HawkShack.com

Looks like Bennett isn't willing to give a discount deal to stay with the Hawks. I can't say I blame him really but he should be worried where he might end up. Is the money worth leaving a legitimate team with the chance to return to the Super Bowl? I guess that's his call. I think most of us saw this coming and I doubt the Hawks match the highest bidder as Bennett will be 29 next season (not old but not young). I just don't see a bidding war here. Franchise tag?

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap200000 ... snt-costco

He has his ring. Now he's looking for as much scratch as a he can get before the clock strikes 12 and his carriage turns into a pumpkin. Can't say as I blame him. Slap the FT on him and keep him another year.

RiverDog wrote:He has his ring. Now he's looking for as much scratch as a he can get before the clock strikes 12 and his carriage turns into a pumpkin. Can't say as I blame him. Slap the FT on him and keep him another year.

Pretty much how I see it, and I can't say I blame him. At 29, this is his last chance to get the best deal, and he has a SB ring on his finger already. Love to keep him, but I think plan B is likely already being drawn up by Pete & John if he goes.

There will always be other teams mid-level FA's (Like Avril and Bennett last year) who want to come to better teams, like Seattle ( yes, we are now a team that FA's will WANT to come to) with a chance to win now. This is how we got them in the first place, and there is no reason to believe that there won't be quality replacements available to us at a lower price, should Bennett choose to leave.

This is nothing compared to what we are going to go through in two years with RW, Bobby Wagner, Lane and others from 'that draft' and potentially Richard all the same year. And I'm leaving out the #1 pick, who I don't think will pan out.

js

RiverDog wrote:He has his ring. Now he's looking for as much scratch as a he can get before the clock strikes 12 and his carriage turns into a pumpkin. Can't say as I blame him. Slap the FT on him and keep him another year.

This.

One way or another Bennett will get top 10 and maybe even Top 5 defensive lineman money as an UFA.

JS is probably trying to negotiate a two or three year guaranteed money deal for Bennett. If he is too expensive then rent him for one more year using the FT. It is actually the year after this up-coming year when the Big Bill for Russell, Sherm & Earl (and few others) come due.

Can't tag him. Tagging Bennett would cost 12.6 million against the cap. Need that money for Earl's extension. If he prices himself out, he prices himself out. Seahawks have to move on. They knew that was a possibility when they signed him for a 1 year mercenary deal.

RE Bennet I seem to remember something about a partial tear in his rotator cuff. What happened to that story? Im halfway through rehabbing a shoulder repair and it is miserable. What if Bennett signs the deal and then has the surgery? He would be out most of a season IMO.

Hawktawk wrote:RE Bennet I seem to remember something about a partial tear in his rotator cuff. What happened to that story? Im halfway through rehabbing a shoulder repair and it is miserable. What if Bennett signs the deal and then has the surgery? He would be out most of a season IMO.

Man, that would be fatal.Check that. He would get a chance to get healed up at our expense then show up late in the season to play a few games? Sounds familiar. But then, that worked out okay as well! (Harvin).

Eaglehawk wrote:

Hawktawk wrote:RE Bennet I seem to remember something about a partial tear in his rotator cuff. What happened to that story? Im halfway through rehabbing a shoulder repair and it is miserable. What if Bennett signs the deal and then has the surgery? He would be out most of a season IMO.

Man, that would be fatal.Check that. He would get a chance to get healed up at our expense then show up late in the season to play a few games? Sounds familiar. But then, that worked out okay as well! (Harvin).

I'm sure that shoulder injury is factored into his decision making process in wanting more money. That and the neck injury scare last season hits home how quick your career in the NFL can end.
I have no ill will for Bennett, and I hope we are the ones who offer the most, but I doubt we will be.
I guess we will find out when Free Agency starts if he has signed with us or not.

kalibane wrote:Can't tag him. Tagging Bennett would cost 12.6 million against the cap. Need that money for Earl's extension. If he prices himself out, he prices himself out. Seahawks have to move on. They knew that was a possibility when they signed him for a 1 year mercenary deal.

