Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

06 Mar 2007

Patrick Kerney to Seahawks

Patrick Kerney's signed a six-year, $39.5 million dollar deal with the Seahawks. $19.5 million is guaranteed.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 06 Mar 2007

66 comments, Last at 08 Mar 2007, 10:22pm by putnamp


by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 10:38am

That's the highest guaranteed money percentage I've seen yet. It's just shy of 50% of the total value.

I'm positive that some of the guaranteed money inflation this year is semifake - i.e., when the option bonus isn't taken, the total value of the contract through the portions that are guaranteed is less than it was originally.

Unfortunately, without the contract details, there's no way to know.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 10:46am

Kerney kind of reminds me of Grant Wistrom in that they both have a high motor. Kerney is a beast, and the guy practically roids out on 3rd and long pass rushing situations. I see this as a signifigant signing to upgrade that Seahawk D.

by McGaytrain (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:07am

RE #2 - "roids out" I like that. Funny image.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:12am

Bill Lattimer #99 from the Program. Roids out and smashes his head against car windows. STARTING DEFENSE !!!!

by Benjy Rose :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:21am

The funny thing about Kerney is that he's a real nice, mellow, laid-back guy. My business partner did a local promotion for FireMagic grills with him as the spokesperson, and he was just a genuinely nice guy. He'll be missed in Atlanta.

by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:51am

This makes me think two things:

1- Why so the Hawks need him, they have Fisher and Wistrom, who are similar players. That's either one hell of a rotation at end (and not cheap) or one of Wistrom and Fisher will be shown the door.

2- Does this make Jamaal Anderson more likely to be picked by Atlanta?

by mmm... sacrilicious (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:53am

Wow. Is that a fork sticking out of the Falcons defense?

That said, I don't think Kerney is good enough to warrant this kind of money, unless it's one of those deals structured to be cap-friendly in the future. The deal might be OK if he stays healthy, but the chances of that are on the level of the chances of the Lions winning the SB.

by Alex (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 12:04pm

You forgot to mention that he's a gritty fan favorite, who's a very cerebral player. ;)

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 12:28pm

But Atlanta paid big money to a fullback ( and let theirs go) and then didn't sign Kerney.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 12:42pm

#7: A $6.5M/year average for a DE is quite low, actually. Kerney's deal, other than the guaranteed money, is only slightly larger than Darren Howard's from last year.

The guaranteed money's got to be half-fake.

by BigManChili (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:09pm

But they did have a standing offer to Kerney. Not $6.5M/year, but a reasonable offer in their eyes. Apparently, Kerney contacted the team during the season for an extension (right after he went on IR, ironically). When the team didn't give him one then, he took it kinda personally, and ignored the team's offer and went to free agency.

by mmm... sacrilicious (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:19pm

...and I'm sure the Eagles are happy about the Darren Howard deal.

My point was not that $6.5 mil is a bad price for a good DE. I just think that despite his high motor and deceptive speed, he doesn't make enough plays and is injured too frequently. In order to guarantee $19 mil to an aging DE, he should be something special (even in this market), and I don't think Kerney fits the bill.

If I were a Seahawks fan, I would have much rather seen them sign someone such as Dewayne White with this money - a young player with upside who will be healthy.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:19pm

Well maybe just maybe they are paying too much money to king herpes? He is a bad quarterback but he broke the NFL record for rushing yards at the position and a he's a great role model for the children of Atlanta.

They should bring in NEW mexico also so that one of their receivers can break the passing record at receiver, randel el style.

