ESPN NFL

Posted by ESPN.com's Mike Sando

Brittany from Seattle writes: I have to say that I am furious with the Seahawks Organization for trading Julian Peterson for, dare I say it, an inferior player. Peterson was a standout player who played all but one game in the three years with Seattle. Why on earth would an organization trade a player who, according to analysis on NFL Network, is one of the few defensive players that certain offensive coordinators have to re-arrange their offense around.

I am slowly losing my faith in the GM Ruskell and the entire Hawks Organization. They are making ridiculous trade after ridiculous trade. I fear we are going to end up like the Lions if we keep sending all of our good players there! I am in need of some faith but it is becoming as dim as the sunshine in Seattle.

Mike Sando: Hey, I like NFL Network and have been a subscriber from the beginning. That said, the Seahawks and other NFL teams shouldn't feel obligated to weigh any outside analysis when making roster decisions. Who would be in better position than the Seahawks to have a feel for what Julian Peterson might offer one, two or three years from now?

This move is a calculated gamble. The Seahawks are betting on Leroy Hill and Lofa Tatupu to ensure a high level of play at the position. They are also banking on Cory Redding recapturing some of what he offered during his breakout 2006 season.

The thinking is apparently for Redding to drop back down to 285 pounds to help him play defensive end instead of tackle. Seattle thinks Redding will be stout as a defensive end at that weight, yet quick enough to rush the passer effectively from the inside on passing downs. These were apparently the circumstances when Redding was most effective for the Lions.

Seattle also thinks Redding will face fewer double-team situations in Seattle than he did while playing for a less talented defense in Detroit over the last couple seasons.

This move might not work out, but I can see why Seattle went in this direction. One key variable is whether Peterson will bounce back from a down season in 2008. Yes, he went to the Pro Bowl, but I wouldn't necessarily say he played at a Pro Bowl level. Some of that probably wasn't his fault. But if Seattle determined Peterson wasn't worth the $8.8 million he would have counted against their salary cap, at least they traded him to a rebuilding team.

---

John from Tacoma writes: I've been reading some of the coverage of the Peterson-Redding trade, and not to be critical, but some of the assessments out there seem to be of the 'let's compare the back of the baseball card' variety.

Yes, JP is a Pro Bowler (but so was Ken Hamlin a year ago), and yes his reputation precedes him, but I do like this trade for the Seahawks. They were not a good defense with this trio of LB's intact last year, and with a new coach and the GM having freer rein, it's obvious that they've decided to make the Hawks harder to deal with defensively. They've added talent and depth to the DL with Cole and Redding, and having the ability to turn Hill loose to do what he does best is key. They got younger and created cap room.

I just don't think that the Seahawks were anywhere near 'fleeced', despite what national and Detroit media might think. Your opinion? BTW, big fan from the TNT days.

Mike Sando: Thanks, John. I find it unlikely that Seattle got fleeced on this trade. Barring an unforeseeable injury, Redding will probably play longer than Peterson. Peterson has the potential to provide more in the short term. He is the more dynamic player. Seattle's hope for Redding would be that he would pay off over the longer haul. The Seahawks also apparently think he can recapture previous form by dropping weight and playing more on the outside.

---

Dave from LaQuinta, Calif., writes: Sandorama -- Why do the Hawks still have part of Peterson's contract still count against their cap? I am a little confused by that.

Mike Sando: There are two general components to what a player's contract counts against the cap in a given year. A player's base salary in a given year counts against the cap in that year only, and then only if the player remains on the roster. For Peterson, that salary was going to be $6.5 million in 2009.

Signing bonuses count against the salary cap on a different schedule. The Seahawks committed an $11.5 million bonus to Peterson when they signed him in 2006. The bonus does not count against the cap all at once. In this case, the bonus was scheduled to count $2.3 million against the cap in each of the first five seasons of the deal (five times $2.3 million equals the bonus amount).

The portion of the bonus that had not counted against the cap to this point -- $2.3 million for 2009 and $2.3 million for 2010 -- accelerated against the current cap once Peterson left the roster.

