Monday, 8 March 2010

Seahawks, Brandon Marshall and the draft

By Rob Staton
It's been quite an eventful weekend with Brandon Marshall making a flying visit to Seattle and igniting an endless discussion as to whether he'll be making a permanent move in the future. He's back in Denver at the moment, with all parties perhaps enjoying a moment of reflection. Clearly the Seahawks have no intentions of giving up the 6th overall pick. If they had, they could've signed Marshall to an offer sheet already. That would've given the Broncos a chance to match the offer or collect Seattle's first round selection.

Meanwhile, the Broncos say they're not willing to negotiate. A predictable response in that Denver were never likely to cough up one of the league's best receivers for a bargain price. It does create something of a stalemate though, with the Seahawks potentially looking to work on a deal and the Broncos biding their time.

We should discover in the next few days what other interest is out there. From afar, it doesn't look there's much of a market. Cincinnati have been touted as a potential suitor, but they've been loathe to give up first round picks under current ownership and appear to be focusing on Terrell Owens and Antonio Bryant. Other teams like the Baltimore Ravens and New York Jets have made moves to acquire other big name wide outs (Anquan Boldin, Braylon Edwards) whilst a lot of other teams might be put off by Marshall's off-field troubles.

I don't expect the situation to change any time soon, which will test Denver's willingness to go into the 2010 season with a ticking time-bomb on their roster. Seattle probably has talked contract with Marshall and he'll be well aware that a deal to potentially make him the highest paid wide out in the NFL is on the table. Collecting the $2m salary he's owed by staying in Denver would be a comparable pittance. As we get closer to the draft, the Broncos might be more willing to do a deal. As things stand, there's no rush on their behalf to solve this problem but there might be in a few weeks.

So what does Seattle's interest in Marshall show with regard to future team building and the draft? For starters it shows that the Seahawks have very much moved away from Tim Ruskell's 'clean-cut' image for prospects. Although character plays a part in every franchise, the new regime appear more flexible in that sense. The Carlos Dunlap's of the 2010 class would not fit into Ruskell's roster. That probably isn't the case now, although that doesn't necessarily mean they'll purposely go in that direction.

It also shows that the Seahawks view getting a top receiver as a priority. It may just be coincidence that the team saw Nate Burleson depart and then acted to bring Brandon Marshall in for a visit. It's unclear how much the Seahawks actually wanted to keep Burleson anyway. It could just be that Marshall is a huge talent and that alone warrants interest.

However, I also believe that wide receivers get a bad deal. You often hear people talk about lineman as a priority, building in the trenches - the usual cliche's. Top class wide outs and running backs are almost seen as a luxury these days and not a necessity. I firmly believe that the receiver position is no less important than the other so-called premium areas of a roster. A top wide out demands respect, can force a team to totally change it's coverage patterns and open up other receivers. You know teams will have great difficulty matching up both Marshall and T.J. Houshmandzadeh. Throw in a solid pass catching tight end in John Carlson and you have half an offense. Those kinds of weapons stop a team blitzing too much and takes pressure away from the offensive line - which ultimately gives your quarterback more time. If you were to ask me, I think the Seahawks appreciate what a top talent at receiver can bring to a team which is why Marshall was on that seaplane.

If they want him bad enough, it could cost one of those two first round picks. That potentially means a lot - maybe missing out on a quarterback for the future, a top defensive lineman, a much needed left tackle or a talented addition to the secondary. Quite a price to pay when you're in the midst of a rebuild. They'd have to compare the risk involved taking a proven veteran with character issues over taking an expensive unproven rookie.

Not landing Marshall - which remains probably the most likely scenario at this point - could force the Seahawks to review the situation in the draft. Do they look to make a major investment in a guy like Dez Bryant? Will it be enough to wait until #40 and hope that a Brandon LaFell or Damian Williams remain on the board? I think you can read it both ways. Either they want Marshall because they feel they need to add a wide out and therefore will review options in the draft - or they may feel there's no comparable solution in this class which is why they're entertaining the prospect of making a huge splash for a troubled but talented veteran.

Either way, I think this is a sign from the Seahawks that rebuilding the offense will be a priority. Expect that to continue on April 22nd too. The only question is - will Brandon Marshall be a Seahawk by then? We might be waiting a long time to find out.


Anonymous said...

From Texashawk,


I think the thing you are missing is that Marshall brings instant and immediate respect from defenses. This will as you were saying force them to play differently.