They might not win a lot of games, but they would make a lot of news ( court tv) and break all kinds of secondary records.

by langsty (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:23pm

I dunno how true this is, but I heard that Kerney would've made slightly more money if he'd stayed in Atlanta and hadn't voided his existing contract. I get the feeling from things he's said that he just wanted out of Atlanta - when asked about his thoughts on the past two seasons and the team literally laying down, he said it hurts to watch it happen, but you can't control what the other players do. He said the Carolina and Philly losses were the hardest to swallow. He eluded the "laying down" statement, but he did say, people that know the game know what happened and why.

by James, London (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:29pm

In unrelated news, PFT are reporting that Joey Porter has signed with Miami

"Adam Schefter of the NFL Network reports that linebacker Joey Porter's contract with the Dolphins is worth $32.5 million over five years, with a whopping $20 million in guaranteed money."

Make of the 'guarantees' what you will

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:32pm

Why would you rather have Dwayne White over Kerney?

Kerney was injured part of last year, but didn't miss a game for 7 years before that. Thats a pretty good injury history for a starting defensive end.

Kerney has been in the league twice as long as White, but has 4 times as many sacks. Kearnys sack totals before last years injured year were 6.5, 13, 6.5, 10.5, and 12. White hasn't even notched more than 6 sacks once in his career. White has been in the league 4 years and has 14.5 sacks total. Kerney also has more tackles and is a very high energy player that stands out when you watch a game.

But then again Kerney is just a fan favorite while White must be more "athletic".

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:35pm

#12: the Eagles as a team, maybe. Eagles fans think he's way overpaid.

#15: Just when I think I've seen it all. That contract absolutely has to be mostly fake. I wonder if there's any signing bonus there at all, or if it's just really a guaranteed 5 year, $20M contract with incentives to pull it up.

Looks like most people's criticism of the NFLPA ("no guaranteed contracts") can be thrown out the window now.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:35pm

Langsty- Maybe he didn't want to play on a team with a QB who has herepes throws everybody under the bus ( including coaches and players)his own legal troubles and then quits on his team and takes himself out of games and then flicks off the angry fans. But wait, he told us he's as good of a passer as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady.

by langsty (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:46pm

Chris, you are certifiable.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:46pm

For all the hype that Keith Brooking has received over the years, I have long felt that Kerney was the better player on that defense.

by andrew (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:50pm

Guess that "highest % guaranteed" didn't last for long.

As for Kerney, good for him I guess. As a Vikings fan I always remember he was the player drafted with the next pick after the Vikings took someone else who played the same position in the first round... the long forgotten Dimitrius Underwood.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 1:58pm

20- Maybe Brooking got more press because of the nature of his position. A MLB might notch 10 tackles ( that isn't even that riddulous of a number as some have had 20 tackle games). 10 tackles mean 10 times that John Madden calls your name.

A Defensive End on the other hand registering 1 sack a game is phenomanal. Defensive ends also won't have as many tackles, and when they do a lot of times others are involved in the tackle. A MLB on the other hand could run sideline to sideline and sometimes get open field tackles.

Brooking also played High school football in Atlanta, College football at Georgia Tech, Pros for the Falcons and I believe he's dating or married some former miss georgia if my memory serves me right. Now THAT has got to make local fans impartial to you, when you've been playing for them for since you were 15.

by langsty (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 2:06pm

there's kind of a love-hate relationship between Falcon fans and Brooking actually. a lot of people feel he's overrated (he is) and gets a pass cuz he's a local boy.

by Crushinator (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 2:49pm

I've never been a huge Brooking fan. I've felt he was a good but not great LB on a terrible D. I think a lot of it is Falcon Fan Optimism and they want to see something that's not really there (The same way they do it with Vick and DeAngelo Hall)

I've thought for a while that Kerney was their best defensive player. I do question where he'll fit in with the Seahawks - but it can only help their defense. Meanwhile, it's hard to think of the Falcons D getting worse.

by mmm... sacrilicious (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 3:11pm

Chris - Remember that Dewayne White is younger and hasn't yet been a starter, being trapped behind Simeon Rice and Greg Spires in Tampa. He's a better player than Kerney against the run, and has shown solid pass-rush ability when he's gotten playing time. Call it projection, but I see him being immediately more productive than Kerney, and getting better.

by Chris (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 4:08pm

White was trapped behind Greg Spires? How is that a good thing? Being behind Rice is one thing, but being not being able to outplay Spires doesn't bode very well for the Defensive end.