If Peterson had remained on the roster, the deal would have counted $8.8 million against the cap. This figure represents the $6.5 million in salary plus the scheduled $2.3 million in prorated signing bonus. Seattle saves the $6.5 million once Peterson leaves the roster, but the $2.3 million for 2009 counts against the cap. The $2.3 million for 2010 also counts. As a result, Peterson's contract counts $4.6 million against the cap in 2009 even though he'll be playing for the Lions.

---

Kristof from Jacksonville writes: What are the Rams doing to replace Holt? Is it certain that they'll draft his replacement or will they try to make a trade? I think they have to do something because Donnie Avery can't be your #1 WR.

Mike Sando: The Rams might think otherwise on Avery. They drafted him near the top of the second round. He can certainly be a deep threat. I do think you're right in that the Rams cannot bank on Avery being that type of player in his second season. He wouldn't be the first receiver to suffer a sophomore slump after an impressive rookie showing, that's for sure. Michael Clayton comes to mind.

---

Sam from Los Angeles writes: What do you think of this trade? The Niners trade a second or third round draft pick for Derek Anderson/Brady Quinn (whichever is available) and then package that player with the 10th pick for Jay Cutler. Thoughts?

Mike Sando: Pretty complicated. The 49ers would also be parting with their top two choices in the draft. That's a steep price. I like Cutler's talent, but perhaps not to that degree.

---

Andrew from Pennsylvania writes: Hey Mike, i'm a first time writer but long time reader. I've seen that Jay Cutler is now on the trading block and the Niners are looking for a long-term solution. Sounds like a good fit to me. I don't see why not give up a second round pick and a throw in player. That should get the job done, right? I mean, what's the chances of us drafting someone better than jay cutler with a second round pick?

Mike Sando: The chances of finding a player better than Cutler in the second round would be remote. I'm also thinking the Broncos could get more in return.

---

Clu from Phoenix writes: With a new NFLPA Director, it got me thinking about an uncapped year in the future. I was wondering what you thought about the possibilities in an uncapped year? As a Cardinals fan that possibility scares the crap outta me. I also envision the Cowboys and Redskins buying every player they can in free agency.

I know free agency isn't a proven way to build a winner, but that can't be good for the Buffalo's of the NFL. Once an uncapped year happens, I think that star players will flock to the teams with loaded bankrolls. Imagine Larry Fitzgerald in an open mar
ket after the things he just did. There would be probably 10 guys with A-Rod contract. Thanks.

Mike Sando: I just don't see either side letting it get to that point. And if we have a lockout, I predict the players will blink first. Their careers are too short, on average, for them to give up a full year's salary. The league would be able to field teams with replacement players in the early stages, with regular players increasingly willing to come back.

---

Kraig from Seattle writes: Mike, Can you shed some light on the cost of taking Curry at #4 vs. the Peterson trade? The argument I'm hearing is that we'll pass on Curry lest we just go back to being overcommitted at linebacker. However, I'm pretty sure Curry's rookie contract would still be considerably cheaper than Peterson's. But I don't understand NFL finance well enough to produce have hard facts.

Mike Sando: Aaron Curry's contract would indeed count far less than what Peterson's contract would have counted against the cap in 2009. The long-term investment would still be substantial, with quite a bit of guaranteed money, but the short-term cap consequences would produce a net gain for Seattle against the cap.

---

Marco from Las Cruces writes: Hey Sando loving the blog still in the off season and always appreciate you giving us something to read. Do me a favor and sometime this week make your first article with the headline, '49ers land Cutler', please and thanks.

Mike Sando: I tried. "Cutler and the 49ers" was the first headline of the day. I could have made it read, "49ers and Cutler" and then you'd only need an "L" to finish the headline to your specifications. And we all know there's been no shortage of those recently.