On the other hand ANYONE we draft will have to prove themselves and will only gain that respect after they have proven it is warranted.

My feelings of PC is that above all he likes winning, is not afraid to try and help someone be a better person and has confidence in his ability to mentor young athletes.

I dissagree with your assumption that this will most likely not happen. My gut tells me that it is going to happen it is simply a matter of when and how. The whole deal just makes too much sense.

Just for the record I was a Ruskell supporter based on his philosophy of drafting character guys. This move is a hard one for me but I have come to realize that the Ruskell's philosophy while a wonderful concept has in some ways made us under talented.

Anonymous said...

ESPN has reported that seahawks are one of 4 teams interested in LT Gaither who was tendered a couple of days ago. I think i would be tempted to give up both firsts for Marshall and Gaither. Maybe work out getting a third from Denver. Next years QB's are better anyway with Locker Mallet and Stanfords QB I like all 3 of them better than Bradford and Clausen. I read that Ben Watson was in this weekend as well I guess we are looking at adding depth to TE and maybe using some double TE formations. Another interesting draft prospect is Dorin Dickerson he is listed at tight end at 6'1 230 but ran 4.40 forty with a 43 inch vertical that freakish might be a nice H back convert who can line up in multiple positions and be a nightmare for opposing linebackers.

Rob Staton said...

Some very valid points there texashawk, thank you.

The reason I said that I think it's unlikely at this stage is really because someone is going to have to back down. We're locked at a stalemate. The Seahawks cant really make Denver a 'reasonable' offer because that will set a minimum in discussions. If they make a ridiculously low offer, then negotiations probably never happen. I don't think the Seahawks want to spend a first rounder, but I do think that's what Denver will demand. How do you bring the two sides together? Someone has to make the first move. If it's Seattle, it costs you the #6 or the #14. I don't expect Denver to go, cap in hand, to the Seahawks saying they'll take the #40 the night before the draft.

I think other teams could join the party at some stage, we'll have to see. That will be more likely after the initial waves of free agency has passed and teams complete their draft boards. If a team comes in with a pick in the 20's that tempts Marshall, a deal gets done. If the Seahawks are hoping to get Marshall for the #40 and add ons, they have to hope there's absolutely no other interest in Marshall with first round value. Even then, Denver would have to be prepared to make the deal. A lot has to happen here. Nothing appears imminent, I think a trade involving Seattle and Denver is most likely to happen the day of the draft unless the Seahawks decide Marshall is worth a first round pick.

Rob Staton said...

Annonymous - Gaither would surprise me if there's serious interest there. He's 6'9" and 340lbs - or in other words the polar opposite of a Gibbs lineman. I also don't agree that next years crop of QB's is 'better' than this years. A lot of people said the same things about Stafford and Sanchez. I'm not convinced Locker and Mallett are better - physically there are but that doesn't guarantee anything. The Stanford QB Andrew Luck will only be a red-shirt sophomore so there's no guarantee he even declares.

Matthew said...

I'm not sure I buy the speculation that Cincy is just trying to drive up the price for Seattle. If I were Cincy, I'd rather see Denver, an AFC rival, get fleeced, than see Seattle, a team they'd only meet for a critical game in the Super Bowl, overpay and strengthen Denver.

However, the current word seems to be that Cincy's interest was somewhat genuine, but weak. Currently they seem to prefer to keep #21 and sign either TO or Bryant.

To the anonymous poster who would prefer next year's QB class, that's not a risk you can really calculate. Too many things can happen. They might have a rough year and have it be revealed that they suck (see Snead). One or more of those guys could suffer a career-ending injury (see what almost happened to Bradford). The Seahawks could win enough games that none of them will be available at our pick next year, or will only be available if we either trade up or get lucky (see the situation this year). It may be that things don't work out for snatching Clausen or Bradford this year, but if one of them is available at #6, or perhaps for the right price trading up, it's a mistake to pass up the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

6 berry
14 brown (trade back to mid 20's)
45 tebow (if gone, sapp/mccourty)
2nd/3rd williams (wr/GT) (from trade back)
4th rd dixon (rb/miss st)

E in F

JohnnyB said...

Yeah, those people who drone on and on about how an offense has to have a Pro Bowl line and how any other offensive pick is wasted until that is in place have apparently never seen Barry Sanders play. Or Curt Warner. Or Walter Payton. Or Steve Largent. Or Joey Galloway. Or John Elway. Or dozens of other guys I could name. Offensive play makers force the defense to change what they normally do. They have to devote extra defenders to these play makers and that opens it up for everyone else. Even the offensive line will look much better.