I also disagree that Dwayne is a better run stopper than Kerney. I know you say you think he will " get better", but how good will he be? As good as Kerney was? If he couldn't get PT ahead of Spires, I don't know where this upside will lead to.

by Nate (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 4:39pm

10 - Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the current trend of reporting of "guaranteed money" as including roster bonuses years down the line. Those aren't any more guaranteed than the salaries in those years.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:03pm

22: Brooking was dating a former Miss Georgia, but he messed that up somehow.

I know about his history--I live in Atlanta and I follow Tech sports. But that explanation for his hype does not apply to the national hype that he's gotten, esp. when by the advanced metrics here at FO, he's not been a LB worthy of said hype.

by langsty (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:05pm

well, he's no Scott Shanle.

by CaffeineMan (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:20pm

Re: "Guaranteed Money"

Yeah, I'd love to come up with good shorthand terms for the different types of compensation that people are calling "guaranteed money." It's really confusing the issues of value this offseason.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:23pm

29: All of us can only hope to be Scott Shanle, who, it seems may have lost his job as the starter today.

Saints sign Simmons

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:29pm

#30: OK, if people really are including roster bonuses as guarantees? That's an absolute crock. Roster bonuses are frequently renegotiated downwards by disappointing players, because if they get cut, they get nothing. See LaMont Jordan this year, for instance.

Have I mentioned I hate sports agents?

by Ron Mexico (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 5:42pm

Sophandros- I really don't hear a lot of hype about Brooking anymore.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 6:13pm


Not anymore, but it was pretty bad for a couple of seasons there, and he still gets a lot of pro bowl votes for no good reason.

by Skin Patrol (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 6:18pm

I think guaranteed money is being treated in precisely the way you'd expect it to be treated as relevant to the team: Guaranteed money is money the team will pay them no matter what happens.

That's always been the definition though that clearly is expanding beyond merely Signing Bonuses given the ways that agents are writing up contracts.

View the 19.5M as the amount it would cost the team to cut him today. Imagine the signing bonus is over 50%.

If you really don't expect these players to see the end of their contracts anyways (and I don't) then what does it matter how the guaranteed money is separated? The higher the guaranteed money, the higher the dead cap space hit the team involved will take. And that's a bad thing for the team involved.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 6:43pm

If you really don’t expect these players to see the end of their contracts anyways (and I don’t) then what does it matter how the guaranteed money is separated?

1: It has to do with how many contract years the team can keep if the option bonuses aren't taken.

2: Guaranteed money in the form of years spread out in future years can be traded without penalty (the other team will be on the hook). In addition, if the player retires (or is ineligible due to an NFI), the team isn't required to pay future guaranteed salaries.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 6:59pm

In fact, let me clarify: take Archuleta's contract, for instance. Instead of thinking of the option bonus as taken, think of it as not taken. Therefore, Archuleta's contract is a guaranteed 4 years, ~$12M, with a $5M option for three additional years at $16M, plus an additional $1M in the last year.

The "4 years, $12M" contract sounds downright cheap.

by Skin Patrol (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 7:14pm


I'm totally confused by both 1 and 2. I take blame for being an idiot, though I'd appreciate more clarification.

The way you're defining his contract might be factually accurate, but I think it's unnecessarily complicated. Adam Archuleta signed an around 35M dollar contract that had around 10M guaranteed. The day the contract was signed, Adam Archuleta would've cost the team between 10M and 35+changeM in Salary Cap space. Just over 22M of that money could go unpaid.

Those seem to be the distinctions that are important to me and would be important to the team. You tried to explain why additional distinctions are important in 1 and 2 but I just don't get it. My apologies.

