenge each other is admirable.

 

But this specific technique sounds like a gimmick and it could have unintended consequences - such as giving the impression both that all that matters is skills tests, and that personnel decisions aren't directly a coaching decision. This reminds me of something from a movie.

 

The Seahawks have it all going right now, and it was interesting hearing ESPN last night crowing about their youth giving them the potential to be a dynasty. There are a couple of problems with that idea. One is the obvious eventual intrusion of the salary cap. The second is their coach. He's obviously excellent, and his methods are working at this point, but his team leaders are 25 years old. Last night he sounded more like a motivational speaker than a coach. NOW everything he does brings unity. How many years do you think these kids can listen to the same message before starting to wonder whether or not it is shrouded in bullcrap. Does anyone think that a 29 year old Richard Sherman making 10+million a year will tolerate being "challenged" for his job by an UFA every week at practice. And if the challenger WON what happens?

 

It's really pretty silly. I would think that the only way that Carrol can keep this precise model going for any length of time is to keep on acquiring quality players at a rapid pace and churn them like mad. NOBODY gets a big contract, nobody stays past age 26-7. That's pretty darn hard to do.

[Gavin]

In what universe did it work? He barely played all season long... Do we ignore that because he had a couple big plays in the Super Bowl, a game the Seahawks dominated from bell to bell and probably didn't need him in? Was that worth the $14m they paid him this year? How many plays would Cordarrelle Patterson have made for them this year, at far less cost? 

 

The Seahawks could have done several different things that would have given them a playmaker at WR, someone who actually saw the field in 2013, and it would have cost them less than Harvin did. 

Not debating any of that...I agree but what i meant to say (and said wrong) was that although thats not really a trade you want to do and they could have gotten the same thing basically in Patterson (who was completely underutilized in every way imagineable this past year in Minnesota) is that the Seahawks could afford a high risk high reward player like Harvin, They already had more then enough pieces to challenge for a SB run and unless during the season injuries destroyed there season they were pretty well a lock for a late pick in every round (I think we are talking bottom 5 in every round anyway), I dont really think they sold the farm for Harvin and they can really get out of the deal in the next 2 years or less if they really want with minimal dead cap, Again usually Im not for what they did at all...especially for a team with many needs but they dont have many of those, They just need depth, They dont have any FA's that they cant replace in the draft after the 1st round I dont think

[Gavin]

I don't mean to be splitting hairs....   because I think this is an important point...

 

But I'd say wins and loses ARE the biggest thing that makes a head coach a good coach...   But sometimes things are out of your hands, like with Jim Caldwell in 2011.    Manning goes down,  there's no decent back-up QB, and the team gets old and injured everywhere else.    A Perfect Storm of a recipe for a disastrous season.   And that's what happened.

 

BUT....

 

I'd add that they're not the only thing.   Other factors weigh in...

 

And among them would be this...    what kind of team is a new coach taking over?

 

Is it a cellar dweller that has to be lifted up and taught how to win?   Is patience required?

 

Or is it a 9-7 team that needs the coach to take the team to the next level -- the playoffs.    

 

There are many factors to take into account.   But the NFL is the ultimate bottom line business,  so I'd say wins and losses are the most important.

 

Just another way to look at things....

Good catch, I should have said ONLY

[AntonMcG]

By the way, something we SHOULD copy is the Seahawks' patience in rebuilding their team. They went 7-9 in Carroll's first two years there. They focused on the principles of their defense and building the trenches. They built the foundation of their team, and have added auxiliary pieces as they've gone on. They learned from their mistakes. And they stayed the course.

 

If you're going to compare us to the Seahawks, the Colts are AHEAD of schedule right now. Most people didn't expect them to even sniff the playoffs until Year 3. Yes, there's still a lot of work to do, and there have been mistakes made, and there needs to be some adjustments and corrections from time to time. But Grigson and Pagano have done a good job to this point, overall. 

 

Well said. I would add that they understand the importance of having a plethora of pass-rushing options.

 

I want NASCAR.

[AntonMcG]

Delusion at it's finest. I'm not going to reference Trich so much but if you can give that guy time before declaring this trade a dud than I expect you do the same for Harvin. It was  great trade for them if Harvin stays healthy, his production is great and much better than C. Patterson. 

 

So he has to do it... but you don't? Interesting logic.

 

Harvin had an injury history, Seahawks took a risk and it backfired. He was injured, he didn't contribute, don't talk about what could have been when it wasn't.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

So he has to do it... but you don't? Interesting logic.