If your play maker sits out a game or two, the difference is glaring. Suddenly the offense is flat. Because they are not trying? No, because the defense has a much easier task without your play maker in the game.

I don't think anyone remembers when Shawn Alexander was in his prime and had to sit out a game or two. The offensive line didn't look as dominating. The run game couldn't get going. The pass game suffered.

The current Seahawk administration seems to recognize this all too well.

Anonymous said...

The problem is not in the impact a WR makes vs a lineman, but rather availability. It's much easier to find a great WR in the fourth round (Marshall was a mid fourth round pick) than it is to find a stud CB, LT or QB in the fourth round.

Mike Teel could theoretically develop into a pro bowl QB, in which case we are free to pass on Jimmy Clausen and trade the sixth pick. But that seems much less likely to me than a young WR like Deon Butler developing into a great player.

Dreamweaver said...

Rob , Why can't Seaatle trade down one of there first rounders to a team with a low first round pick. Have them sign Marshall for top dollar. We could get Marshall and also a third or fourth also. ??

Rob Staton said...

Annonymous - I never like to think you're more or less likely to find a 'great' player in the mid/late rounds at any position. The simple fact is, you find guys all over the draft who over achieve their value upon selection. Getting a top wide out in round four is only as likely to happen in Seattle as finding any other position.

Dreamweaver - I'm not sure the Seahawks would be able to trade down like that until draft day and by then it could be too late. A team isn't going to give up picks to move up the draft before they even know who's available.

Anonymous said...


I think that it's more likely that Cincy is trying to drive down the price of TO or Bryant. Like you, I don't see the motivation for them to try and drive Marshall's price up.

Matthew said...

Yeah, I guess I hadn't really considered the opposite scenario. Certainly, I'd hope that the Seahawks could acquire Marshall for a package even less valuable than the 21st overall pick, but it's true, that if Denver is hell-bent on #14 or bust, that Cincy threatening with #21 might get them to instantly consider sweetening the deal.

JohnnyB said...

"The problem is not in the impact a WR makes vs a lineman, but rather availability. It's much easier to find a great WR in the fourth round (Marshall was a mid fourth round pick) than it is to find a stud CB, LT or QB in the fourth round."

Actually, some say that Brandon Marshall pretty much holds the title for best WR in the history of the fourth round. And if you're going to look at it that way, you have to go stud Dlineman in the first round because those truly are the toughest to find in lower rounds.

But what you really should do is take whatever stud player you can get when your pick comes up.

JohnnyB said...

"Just for the record I was a Ruskell supporter based on his philosophy of drafting character guys. This move is a hard one for me but I have come to realize that the Ruskell's philosophy while a wonderful concept has in some ways made us under talented."

When Holmgren first came to the Seahawks it took much longer than everyone thought it would for him to build a contending team. This is partly because IMO he flat out stunk in rehabilitating problem-child type players. He had to have all self motivated, locker room angels in order to succeed. Ruskell happened to have the same philosophy.

But if Pete Carroll truly can get through to these type of guys, it is a big advantage for a team because you can get value out of talented players that other teams can't. It's much easier to build a talented team if you can use talented cast offs and rejects. The coach has to have the ability to make them all function together though, or it's a disaster. If that's Pete Carroll's gift, take advantage of it, I say.

ChavaC said...

When was the last time a good wide receiver went to a bad team and helped them turn it around?

Calvin Johnson hasn't made the Lions a contender.

Boldin and Fitzgerald both went to pro bowls while the Cardinals disappointed.

Andre Johnson wasn't a big name until Schaub and a revamped line made him one.

TO didn't make the Bills a playoff team.

And Housh didn't do anything for our offense last year.

Skill positions like WR/RB don't push bad teams into contention. Start with the lines, get a franchise quarterback, and then add in the final pieces. It's not a cliche, it's the tried and true formula for building a winner.

Rob Staton said...

On the contrary - behind a poor line surely Larry Fitzgerald carried Arizona into the Super Bowl last year?

Brendan said...

Poor Line? I was under the impression that Zona's line was one of the main reasons for the good season? (Mostly because they had an amazing zero injuries to their starting line)

Marc said...

Marshall? Yes please!