I'll bet it's possible to tag Bennett and give Earl his raise. There's a lot of dead weight out there. Sidney Rice's cap number for 2014 is $9.7M, Red Bryant $8.5M, Zach Miller $7M.

I say let him go get max money he deserves. He is much like his brother who has bounced from team to team to get the money they can garner in a short period of time. Bennett was a product of an excellent defense and huge rotation of D-Line. With the best secondary in the league to press WRs, and Linebackers that can cover it bought him and Avril/Clemons/McDonald whom ever.... that extra split second to pass rush. I think we can replace him with a draft pick or next man up. He is someone I would like to keep, but he isn't high the priorities of must keeps. I say let him go, and if Michael Sam is sitting there in the 5th round... Take Sam and have him fill in that rotational pass rush roll.

I have no problem with Bennett wanting the biggest contract he can get. I'd be doing the same dmn thing and so would everyone else.

My question is: why did he have to be such a smart-ass about it with the Costco/Walmart cracks? The *team* wasn't asking him to give them a discount for Pete's sake.

I don't know- I guess he probably wasn't directing it at the team or fanbase, but it felt like he was to me.

It is a bit strange Burrton. It seemed like he said he was 100% committed to staying in Seattle and then those remarks? It's if he was already told he wasn't in the plans to be re-signed. For the record, I agree with those who think we should move on if the price isn't right. There will be a handful of veterans who want a chance at a ring and know it may be their last shot. I predict Julius Peppers will be a Seahawk in 2014 for a one year deal.

Bennett is just a bit of a wise ass personality. Knowing what I've heard from him and how he's talked I would assume it was meant as half joke, not with any animosity. Besides would you rather have someone who was honest or played the game in the media and then behind closed doors driving a hard line that wasn't consistant with his press releases?

I don't blame him.

Riv,

You're right it COULD happen. I didn't mean it was impossible, perhaps I should have said, they shouldn't use the tag and maybe I shouldn't have put it all on Earl. Tagging Bennett at that price creates ripple effects. I for one don't want them to cut Bryant. Miller, Rice and Clem I think should be gone. But if they extend Thomas and tag Bennet that's pretty much the cap once they sign draft choices. Getting Tate back becomes extremely hard. They still have to replace Clem, Miller and Rice. And you can forget about even entertaining Sherman's contract until next year. Tag is just too restrictive. I want Bennet back but not at the cost of the cap flexibility and also do you really want to go into next offseason having to deal with Bennett, Sherman and Wilson's contracts all at once? Ifthey are willing to hamstring that much of the cap to fill that role, you might as well go all out and get the Krakon (assuming he's not tagged).

If we let him go, how do we replace the pressure up the middle?
It's something we have needed for a few years now and considering he can also be effective on the edge, it's a lot of ability to have to replace.
I just hope they can come to an agreement that works for him and the team.

I have no problem with Bennett's Costco crack. It wasn't malicious or anything, he was just making it known that no, he won't be offering a home town discount. It's not like it's an obligation to sign for less 'cause we signed him as an UDFA . If he'd rather cash in than go for another ring here that's his prerogative, I can't say I'd handle it differently if I were in his shoes.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I didn't read Bennett's comment as money is the ONLY factor. Of all the Seahawks, he has been the most vocal about how special this franchise is, probably because of where he has been. He's called the Seahawks facility 'the Google of football', and compared it to the Bucs in a very extreme light that favors Seattle.

The way I read Bennett's comments are that he will consider all factors, and that money shouldn't be a concession that the Seahawks should expect, because as he put it 'I don't discount my effort on the field, or being a good teammate', etc. he has stated numerous times that he wants to be associated with the best, both as a player and as a unit, and to me that means EVERYTHING will be factored in, not just dollars.

kalibane wrote:Bennett is just a bit of a wise ass personality. Knowing what I've heard from him and how he's talked I would assume it was meant as half joke, not with any animosity. Besides would you rather have someone who was honest or played the game in the media and then behind closed doors driving a hard line that wasn't consistant with his press releases?