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 7:35pm

OK. Suppose you sign a player. You think he's going to be a great safety, but of course, you're unsure. So you want to protect yourself. Like every team in the NFL. But he wants big, huge, money up front. So how do you deal with that?

In your line of thinking, and in previous years, if he's not worth it in year two, you cut him, and find someone else. In that case, the guaranteed money is what matters, because it's what you've paid up front.

What Archuleta's contract does is different: it lets the team step down the scale of the contract, with the side effect of guaranteeing it, and shortening it.

So now instead of outright releasing the player, you keep him around, in a lesser role. Which you can afford, because he's cheap.

Let me compare Archuleta's contract with a different style: Richard Seymour's. I'll put it in Archuleta's numbers for comparison.

In that case, it would've been vet minimum first year (say $500K), a $5M signing bonus, and a $5M option bonus the next year, and $600K salary. If the option bonus wasn't taken, the remaining 5 years on the contract all void, and the salary escalates to $5.6M and is guaranteed.

In that case, it's a 2 year guaranteed, $12M contract, with an option for 5 years for a total $18M.

Note the difference? In one case, it's 4 years, $12M. In the other, it's 2 years, $12M.

by Vince (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 8:04pm

For Atlanta, losing Kerney is probably better than keeping him at that price. Having a high motor is nice, but results are better, and Kerney's a small guy who has trouble with the run. Plus, I'll never forget his game in Seattle a year or two ago, when Walter Jones completely, totally neutered him for an entire game.

He is better than Brooking, though.

by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 8:13pm

Pat: You seem to have an ever decreasing hold on reality, ignore the luminous elephants and the voices that tell you that there has been no boom in free agent spending. Your argument in post 39 appears to be that a team is 'able' to pay a guy 12m for 2 years rather than 12m for 4? How does this help the team? The Guaranteed cash is STILL going to the player. If later option bonuses are paid by a team that the player is traded to, THE PLAYER STILL GETS THEM.This is the point of guaranteed money, to provide the player with security in a violent game.

You now insist (in post 17) that the NFL, the players association and the agents are now conspiring to give out fake 'guaranteed money' information as a defense of your original position that teams wouldn't spend the available cap room. At this stage one of two things could be happening:

1- The communists won and we're all being controlled by Stalin (who never died and is living near Takoma)

2- You have been interpreting all the recent NFL news in light of defending a view that was incorrect in the first place, leading to you refusing to accept facts and figures as accurate simply because they don't fit your world view.

(You don't work for the Pentagon do you? . . .)

by Pat (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 8:45pm

I'm allowed to insult you back, since you insulted me, then? As you appear to have an ever decreasing hold on "reading comprehension".

Your argument in post 39 appears to be that a team is ‘able’ to pay a guy 12m for 2 years rather than 12m for 4?

No. The point was that 2 contracts can look exactly the same in the media ("7 years, $30M, $10M guaranteed") and in reality, be totally different. One can be a 2 year, $12M contract with an option for 5 years for a net $18M increase. Another can be a guaranteed 4 year, $12M contract, with an option for 3 years for a net $18M increase.

One of these is extremely favorable to the team in the case of a player who underperforms (4 years, $12M). One of these is not (2 years, $12M).

2 years, $12M is what we're used to. 4 years, $12M is the new type.

and the voices that tell you that there has been no boom in free agent spending.

As I've said elsewhere, and everyone else has noted, the only thing inflating is the guaranteed money. The total contract values grew about 10%. That's it.

And there's a reason for the guaranteed money inflation as well which has nothing to do with cap space, which I should've seen last year. But I've mentioned that elsewhere.

by putnamp (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 9:05pm

#40, Mike Sando made a comment about that game. He seemed to think it was more Walter Jones and less Kerney, for what it's worth. See my url for the blog entry.

by putnamp (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 9:06pm

#40, Mike Sando made a comment about that game. He seemed to think it was more Walter Jones and less Kerney, for what it's worth. See my url for the blog entry.