Though I hope we are able to keep both first round picks this year. There seems to be a real possibility of Gerald McCoy falling to us at #6, as crazy as that sounds. If that were to happen, Seattle should count their blessings and grab him.

I could maybe be convinced to give up #14 for Marshall, but even then, i'm too greedy to pass on a Charles Brown type LT. I'm just dreaming of doing a happy dance on draft day as we get studs at DE and LT in the matter of an hours time.

Give what Boldin went for, I believe that our second round pick this year and a second or third round pick next year should be enough to get the job done for Marshall. There is so much first round talent this year that I imagine not many teams are going to want to give up those picks. (that's my hope anyway.)

I just can't imagine how great it would be to get McCoy, Brown and Marshall in this draft.

fingers crossed.



Reports coming for Cleveland that Mike H. is interested in Senca Wallace. Before pulling the tigger on Marshall I would like to see how this plays out. If we get a 2nd or 3rd pick for Senca this give us a lot more leverage and options.

Rob Staton said...

Brendan - Arizona had one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL the year they got to SB - which is one of the main reasons they're touted to draft a lineman this year. Funnilly enough, Pittsburgh had the worst and they won the lot.

Savage said...

There is no way Cleveland trades a 2nd/3rd round pick for Wallace. Your looking at getting a 5th at best and more likely a 6th. The best possible outcome I could see is Wallace + 4th rounder for a 3rd rounder.

If they could pull that off, I'd then offer the 2nd and 3rd rounders for Marshall. Thats not a bad offer. More than the Cards got for Boldin, but not outrageous like the #6.

Nick Lauber said...

You mentioned LaFell and Williams, but what about Benn. Wasn't he supposed a top five pick going into last year but played with a less than mediocre quarterback and is now seen as a second round pick? If you include Golden Tate, it seems like there are a lot of receivers that could be available at 40, who though cheaper are not really all that more risky than Marshall.

Rob Staton said...

I expect Benn to be off the board by #40.

Brendan said...

Zona in 2008 is ranked poorly by metrics standards because of their run blocking game. However, if you take a look at their pass blocking - they gave up only 28 sacks on the year. That is top ten. You add in the fact that they have a completely immobile qb and that is pretty good - very good line play. Warner at times gets the ball out quick and at other times really holds on. Conversely, you have Pitts line which was very bad admittedly. However, once again you have to look a little closer look at the numbers. Roethlisberger is notorious for hanging on to the football in the pocket which leads to a skewed sack total. Having said that you are correct that Pitts line was still mid-high of the pack at best.

Rob Staton said...

I can only go off what I saw personally. Arizona's line for me never impressed. They had Brown on the right doing only a passable job, but for such a high pick he wasn't getting it done. Interior line was particularly poor. But teams were so cautious of committing too much up front knowing they had to cover three excellent wide outs, including a guy (Fitzgerald) who was in the form of his life. Fitzgerald single handedly carried the Cardinals to the Super Bowl. He was immense and absolutely a difference maker.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Denver, nobody's going to give you a #1 draft choice. Lets get real. Where's all the takers? Either going to accept a #2 and lower round draft choice and or another player trade or you will have back a disgruntled player. Marshall will just play out his last contract year and then he will be an unrestricted free agent and Denver will get NOTHING. Look what Antwain Boldin went for. A #3 and a #4. Lets be real!

Anonymous said...

Warner, Boldin and Fitz is what protected the cards against sacks. They'd pick you apart if you blitzed against them. Warner also made quick decisions and knew when to get rid of the ball.

ChavaC said...

You could argue that Arizona is the posterchild for why bad teams shouldn't draft WR. They took Boldin in 2003, Fitz in 2004. That is the best-case scenario you could hope for in terms of drafting WRs. It still took them 5 years from then to limp into playoffs, and those two runs never happen without a HOF Qb who could deal with their line and beat up the NFC West.

I mean, do you expect Fitz to lead them back to the playoffs next year?

JohnnyB said...

"Reports coming for Cleveland that Mike H. is interested in Senca Wallace. Before pulling the tigger on Marshall I would like to see how this plays out."

Or...we keep the QB who is being sought by the QB guru and then we don't have to make desperation moves in the first round of the draft to get another one!

Rob Staton said...

Chavac - I wouldn't bet against it

Ben said...