I don't blame him.

Riv,

You're right it COULD happen. I didn't mean it was impossible, perhaps I should have said, they shouldn't use the tag and maybe I shouldn't have put it all on Earl. Tagging Bennett at that price creates ripple effects. I for one don't want them to cut Bryant. Miller, Rice and Clem I think should be gone. But if they extend Thomas and tag Bennet that's pretty much the cap once they sign draft choices. Getting Tate back becomes extremely hard. They still have to replace Clem, Miller and Rice. And you can forget about even entertaining Sherman's contract until next year. Tag is just too restrictive. I want Bennet back but not at the cost of the cap flexibility and also do you really want to go into next offseason having to deal with Bennett, Sherman and Wilson's contracts all at once? Ifthey are willing to hamstring that much of the cap to fill that role, you might as well go all out and get the Krakon (assuming he's not tagged).

IMO we do need to tie up Earl first, but after that, keeping Bennett in the fold for at least one more year is our biggest off season priority, before Tate and before tying up Sherman. I'm not advocating that we cut any of the players I indicated (and I missed Clemons, too), but I am saying that we have a lot of leeway considering the number of players we have on the roster that are not performing up to their contracts.

I guess I'm of the "let's cross one bridge at a time" philosophy. I want to give ourselves the best possible chance of winning the SB next season if that means we can't tie up Thomas, Sherman, Tate, et al all in the same year, and bringing back Bennett gives us that best chance. There's a danger in looking too far down the road (injuries, performance drop offs, etc). I think it's going to be almost impossible to keep our entire team together for 4-5 years anyway. Let's get Ring #2 before we think of 3, 4, and 5.

I wasn't put off by the Costco crack, either.

It's not like it's an obligation to sign for less 'cause we signed him as an UDFA .

Well, that's kinda why I thought the crack was odd. Again, maybe he was just being a wiseacre like Kal said, but nobody was *asking* him to give the team a discount, at least that I know of.

Eh, either way, I hope we're able to work him into our cap- he was outstanding for us. If not, though, good luck to him and hope he enjoys watching his former team rack up another SB win next year.

The 'discount' comment was probably in reference to a reporter asking him about Golden Tate's hasty remark about hometown discount. Bennett is a funny guy and no one's fool, so I totally took his comment that way.

I'm not reading too much into his comments, but I do think he'll go where the money is. I didn't even pay attention to it until somebody mentioned that he'll be 29 next season. To me, that means he leaves because 1.) the Seahawks probably won't pay him due to his age (I envision a Clemons type deal) and 2.) there will be a more needy team that will pay him more, so he'll take that knowing his value likely won't be anymore than it is now. If he can score big, then he will, and I don't think it will be the Seahawks paying him.

burrrton wrote:

It's not like it's an obligation to sign for less 'cause we signed him as an UDFA .

Well, that's kinda why I thought the crack was odd. Again, maybe he was just being a wiseacre like Kal said, but nobody was *asking* him to give the team a discount, at least that I know of.

Eh, either way, I hope we're able to work him into our cap- he was outstanding for us. If not, though, good luck to him and hope he enjoys watching his former team rack up another SB win next year.

Well they weren't asking him to take a discount but they absolutely did ask if he'd be willing to do so. The video is available on .com if you missed it on NFL AM.

I've got no problem with Bennett asking for his payday but it did seem a little off-putting how he phrased it. I think he was fantastic for us but I won't shed a tear if he goes someplace else. I don't think he will have the success or production anywhere else. Unless SF picks him up. But that aint going to happen. Our focus should be Earl.

RiverDog wrote:

kalibane wrote:Bennett is just a bit of a wise ass personality. Knowing what I've heard from him and how he's talked I would assume it was meant as half joke, not with any animosity. Besides would you rather have someone who was honest or played the game in the media and then behind closed doors driving a hard line that wasn't consistant with his press releases?