---

J-shotz from parts unknown writes: Wuts the status with bobby engram, any chance he'll be signed? Thanks, and keep up the good work

Mike Sando: Thanks. Bobby Engram won't be paid what his credentials say he should be paid. That can be tough for a veteran and it can delay the process. Seattle would presumably still take back Engram on the cheap. I'm just not sure how eager he would be to go that route. Engram did visit the Chiefs. In the past, Mike Holmgren pushed for Seattle to pay a little more to keep Engram. Holmgren is gone. Engram might be too.

---

Joey from New York writes: Mr. Sando, Through recent messages with you over the past 6 months I thought 4 players were clear cap casualty possibilities (Branch, Russell, Duckett and Peterson - so I was 1 out of 4 - .250 aint bad is it???). Two players were absolutely must signs (Leroy Hill and TJH) and what to do with the #4 pick (I promise not to bring up the draft day deal - though it will happen!!!!!).

I think getting a pick, a younger player and almost 5M in cap room for Peterson is a very solid move and shouldn't be underestimated (though some Hawks fans are very angry at some of the moves that Ruskell has made in the past. Detroit fans are dogging the Seahawks for taking any of their players. Lions fans should never, ever dog any team or its fans).

That said, there are still holes to fill, albeit not huge ones.

1) Backup LB - possibility of bringing Derrick Brooks in?

2) Safety - They must know something more than Brian Russell has shown on the field, though not all his fault, to me the guy doesn't close down runners who break through the first tier. Your thoughts on bringing anyone in?

3) Offensive Line - Its sure looks like Monroe will be the highest rated since Jason Smith will be off the board, but with the move of JP, doesn't it smell like a 6' 3" 260+ pound pass rushing hybrid like Orakpo to fill that spot!!!

4) Does Ruskell take the best playmaker instead and get younger at WR with Crabtree??

Thanks for all the great updates and insight!!! Joey Scott (NYC)

Mike Sando: The safety market was pretty weak this offseason. Seattle could have made a move at that position without incurring a huge price tag. The team decided against going that route. The Bucs repeatedly drafted safeties in the third and fourth rounds when Ruskell was with Tampa Bay. Seattle has gone the free-agent route instead, but the team could seemingly use a young prospect at that position.

While the Seahawks could still take Michael Crabtree, they have enough depth at receiver to go another direction. The Bucs drafted four defensive linemen among the top 15 overall choices when Ruskell was with Tampa Bay. The Seahawks haven't drafted as early and we know they won't go for a defensive tackle. What we don't know is how much Seattle expects its younger defensive ends -- Lawrence Jackson and Darryl Tapp -- to emerge under the new staff.

---

Trevor from parts unknown writes: Why don't the Cardinals just move Anquan Boldin to RB? Kidding mostly, but it would be fun to watch!

Mike Sando: Hey, they tried it some last season. He had a 30-yard run at Carolina.

---

Travis from San Diego writes: There's been some small rumors circulating about Hasselbeck for Cutler (and whatever else it would involve as it's probably not straight up). Have you heard anything? What do you think of it hypothetically?

Mike Sando: I get emails and read fan posts about such things. Those are the only places I've seen anything. In theory, sure, Seattle would get younger at the position. In reality? That would be a bold and complicated move.

---

Ken from Seattle writes: I may have completely spaced on it, but Marcus Tubbs is officially retired? I saw that in your Corey Redding write-up about his press conference, and obviously the writing was on the wall, I just didn't know it was official.

Mike Sando: It's not official. He has tried to revive his career a couple times, but the swelling in his knee has stood in the way. I consider him retired to the extent that a comeback seems unlikely.

---

William Bryan from Vancouver, Wash., writes: I was wondering if you get the chance (Not sure when it might arise) to interview Mora and/or Knapp again, if you could see if they have anything instore like a "wildcat" featuring Seneca? Or at least utilizing him in more "gadget" plays? I'm not sure how big Knapp/Mora are on trick plays and the like but I think a lot of people felt that Holmgren thought it wasn't worth the risk of injury to him. Since Mora/Knapp are not Holmgren, I am wondering if they moght take those risks. Thank you

Mike Sando: Greg Knapp has already hinted that he would use Wallace in those roles.