When Denver tendered Marshall with a 1st, they hung up a big sign saying "WR 4 Sale: 1st-32nd pick OBO". They new Marshall could be signed away for a late-1st and were fine with it. They are only pretending to hold out for the 6th pick in hopes that they could score big and get the #14 in some package (maybe sending back the 3rd). Seattle is probably looking to offer the #40 or some combination of conditional picks (maybe the 2010 4th and a conditional 2011 2nd) and Denver is just trying to play hardball to drive up the price because we can't sign Marshall outright with an offer sheet. I'm confident that, if we work out a deal for Marshall, we'll be able to get him for a package similar in value to high 2nd-round pick, which is slightly lower than the asking price of a(ny) 1st-rounder. If the Seahawks FO gives up the 14th pick without getting at least a 2nd or 3rd back, I'd be pretty disappointed. Its not that Marshall isn't worth the 14th pick, but rather that it would mean paying much more than the asking price.

Ben said...

You could also use AZ as a poster child of why you shouldn't draft OTs over RBs in the first round, of why you shouldn't draft a QB in the first or why a passing game won't open up a running game. One data point doesn't make a trend.

ChavaC said...

I wasn't making sweeping generalizations though. I can give you plenty of examples of teams that drafted QBs and vaulted them themselves out of the top ten picks. And plenty of teams that consistently draft for their lines and stay in contention. Or plenty of teams who drafted excellent RBs/WR but still don't contend. But how many examples can you bring up of a bad team that acquired a WR and became competitive because of it? I cited Arizona because they are an example of a best case scenario that still wasn't good enough.

You can making unsubstantiated assertions about anything if you only look at 1 case. Sure.

Brendan said...

I think that many people are making very good points. We have an example of a team that made a SB run on the back of a wide receiver/s and a HOF qb. They made the O-line better by their good play. I think that this is a good observation. However, I would question the chances that a dez bryant and jimmy clausen are as good as Warner and Fitz.

Marshall though no question = game changer - top 5 wide out in NFL.

I now am beginning to see Johnny's point. Football is about playmakers. You get the guys that can make plays - whether that be an O-lineman, a d-lineman or a qb.

Brandon Marshall is a flat-out difference maker. You have to get him. Not for the #6 but I think a deal will be done. Maybe #40 and #6 for Marshall and #11.

Ben said...

Detroit is another great example of a team drafting WRs high, getting lucky by picking good ones and then still sucking.

I don't think Marshall will magically fix the team, but he's a high upside gamble with a low buy-in (the #40 and some of Uncle Paul's money) and I think you have to snap up a bargain like that whenever you have the chance.

Anonymous said...


Marshall isn't the cure all player that the Hawks can pick up and be SB contenders. He is a piece of the puzzle though and he's pretty valuable at the price that we should be able to pay for him.

Anonymous said...

I just want to remind everyone about something that I have been forgetting up till now about this whole Marshal thing. want us to think even more about the future and one thing about the future that we are forgetting is this. As it stands if we do not pick up a big FA this year we have already lost Burleson to a big contract. Contracts being an important part of compensatory picks. This would give us either a third or fourth round comp pick. If we trade for marshal or other players we do not loose this pick but if we pick them up through an offer sheet we do loose it. I know a 3rd or fourth is not all that great but it is something huge for a rebuilding team.

ChavaC said...

I agree Anonymous. And I wouldn't mind picking Marshall up if the price is right. But we put ourselves in a very good position this year with two early first round picks. My problem comes when you give up a pick that could net you a potential franchise LT/QB for a WR. The talent at those two positions dries up very fast in the draft, and the top quality talent rarely makes it into the second half of the first. On the other hand I'm of the opinion that receiver talent can usually be had in the 2nd and 3rd.

Jony-b said...

I was Anonymous on the previous post. I realy like marshal but if the Seahawks FO does not see him as worth while in the end I will not be upset. I would like to pick up some good FAs but there is a good reason that Green Bay has done well building through the draft. Her is my bottom line for Marshal, if he is going to make the team better for one year but hurt in the long run from draft picks and possibly attitude you must proceed with extreme caution.

I know that Antonio Bryant is not even close to Marshal. But he is free and would make up for the loss of Burleson, and possibly even be a better #1 than Burly was. He would also be picked up for a lesser, not a greater contract than Burly was by the Lions, which means that our next years 3rd or 4th comp pick would not be impacted.

I don't know about all of you but I would take keeping a 1st, getting a comp pick next year and Antonio Bryant over picking up marshal, not having our #6 and not getting a comp pick because Marshal would be paid twice the value of Burleson.

Kelly said...


I just read that Seahawks traded Seneca Wallace!