I don't blame him.

Riv,

You're right it COULD happen. I didn't mean it was impossible, perhaps I should have said, they shouldn't use the tag and maybe I shouldn't have put it all on Earl. Tagging Bennett at that price creates ripple effects. I for one don't want them to cut Bryant. Miller, Rice and Clem I think should be gone. But if they extend Thomas and tag Bennet that's pretty much the cap once they sign draft choices. Getting Tate back becomes extremely hard. They still have to replace Clem, Miller and Rice. And you can forget about even entertaining Sherman's contract until next year. Tag is just too restrictive. I want Bennet back but not at the cost of the cap flexibility and also do you really want to go into next offseason having to deal with Bennett, Sherman and Wilson's contracts all at once? Ifthey are willing to hamstring that much of the cap to fill that role, you might as well go all out and get the Krakon (assuming he's not tagged).

IMO we do need to tie up Earl first, but after that, keeping Bennett in the fold for at least one more year is our biggest off season priority, before Tate and before tying up Sherman. I'm not advocating that we cut any of the players I indicated (and I missed Clemons, too), but I am saying that we have a lot of leeway considering the number of players we have on the roster that are not performing up to their contracts.

I guess I'm of the "let's cross one bridge at a time" philosophy. I want to give ourselves the best possible chance of winning the SB next season if that means we can't tie up Thomas, Sherman, Tate, et al all in the same year, and bringing back Bennett gives us that best chance. There's a danger in looking too far down the road (injuries, performance drop offs, etc). I think it's going to be almost impossible to keep our entire team together for 4-5 years anyway. Let's get Ring #2 before we think of 3, 4, and 5.

I wasn't put off by the Costco crack, either.

keeping Bennett in the fold for at least one more year is our biggest off season priority

River, you don't really think Bennett would do a one year deal right?

I-5 wrote:The 'discount' comment was probably in reference to a reporter asking him about Golden Tate's hasty remark about hometown discount. Bennett is a funny guy and no one's fool, so I totally took his comment that way.

This.

Bennett is very smart, creative and funny - this comes across very quickly when you see him being interviewed. There was no dig at anyone - it is a funny comment when you stop and think about it.

Bennett is our best lineman all year long. We need to sign him. And as last resort Franchise him for next years run for SB2. Remember he already makes $5 million. Frnachise Tag would be $10 - $12 million. That means that the HAwks need to get $7 more form Clemons (9 million) Rice (9 Million) Bryant (8 Million) - this will not be hard and still leaves several million for Earl, Tate, Baldwin.

NorthHawk wrote:If we let him go, how do we replace the pressure up the middle?
It's something we have needed for a few years now and considering he can also be effective on the edge, it's a lot of ability to have to replace.
I just hope they can come to an agreement that works for him and the team.

The Draft.

And this upcoming one is key, because it gives the Seahawks the opportunity to build for the future while keeping this current football machine rolling for 2014. All drafts are important, obviously, but this is the first one we've had going into as SB Champs.

Bennett's 29 anyway, so you gotta start thinking about his replacement anyhow. If he walks, he walks. IMO, he doesn't have half the leverage he thinks he does.

I thought the comment was funny. Hey, I get it from him it was part humor but also a notice to say he needs to get some security. He needs to get some now because he is now closing in on the final years of his career.

River, you don't really think Bennett would do a one year deal right?

No, he won't. I was speaking of slapping the FT on him.

Zorn76 wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:If we let him go, how do we replace the pressure up the middle?
It's something we have needed for a few years now and considering he can also be effective on the edge, it's a lot of ability to have to replace.
I just hope they can come to an agreement that works for him and the team.

The Draft.

And this upcoming one is key, because it gives the Seahawks the opportunity to build for the future while keeping this current football machine rolling for 2014. All drafts are important, obviously, but this is the first one we've had going into as SB Champs.

Bennett's 29 anyway, so you gotta start thinking about his replacement anyhow. If he walks, he walks. IMO, he doesn't have half the leverage he thinks he does.