Harvin had an injury history, Seahawks took a risk and it backfired. He was injured, he didn't contribute, don't talk about what could have been when it wasn't.

I've bitten my tongue since week 6 about Trich. His play speaks for itself. They made a long-term investment, not just a one year deal.

[rsrobinson]

They could have kept their #1 and drafted Cordarrelle Patterson, and gotten more out of him than they got out of Harvin. And for about a quarter of the price. A couple big plays in the SB doesn't change any of that. Matter of fact, they were going to put him on IR a month ago.

 

The Harvin trade isn't vindicated by the SB. It was absolutely a mistake, and they absolutely did NOT get fair value out of the deal. Perhaps it will begin to balance out in their favor as more time goes on; I still think Harvin is a great player, but that was not a good trade for the Seahawks. I still think Richardson is a good player and will produce more for us as time goes on. But it was still a bad trade.

Harvin is only 25 years old, is just hitting his prime, and is so fast that he makes other NFL players look like they are running through mud by comparison. Because he was injured this year doen't mean he will be injured for the rest of his career and a healthy Harvin is a legit MVP candidate. Harvin played a major role in a Super Bowl victory and I think that the Seahawks front office and most of their fans would say he was worth every dime they paid him this year for that alone.

As far as Carroll and Competition Wednesday is concerned, I don't think they allow individual players to call out starters to compete for starting spots. What they do is line up the #1 offense and #1 defense against each other in a very fast paced and competitive scrimmage.

What is true is that Carroll couldn't care less about contract size, draft position, or college reputation when it comes to determining who plays. He allows everyone on the roster to compete for playing time throughout the course of the season.

[AntonMcG]

I've bitten my tongue since week 6 about Trich. His play speaks for itself. They made a long-term investment, not just a one year deal.

 

lol, no you haven't... this thread alone is evidence of that. They aren't paying Richardson a lot of money, hardly comparable to the $14million the Seahawks paid Harvin.

[Smash Mouth]

People who want Grigs and Pagano just keep playing Madden. And when we win a superbowl in a few years with this group remember how much you hated these men and wanted them to lose their jobs for having TWO WINNING SEASONS

Its so frustrating to read about people wanting to fire Grigson and Pagano.  Back-to-back 11-5 seasons and a playoff win after going 2-14 three seasons ago.  I do think that Grigson had a mediocre 2nd season and should be held to task.  I don't always agree with Chuck's rah-rah, the world is great approach (kind of reminds me of Pete Carroll) but the players like him and are bought in.  Chuck showed some ability to adapt and adjust the game plan and approach.  Hopefully, next season he will be more intuitive and make changes sooner when, and if, running the football isn't effective. I hope he can let go of his penchant for hanging onto under-performing players too.

 

Grigson has to get his mojo back after a poor 2nd season of drafting and trading for players.  I think he get's a gentlemen's "C" in FA signings.   Grigson has to do better for the Colts to keep pace and keep progressing.

[Superman]

Harvin is only 25 years old, is just hitting his prime, and is so fast that he makes other NFL players look like they are running through mud by comparison. Because he was injured this year doen't mean he will be injured for the rest of his career and a healthy Harvin is a legit MVP candidate. Harvin played a major role in a Super Bowl victory and I think that the Seahawks front office and most of their fans would say he was worth every dime they paid him this year for that alone.

As far as Carroll and Competition Wednesday is concerned, I don't think they allow individual players to call out starters to compete for starting spots. What they do is line up the #1 offense and #1 defense against each other in a very fast paced and competitive scrimmage.

What is true is that Carroll couldn't care less about contract size, draft position, or college reputation when it comes to determining who plays. He allows everyone on the roster to compete for playing time throughout the course of the season.

 

I'd love to discuss this with someone who doesn't resort to hyperbole. Harvin is NOT an MVP candidate, never has been, nor was he worth the $14.5m they paid him this year, nor was he worth the draft picks they gave up for him. Again, Patterson could have played Harvin's role this year with little trouble, for far less money, and only would have cost a first rounder. And I don't think Harvin's contributions in the Super Bowl were all that crucial. Big plays, great plays, but the Seahawks were dominant at basically every position in that game. A couple of big plays doesn't vindicate the premium they paid for Harvin.

