Furrey did't sign

[Rob0729]

The trouble with RFA tenders is they come with a draft pick, a mid-level tender would mean a 1st round pick for Hackett, seems self-defeating somehow...

I just don't know if the Seahawks can tender a high tender to Hackett though. That was my point. They have doled out far too many big time contracts (Hasselbeck, Ferguson, Branch, Julian Peterson, Walter Jones, and others) and I don't know what their free agent situation is. I know they are one of the few teams that aren't flushed with cap money.

I agree that if the Seahawks give him a tender offer for a first rounder, we don't touch Hackett. But I don't know if they can.

 

[DaBruinz]

I am just not seeing how you call Troy in his prime a #3. Whether forced or not he played the #1 and was an awesome #1.

Digger-
I am a huge Troy Brown fan. But I am also a realist. Troy had 2 extremely good years. That's it. I believe that it was more a function of the Patriots not having good WR talent than Troy being a legitimate #1.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I just don't know if the Seahawks can tender a high tender to Hackett though. That was my point. They have doled out far too many big time contracts (Hasselbeck, Ferguson, Branch, Julian Peterson, Walter Jones, and others) and I don't know what their free agent situation is. I know they are one of the few teams that aren't flushed with cap money.

I agree that if the Seahawks give him a tender offer for a first rounder, we don't touch Hackett. But I don't know if they can.

It's probably between 1.7 & 2 million, not a lot for a guy who has taken over go-to duties while their #1 is out. I'd be awfully surprised if they didn't have him covered, cap issues or not.

 

[DaBruinz]

With Darrel Jackson being a Free Agent and with the Money they've spent on Burleson and Branch, I don't forsee the Seahawks giving Hackett an upper level tender. Probably a mid-level tender. But I doubt that he will sign anything more than that.

 

[TomBrady'sGoat]

Thats fine as long as he maintains. You opinion is just that. There are no facts to determine his future, accept a great year this year. He has more upside that most FA WRs.

I don't mean to pick on you Digger but I hate this recent conversation trend of pointing out to people that what they say is their opinion. Everything that isn't measurable is opinion. I understand this and you understand this and anyone who isn't a moron understands this. This has lead to people incresing prefacing their statements with IMO, IMHO (I really hate that one), or "in my opinion." It's unnecessary and annoying. If you're making a statement that isn't measurable it's obviously just your opinion. Pointing this out to me does nothing to disuade me from my belief.

It is my opinion that Furrey's value is at its peak right now. I doubt he will maintain, let alone improve on this year. Trot Brown in '01 doesn't seem like a bad comparison.

I believe that some team will look at the 100 or so catches and pay him like a #1, or at the worst a #2. If the Pats view him as a #1 I would think they're wrong. If they view him as a #2, they like to pay those guys JAG or rookie money.

And as for the Troy Brown discussion, the guy defines #2 to me. Not quite a #1, but in his prime he was more than just a situational guy. You wanted him in there for every snap. Right now Troy is a #3, or a #2 on a team with poor recievers (NE).

 

[primetime]

I would rather have Welker, but Furrey can play both ways in some cases. Could be an interesting offseason. I'd still like to see them get a legitimate number 1, though CJ could possibly break out.

 

[bunzoburns]

I didn't realize that he finished with 93 catches!

 

[unoriginal]

In a weak free agent WR pool, Furrey will probably not be available for smart money. Additionally, Furrey saw primarily single coverage throughout the entire year with the emergence of (the Detroit) Roy Williams. Furrey is a clever wide reiceiver with intimate knowledge of defensive technique and zone responsibility, but he can't beat, or draw, coverage focus. In effect, he is Brett Perriman to Williams' Herman Moore. The versatility is nice, but somebody besides the Pats will overspend to get it.

The Pats in 2007 will be hitching their passing game train to Chad Jackson, with a slight assist expected from Jabar Gaffney. Caldwell is established. We do not need another #2 when Kight and Childress are pawing the ground around the bench area.

 

[pats1]

He becomes a free agent in March. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. The Lions have exclusive negotiating rights for a bit before he hits the open market.

 

[Rob0729]

With Darrel Jackson being a Free Agent and with the Money they've spent on Burleson and Branch, I don't forsee the Seahawks giving Hackett an upper level tender. Probably a mid-level tender. But I doubt that he will sign anything more than that.

I didn't think Jackson is a free agent. He just wants more money. According to the NFLPA site, he is under contract until 2009. I do see there being a good possibility that the Seahawks cut or trade Jackson though. There were rumors they were going to trade him before the trade deadline this year and the Seahawks are concerned about his durability and his contract demands after Branch's deal.

I think the Seahawks will lose either Jackson or Hackett this offseason one way or another.

 

[Rob0729]

It's probably between 1.7 & 2 million, not a lot for a guy who has taken over go-to duties while their #1 is out. I'd be awfully surprised if they didn't have him covered, cap issues or not.

They can only put so much money towards one position. Three of their other WRs have big time contracts (Branch, Ferguson, and Jackson). They can't have four WRs on the team with a cap hit of $2 million or more especially since they are a team without a lot of cap room and other more pressing needs. Their defense and o-line need some upgrades. They also don't have a first round pick to get an impact guy in the draft in a few areas.

I think the new CBA added a tender for a second rounder. My guess is that if the Seahawks tender him, they will give him that tender and dangle him and Darrell Jackson on the market. Which ever guy gets the more attractive offer, will get traded.

If the Seahawks had the same defense and o-line they had last season, they could afford to keep Jackson, Hackett, Branch, and Ferguson. But the Seahawks had the 19th ranked defense in both yards allowed and points allowed. They were 22nd in takeaways too. They desperately need to upgrade their defense and Hackett might be a luxary they cannot afford.