Do you have any names that I might look up for players in the draft that fit his profile? He was undrafted, but those are rare finds.

Ok normally I wouldn't say this as it will be construed as "trollish", but are there really 10+ replies about Bennett's comnent? What happened to the whole "He was just being honest" or "But it's TRUE" line of thought? LolI guess the truth does piss people off when it's phrased a certain way.

I actually liked what Bennett said. He said he has played the last 2 yrs trying to prove himself, and now he has. Also said that he did not give the Seahawks a discount when he played, but gave 100%. I thought that was a very intelligent insight. I think he could be replaced though with a similar vet, maybe Peppers? Not sure if Raji fits the mold (although he may for a 4-3), but I wonder who takes a look at him.

As awesome as it would be to have him back, there isn't much of a reason for him to come back at a discount.

Super Bowl? He got his ring and he took the risk with his 1-year "show me" contract so now it's time to get paid.

When we got Avril and Bennet it always seemed as though we would only get to keep one, and with Avril locked up another year it looks to be him.

As much as it sucks to (probably) lose him, the flip side is that we have an open position for a quality vet to slide into cheaply if he wants a ring.

Our own guys will be asking to get paid because they won the Lombardi, while other guys will be willing to come here at a discount to win one themselves. These are our cards, we just have to play 'em.

Well according to this post he wants 10 mil a year. I just don't see us paying a "rotational d-lineman" that much loot. He is part of a committee, and quite frankly he is darn good and I would love to keep him, but at the end of the day I say let him make his 10 mil somewhere else and get fresh legs in there.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=292&sid=2457211

Futureite wrote:Ok normally I wouldn't say this as it will be construed as "trollish", but are there really 10+ replies about Bennett's comnent? What happened to the whole "He was just being honest" or "But it's TRUE" line of thought? LolI guess the truth does piss people off when it's phrased a certain way.

I actually liked what Bennett said. He said he has played the last 2 yrs trying to prove himself, and now he has. Also said that he did not give the Seahawks a discount when he played, but gave 100%. I thought that was a very intelligent insight. I think he could be replaced though with a similar vet, maybe Peppers? Not sure if Raji fits the mold (although he may for a 4-3), but I wonder who takes a look at him.

I'm not sure what your point is, Future. A few of us might have raised our eyebrows at Bennett's Costco line, but it seems to me that it's not a big deal with the majority of us as most either didn't comment or stated that it wasn't something they took offense to.

Costco statement is funny.
I don't take offense.

Bennett should get paid as much as he can. If its 10 million, so be it. Maybe not with this team though.

It was a nice ride but family is first, and he has to put his family before anything. The guy is approaching 30 years old. Good for him, but he has to take the money NOW.

Eaglehawk wrote:Costco statement is funny.
I don't take offense.

Bennett should get paid as much as he can. If its 10 million, so be it. Maybe not with this team though.

It was a nice ride but family is first, and he has to put his family before anything. The guy is approaching 30 years old. Good for him, but he has to take the money NOW.

I just read an article in My Northwest that noted how deep the FA market is for DE's this season. There may not be very many teams out there willing to pay Bennett the $10M or so he's seeking, and if he does find a greener pasture, there's other options out there for about the same price we signed Bennett for last season that could mitigate the effects of him leaving. One they spoke of was Griffen from Minnesota, a player Pete coached at USC, that's been playing behind Jared Allen. So we'll see. It may not cost us a Nordstrom's price tag to resign him.

4XPIPS wrote:Well according to this post he wants 10 mil a year. I just don't see us paying a "rotational d-lineman" that much loot. He is part of a committee, and quite frankly he is darn good and I would love to keep him, but at the end of the day I say let him make his 10 mil somewhere else and get fresh legs in there.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=292&sid=2457211

All of our D-linemen are rotational.

RiverDog wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:Costco statement is funny.
I don't take offense.

Bennett should get paid as much as he can. If its 10 million, so be it. Maybe not with this team though.