 

What's absolutely true is that Harvin can and should be more productive for them in the future. I think there's no question he's a good player, a difference maker, when healthy. But when you consider what the Seahawks paid vs. what their alternatives were, I just don't see how you can justify this trade for them, even in the future. Could have had Patterson (or any number of other playmakers that were available in the draft in later rounds).

 

And again, I'm not calling the Seahawks out. I think they're well-run and have done a great job. The point is that they've had missteps, and they took four years to become a truly dominant team.  Yeah, the Colts have made mistakes -- Trent Richardson being one of the biggest -- and they have a lot of work to do, but if you're going to praise the Seahawks and aspire to be like them, we're actually ahead of the curve.

[Superman]

Well said. I would add that they understand the importance of having a plethora of pass-rushing options.

 

I want NASCAR.

 

This year that's true. Gavin said above that this offseason, they found themselves in a unique position to be able to add luxury weapons at multiple positions. Some of them worked out very well, others not so much. They've done a great job, and I definitely want us to adapt some of their concepts, like NASCAR, and even more competition for starting jobs, like the thread suggests.

[Superman]

lol, no you haven't... this thread alone is evidence of that. They aren't paying Richardson a lot of money, hardly comparable to the $14million the Seahawks paid Harvin.

 

And that's really my entire point. People are bending over backward to defend the Harvin trade, but complain at every turn about the Richardson trade. They were both bad trades, and IMO, the Harvin trade was worse. It happens.

[The_Warlord]

I believe every team has the desire to put the best players on the field at all times.  It really doesn't matter if you're talking blue chip prospect or highly coveted free agent, there is always that risk that they are going to fail miserably within your system.  Certainly, this competition the Seahawks are doing is working for them right now.  It may or may not work for them down the road. 

 

If you have a player like Richard Sherman or Chancellor or Thomas (to name a few) on the roster who have been groomed in such an environment, they are going to understand how critical it is to leave it all on the field and put in the best effort possible.  The Seahawks are a very young team and coaching them this way may very well send the message that they'll give it all they have or they won't be playing no matter how much their contract is worth. 

 

I personally like the idea.  I'm more than over seeing players on these teams with these massive contracts that when its time for them to show up, they disappear instead.  Just in recent years, there are numerous examples of players getting the big money in a contract year and the very next year its like they demonstrate no desire to play as hard because they've gotten their big contract. 

 

The Harvin trade for Seattle IMO was an extremely steep price to pay.  I like Harvin and do believe he has the potential to be a dynamic player if the injury bug doesn't bite again.  I however would not be happy if I were the Seattle coaching staff or GM after shelling out those picks along with that kind of money for a guy who cruised the sideline for most of the season playing sporadically.  

 

The T Rich trade,  sure a 1st round pick was traded away and he had a down year by any measurement.  However, I'm not willing to bail on him just yet.  I don't care that Donald Brown was the leading rusher this year,  Let us not forget that not all that long ago Donald Brown was considered a 1st round bust and most fans were ready to buy a plane ticket for him just to get him out of a Colts uniform.  

 

I feel the price paid for Harvin by Seattle was far more than what was paid for T Rich with T Rich having more production overall.  I'm forced to wonder that if with an offseason and training camp coupled with the return of players like D. Allen and Thomas along with some moves along the O line (hopefully) T Rich returns to his rookie year form so many will be calling for Grigs & Pagano to be fired while screaming the trade for T Rich was horrific.  Give the guy a chance to experience an offseason program, training camp and cut the garbage of running on 1st, 2nd & 3rd down when it's not working. 

 

Sometimes if you're running into a brick wall why with a player such as Luck and our receiving corps would you not even consider throwing it around a bit to back opposing Defenses out of the box.  When you come out and say  you're going to run it on 1st, 2nd & 3rd down shouldn't you have a better O line and expect to see some stacked boxes in games?  Just my .02 

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

Worth a 1st, a 4th and a 7th, and a $64m contract? No.

 

His production has been above average, at best. I don't dislike him, just don't think he should be paid like a #1 receiver, nor do I think it made sense to give up the picks they gave up for him.

 

Richardson had decent production in 2012 as a rookie. Not great, and I'm not all that thrilled about his future after this year. But he wasn't anywhere near the bum he looked like in 2013. 

 

Just one more time, I'm not defending the Richardson deal, nor am I really interested in having the Richardson debate til the end of all time.