Big news and big draft implications!

Kelly said...

I was reading on Addicts and someone brought up the point that with Wallace off the team, #15 is now available. Is it a coincidence that Brandon Marshall is #15 or is that a complete fluke?

Rob Staton said...

It's a fluke.

Anonymous said...

it's either clausen at 6 or tebow at 40. would love to trade back at both 6 and 14, but if not:

6 clausen
14 brown
40 sapp


6 okung
14 spiller
40 tebow

e in f

Anonymous said...

Here's the deals.

1. Derek Anderson will be a Hawk in less than 2 weeks. Accuracy needs work but he has a strong arm and fits the Carroll model, and is only 26. We go into 2010 with Hass, Anderson and Teel.

2. Marshall trade takes time but ultimately results in our giving up #6 for Marshall and Denver's 3rd rounder (#80).

3. We pick up a CB in FA (not Bodden who just re-committed to New England).

4. In the draft we take Brown at 6, SS Chad Jones at 40, RB Hardesty at 80 and OG Mitch Petrus at 101.


Oh, and re-sign Tapp and Sims.

JohnnyB said...

"You could argue that Arizona is the posterchild for why bad teams shouldn't draft WR."

You'd have a better argument that Arizona is the posterchild for why bad teams shouldn't draft a high draft pick QB. If they would have had an impact player with that pick instead of Leinhart sitting on the bench they would have won the Super Bowl.

micah said...

I think it's pretty hard to say that one player completely turned around any team. For most of the examples given, I think there were other acquisitions made to help better a team, be it a few players or coaches. But one thing for sure is that the Seahawks need some offensive playmakers. Without them, teams will continue to single cover our receivers, blitz up a storm, and load the box on runs.

As for the Cards, I read somewhere that Kurt Warner had a higher completion percentage against the blitz. And he is known for his ability to read the defense and expose the mismatches/holes. That would imply that he could make up for the lack of line. Without Warner, the cards are a totally different team.

Vince Mulcahy said...

Rob - all bias aside, Arizona will not make the playoffs this year. They have lost too many core players on both sides of the ball. But that doesn't mean that Fitz wont have another 1000+ yard season.

It takes much more than a WR to lead a team to the playoffs let alone the super bowl. Otherwise why hasn't Marshall seen a playoff game? Even when he was paired with a franchise Qb? I'm all for getting Marshall but it has to be at the right price. Straight up the 6th would be valuing Marshall at 10x that of Boldin (or close to I don't have my value chart with me right now) no way does he even come close to that.

The only acceptable trade scenario I can come up with, involving the 6th, is 6 and a player (branch!) for 11 and Marshall. Even that is becoming more unlikely with a greater chance of McCoy/Suh falling to the 6th slot with all the moves in free agency.

Also it would be great to get a cb in free agency but who is left? Honestly Ken Lucas may have the best chance of returning with such a weak free agency class. Maybe the Titan's Harper, but guys like him are going to want long contracts with guaranteed money as they are at the end of their professional careers. No one worth spending money on in my opinion

CLanterman said...

"You'd have a better argument that Arizona is the posterchild for why bad teams shouldn't draft a high draft pick QB. If they would have had an impact player with that pick instead of Leinhart sitting on the bench they would have won the Super Bowl."

Not really, they drafted Leinart in the 1st, and it didn't hurt the team. They had 2 good WRs and a bad o-line, and it didn't do them any good until they got a HOF QB. There's not shame for Leinart in being beaten out by Warner, arguably a top 3 QB the past few years.

JohnnyB said...

"Not really, they drafted Leinart in the 1st, and it didn't hurt the team."

I just explained how it hurts a team to spend a high draft pick on a guy who sits on the bench! You could have had a very very good player contributing to the team instead! If they would have had that during the Super Bowl (like maybe a stud Dlineman sacking Worthlessburger) they probably would have won, considering how close it was.

Look, I'd love for the Seahawks to put five new quarterbacks on the roster, sitting on the bench trying to develop. Quarterback *is* a valuable position. What I hate is losing the opportunity to acquire an impact player at another important position with the high picks.

Anonymous said...

I'd much prefer the drafting (#40 should do it)of Demaryius Thomas, WR, Georgia Tech instead of Marshall. Check Thomas out, he is a little like Marshall in size and also is a freak of nature type downfield game breaker.
Major difference is he is not a female beating repeat criminal who doesn't deserve to wear a Seahawk uniform.