It was a nice ride but family is first, and he has to put his family before anything. The guy is approaching 30 years old. Good for him, but he has to take the money NOW.

I just read an article in My Northwest that noted how deep the FA market is for DE's this season. There may not be very many teams out there willing to pay Bennett the $10M or so he's seeking, and if he does find a greener pasture, there's other options out there for about the same price we signed Bennett for last season that could mitigate the effects of him leaving. One they spoke of was Griffen from Minnesota, a player Pete coached at USC, that's been playing behind Jared Allen. So we'll see. It may not cost us a Nordstrom's price tag to resign him.

This is why I think we will offer him a Clemons type deal; I don't see the FO offering any more than that, and if other teams come offering that $10 million, then he'll walk, and I don't blame him. JS and PC will continue to find the talent we need to stay competitive.

RiverDog wrote:

Eaglehawk wrote:Costco statement is funny.
I don't take offense.

Bennett should get paid as much as he can. If its 10 million, so be it. Maybe not with this team though.

It was a nice ride but family is first, and he has to put his family before anything. The guy is approaching 30 years old. Good for him, but he has to take the money NOW.

I just read an article in My Northwest that noted how deep the FA market is for DE's this season. There may not be very many teams out there willing to pay Bennett the $10M or so he's seeking, and if he does find a greener pasture, there's other options out there for about the same price we signed Bennett for last season that could mitigate the effects of him leaving. One they spoke of was Griffen from Minnesota, a player Pete coached at USC, that's been playing behind Jared Allen. So we'll see. It may not cost us a Nordstrom's price tag to resign him.

I can see Bennett with Dallas. Though they have cap issues as well. But yeah, Bennett may see the handwriting on the wall and lower or do a structured package more than last year but less than 10 million and hopefully as you said, we may resign the guy. That would be great, and maybe, just maybe Bennett may give authorization for that to happen. His agent will know real quick if anyone is knocking on Bennett's door. If not, then Bennett should move quickly to resign.

Futureite wrote:Ok normally I wouldn't say this as it will be construed as "trollish", but are there really 10+ replies about Bennett's comnent? What happened to the whole "He was just being honest" or "But it's TRUE" line of thought? LolI guess the truth does piss people off when it's phrased a certain way.

I don't get what your point is. Are you attempting to make a statement about how much we are posting on a subject? I didn't know that there was a rule on this forum that was privy only to a 49er fan as to how many posts a topic should merit. It appears that you didn't read any of the comments. The vast majority, probably all if my memory serves from actually having read the comments, were that Bennett SHOULD get ask for his payday. To a member here it seems we would all think he deserves it and just about all of us would bear no grudge if he walked if he was offered a better deal. A couple of us commented that what he said rubbed us the wrong way, myself included, but that would be us being honest.

So yes, how else would your comment be construed but as trollish?

RiverDog wrote:

Futureite wrote:Ok normally I wouldn't say this as it will be construed as "trollish", but are there really 10+ replies about Bennett's comnent? What happened to the whole "He was just being honest" or "But it's TRUE" line of thought? LolI guess the truth does piss people off when it's phrased a certain way.

I actually liked what Bennett said. He said he has played the last 2 yrs trying to prove himself, and now he has. Also said that he did not give the Seahawks a discount when he played, but gave 100%. I thought that was a very intelligent insight. I think he could be replaced though with a similar vet, maybe Peppers? Not sure if Raji fits the mold (although he may for a 4-3), but I wonder who takes a look at him.

I'm not sure what your point is, Future. A few of us might have raised our eyebrows at Bennett's Costco line, but it seems to me that it's not a big deal with the majority of us as most either didn't comment or stated that it wasn't something they took offense to.

This. He took a chance on this team as being the best to let him showcase his abilities and get paid. That worked out as well for both parties as possible. Now he's setting out to do exactly what he said he'd do and what we all knew he'd do, and so I didn't see a need to comment. It doesn't piss me off at all. We'd clearly like him back, but we'll just have to see if the money works.