They the Seahawks gave away a lot, the Seahawks wanted a play maker, someone electric, guys like that are hard to find! the Seahawks will have him next year, & be better for it. He opens the whole offense up because you MUST ACCOUNT for him on the field. When your team is that GOOD you can make bold moves like that, to get over the top. They didn't even need him this year. Next year should be interesting for the Seahawks & Harvin.

[Superman]

They the Seahawks gave away a lot, the Seahawks wanted a play maker, someone electric, guys like that are hard to find! the Seahawks will have him next year, & be better for it. He opens the whole offense up because you MUST ACCOUNT for him on the field. When your team is that GOOD you can make bold moves like that, to get over the top. They didn't even need him this year. Next year should be interesting for the Seahawks & Harvin.

 

I don't disagree with that. Just saying they could have drafted Patterson and had their playmaker with great potential for a lot less money, and he'd have been on the field all year. Like you say, they were in position to take a big risk, but it hasn't paid off for them. 

[Dustin]

So it's okay for their players to be injured, but when our players are injured, it's bad signings, bad coaching, bad training staff, etc. Right?

 

Again, perspective.

 

The Harvin trade was NEVER a good one for the Seahawks. It made no sense to give up a first rounder when they could have drafted a similar player themselves, and it made less sense to give him $10m+/year.

 

Not to mention, I disagree strongly with your assessment of Richardson's abilities, and your hyperbole regarding Harvin's potential (he's nowhere near an OPOY type player, and never has been), but whatever. The point is that the Seahawks made a bad trade, giving up much more than we gave up for Richardson, and getting less production. Again, perspective. Great team, well-run team, that made a bad trade. It happens.

 

I understand you're point, but the bolded I disagree with.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000079173/article/nfl-mvp-forecast-jj-watt-percy-harvin-on-the-rise

http://nfl.si.com/2012/10/25/percy-harvin-for-mvp-vikings-playmaker-has-a-case/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/47270/percy-harvin-and-the-mvp-race

http://min.scout.com/2/1229853.html

 

These are just a few articles written about him possible winning the MVP award through the mid-way point of the 2012 season (you can find a lot more if you search). So while I agree the trade looks bad now, Harvin is an absolutely an OPOY type player. Or at least was in 2012.

[Superman]

I understand you're point, but the bolded I disagree with.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000079173/article/nfl-mvp-forecast-jj-watt-percy-harvin-on-the-rise

http://nfl.si.com/2012/10/25/percy-harvin-for-mvp-vikings-playmaker-has-a-case/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/47270/percy-harvin-and-the-mvp-race

http://min.scout.com/2/1229853.html

 

These are just a few articles written about him possible winning the MVP award through the mid-way point of the 2012 season (you can find a lot more if you search). So while I agree the trade looks bad now, Harvin is an absolutely an OPOY type player. Or at least was in 2012.

 

Fair enough. He had an excellent first half in 2012. Other than that, he's been above average, production wise.

 

And there's still the "can he stay healthy" question. People complain because we gave Toler $14.25m over three years, but they gave Harvin $14.5m for Year 1 alone, and owe him $21.5m over the next two.

[BBColts]

No Seattle traded two picks for a running back that was considered a bust, had a bad ankle and no breakaway speed.

How in the world does a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder two years later equate to a first round pick? And I had no idea in your world that an ankle sprain had the same effect on a runner as a torn ACL. 

 

There is not a person on this planet that can defend this trade barring Trent Richardson magically becoming an all-pro running back, and based off of his current time playing in the NFL, that will not happen. No one has any evidence to back the claim up that Richardson will magically become a good running back and be worth a first round draft pick. College is college, end of discussion.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

lol, no you haven't... this thread alone is evidence of that. They aren't paying Richardson a lot of money, hardly comparable to the $14million the Seahawks paid Harvin.

Lol yes I have.

[Coffeedrinker]

How in the world does a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder two years later equate to a first round pick? And I had no idea in your world that an ankle sprain had the same effect on a runner as a torn ACL. 

 

There is not a person on this planet that can defend this trade barring Trent Richardson magically becoming an all-pro running back, and based off of his current time playing in the NFL, that will not happen. No one has any evidence to back the claim up that Richardson will magically become a good running back and be worth a first round draft pick. College is college, end of discussion.

Who said anything about an ankle sprain having the same effect as a torn ACL?  Oh, I see you can't really make a point so you have to make something up and make a point about that.  Nice try but that doesn't work on this forum. And I'm pretty sure T Rich has never had a torn ACL.  As far as how it equates, the Seahawks have proven they can find probowl players in the 4th and 5th rounds, so they gave up quite a bit to get him.

 

Two comments about the rest; one I've never defended the trade with Richardson, I was only pointing out how your comment lacked knowledge of the situation.  Two, you comment about "based on current time playing in the NFL...: also shows some ignorance, before Lynch went to Seattle there was nothing in is playing time in the NFL that indicated he would be a probowl back, yet that is what he became.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

I don't disagree with that. Just saying they could have drafted Patterson and had their playmaker with great potential for a lot less money, and he'd have been on the field all year. Like you say, they were in position to take a big risk, but it hasn't paid off for them. 

Patterson? Who Patterson is he an established player some where? My point is they didn't care about the picks or money! They felt they where that close & he had a proven track record. I mean personally if I was the GM I wouldn't have done the deal, because I think Harvin is kind of a baby, & a slight under performer to me. They felt it was wroth the risk, they could motivate him. I am glad maybe down the line it creates cap problems for them.

[Superman]

How in the world does a fourth rounder and a fifth rounder two years later equate to a first round pick? And I had no idea in your world that an ankle sprain had the same effect on a runner as a torn ACL. 

 

There is not a person on this planet that can defend this trade barring Trent Richardson magically becoming an all-pro running back, and based off of his current time playing in the NFL, that will not happen. No one has any evidence to back the claim up that Richardson will magically become a good running back and be worth a first round draft pick. College is college, end of discussion.

 

It's a good thing no one is attempting to defend the Richardson trade. 

[Superman]

Patterson? Who Patterson is he an established player some where? My point is they didn't care about the picks or money! They felt they where that close & he had a proven track record. I mean personally if I was the GM I wouldn't have done the deal, because I think Harvin is kind of a baby, & a slight under performer to me. They felt it was wroth the risk, they could motivate him. I am glad maybe down the line it creates cap problems for them.

 

They didn't care about the picks or the money??? What kind of defense is that?

 

"It's okay that the Colts gave up a first rounder for Trent Richardson. They didn't care about the pick!" "It's okay that the Colts gave Greg Toler $14.25m over three years. They didn't care about the money!!!"

 

www.WAT??.com/thatdoesntmakeanysense.jpg

 

There's a reason teams don't trade high draft picks for so-called established players, and it's because it's more cost-effective to build through the draft. Yes, it's a hindsight criticism to say that they should have drafted Patterson, but that's not the point. The point is that they gave up multiple picks, including a first rounder, and a $64m contract for an injury prone WR who only had moderate production in the past. A playmaker, yes. Still not a good investment, and I said so at the time. It's now worse when you see that Harvin didn't play, and that they could have drafted Patterson. But that's okay, because they won the Super Bowl, so all their sins are absolved. 

[Gavin]

Patterson? Who Patterson is he an established player some where? My point is they didn't care about the picks or money! They felt they where that close & he had a proven track record. I mean personally if I was the GM I wouldn't have done the deal, because I think Harvin is kind of a baby, & a slight under performer to me. They felt it was wroth the risk, they could motivate him. I am glad maybe down the line it creates cap problems for them.

It wont likely do that, At the end of the 2015 season they can cut him if they want and save 5.7 mill vs keeping him for 2016 and paying 12.3 mill

[Superman]

It wont likely do that, At the end of the 2015 season they can cut him if they want and save 5.7 mill vs keeping him for 2016 and paying 12.3 mill

 

They don't have a lot of leverage, but they could have him agree to a lowered base salary for 2014. The cap penalty to release him is nearly $10m, but they would save nearly $4m in cap space. So maybe they'd negotiate a $4m reduction in base salary.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

They didn't care about the picks or the money??? What kind of defense is that?

 

"It's okay that the Colts gave up a first rounder for Trent Richardson. They didn't care about the pick!" "It's okay that the Colts gave Greg Toler $14.25m over three years. They didn't care about the money!!!"

 

www.WAT??.com/thatdoesntmakeanysense.jpg

 

There's a reason teams don't trade high draft picks for so-called established players, and it's because it's more cost-effective to build through the draft. Yes, it's a hindsight criticism to say that they should have drafted Patterson, but that's not the point. The point is that they gave up multiple picks, including a first rounder, and a $64m contract for an injury prone WR who only had moderate production in the past. A playmaker, yes. Still not a good investment, and I said so at the time. It's now worse when you see that Harvin didn't play, and that they could have drafted Patterson. But that's okay, because they won the Super Bowl, so all their sins are absolved. 

Risk wroth reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Money, picks, risk versus reward all go hand in hand. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOUR GETTING WITH A DRAFTED PLAYER! Even the can't miss ones like HMMMMMMM Richardson! Harvin will be good for them IMO the Seahawks thought the risk was wroth the reward. Or they wouldn't had done it. No one twisted their arm to do it that I am aware of. Again I am not defending them & wouldn't have done it my self, but they thought it was necessary?

[Gavin]

They don't have a lot of leverage, but they could have him agree to a lowered base salary for 2014. The cap penalty to release him is nearly $10m, but they would save nearly $4m in cap space. So maybe they'd negotiate a $4m reduction in base salary.

Well that and if push comes to shove and they feel like hanging onto Harvin they could very likely release a few players whos dead cap is much less then there cap hit for next year

 

Brandon Mebane:$4,000.00 dead cap......$5.7 mill owed in 2014

Sidney Rice:$2.4 mill dead cap......$9.7 mill owed in 2014

Zach Miller-$2,000,000 dead cap.......$7,000,000.00 owed

 

Thats $22.4 mill in players who are not essential to that teams success whos dead cap is lower then there cap hit

 

Cap savings on them 3 would be 17.6 mill

 

Yes those 3 are good players but the Seahawks are still in position to upgrade every one of those spots I think especially since they seem to go for scheme versatile playmakers rather then draft for a particular scheme, They could potentially draft

 

2.DaQuan Jones (for the record I think its borderline ludicrous he would fall to the bottom of the 2nd because thats not what film says but some mocks think its possible)

 

3.Jared Abbrederis/Donte Moncrief WR's whichever falls

 

and Gator Hoskins as a H-Back in the 5th or 6th

 

Again...if that was the Colts then no way do I like that trade, Wouldn't dislike it as much as the Richardson trade/blunder

[Superman]

Risk wroth reward!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Money, picks, risk versus reward all go hand in hand. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOUR GETTING WITH A DRAFTED PLAYER! Even the can't miss ones like HMMMMMMM Richardson! Harvin will be good for them IMO the Seahawks thought the risk was wroth the reward. Or they wouldn't had done it. No one twisted their arm to do it that I am aware of. Again I am not defending them & wouldn't have done it my self, but they thought it was necessary?

 

The Seahawks thought the trade was necessary and thought the risk was worth the reward. The same could be said of the Richardson trade. Doesn't mean it was a good one.

 

As for the "you never know about a drafted player" reasoning, why are we so upset with giving up a first rounder for Richardson?

 

You draft based on the information you have at the time, and you hope it works out. You acquire veteran players based on the information you have, just the same. Problem is the cost is much higher, and if you're also giving up picks, it's double the risk. 

 

Again, not trying to be critical of the Seahawks. I'm only saying that they made a bad trade, just like we did, only theirs was arguably worse considering the cost and the production. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have done either deal. But that doesn't mean I think either front office is doing a bad job. Their respective records suggest otherwise.

[Superman]

Well that and if push comes to shove and they feel like hanging onto Harvin they could very likely release a few players whos dead cap is much less then there cap hit for next year

 

Brandon Mebane:$4,000.00 dead cap......$5.7 mill owed in 2014

Sidney Rice:$2.4 mill dead cap......$9.7 mill owed in 2014

Zach Miller-$2,000,000 dead cap.......$7,000,000.00 owed

 

Thats $22.4 mill in players who are not essential to that teams success whos dead cap is lower then there cap hit

 

Cap savings on them 3 would be 17.6 mill

 

Yes those 3 are good players but the Seahawks are still in position to upgrade every one of those spots I think especially since they seem to go for scheme versatile playmakers rather then draft for a particular scheme, They could potentially draft

 

2.DaQuan Jones (for the record I think its borderline ludicrous he would fall to the bottom of the 2nd because thats not what film says but some mocks think its possible)

 

3.Jared Abbrederis/Donte Moncrief WR's whichever falls

 

and Gator Hoskins as a H-Back in the 5th or 6th

 

Again...if that was the Colts then no way do I like that trade, Wouldn't dislike it as much as the Richardson trade/blunder

 

Yup, good points all the way around.

 

I haven't seen anything that has Hoskins getting drafted. I'd like to have him as a Colt. I see him as a bigger, more athletic, more versatile Stanley Havili. But with Michael Robinson being a FA, I could see Hoskins being on the Seahawks radar.