Sorry if this double posts. The comments aren't updating, so I'm gonna try posting this one extra time.

by Truman (not verified) :: Tue, 03/06/2007 - 11:37pm

Reading this thread has shed some light on the viewpoints and knowledge a couple of fans have of the Falcons.

Patrick Kerney a fan favorite? The best player on the defense?
He's not even the best player at his position on the Falcons roster. I'd rate him the third best player on the defensive line, behind Abraham and Coleman who I've actually seen have major impacts on games (see the 1st Carolina game for Abraham last year and the Dallas game for Coleman).
My most vivid memory of Kerney (apart from the all-important arm waving on passing downs) is of him getting physically monstered all day by Walter Jones in '05.
PK hasn't been good since 2004 and most fans are happy to see him leave given the money the team would have had to spend to keep him.

Keith Brooking? The guy's a running joke among Falcons fans and only marginally more effective than recently cut FA bust Ed Hartwell (no takers for him yet in FA?).
Michael Boley (the actual best player on the Falcons D) and Demorrio Williams have been far better linebackers the last couple of seasons and are actually capable of making game-changing plays.

It will be interesting to see what happens to MLB Jordan Beck, drafted on day 1 in '05 and yet to sniff the field thanks to the coaching genius of Jim Mora (who inexplicably didn't spark a bidding war when becoming available; you'd think a .500 record in a tough division with the consensus most overrated/worst/coach-killing QB in the league running your offense would be truly Belichickian) and Ed Donatell.

by Kal (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 1:57am

I still don't understand the logic of this. Yeah, according to FO stats the Seahawks didn't have a good defense at run or pass - but if you look further at the stats, the only place where the Hawks were good was at their defensive line. 10th to 13th in rankings. They were dead last in runs over 10 yards - which is the responsibility of the secondary and the LB corps.

I know Wistrom isn't as effective, but was it necessary to sign a big person on the line that isn't all that when there are such glaring holes in the secondary?

by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 11:20am

42- "As I’ve said elsewhere, and everyone else has noted"

You and Chris repeating the same things to each other 30 times on every thread does not mean that everyone else agrees with you. It probably means that they got bored with arguing with you or drowned in the sheer volume posts.

by Chris (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 11:43am

Kerney got dominated by Walter Jones in 05 so he sucks? Kerney and everybody else. WJ might be the best LT who ever played. "might". If not he is clearly top 5 right up there with Munoz, Pace, and Ogden. Nobody is claiming that Kerney is that good at his position.

Demorrio Williams plays like a thug. He is a good fit for a team with Mike Pick and Denangelo spit in my face hall.

by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 12:21pm

#45: 1) If you think it's just here that people have noticed it, read more of the sports news.

2) Show me one contract that, in total value, exceeds a previous contract for the position by cap inflation in terms of dollars per year.

I'm not stating it because I believe it. I'm stating it because it's true.

by NY expat (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 2:38pm

re: 43
As a Jets fan, I remember Abraham as a very good player -- good enough that the Jets let their NT Jason Ferguson go to Dallas so they could keep Abraham. Unfortunately, he is also "injury-prone" (however that works), so now he's missing games for Atlanta -- my condolences. Meanwhile, the Jets are looking for a good NT. Sigh.

by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 3:07pm

47: You seem to have a logical disconnect that prevents you from seing the distinction between absolute and plausible truths. Can you not even imagine that what you beleive to be true might not be?

by Pat (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 4:06pm

Can you not even imagine that what you beleive to be true might not be?

I guess if I squint, I can imagine that Nate Clements's total value might be $180M rather than $80M. That'd make me wrong.

This isn't some weird esoteric belief. It's just math. None of the contracts out there exceed previous contracts at the same position by more than roughly cap inflation value.

I don't get it. I'm saying "$63M*($109M/$85M) is greater than $80M". And that doesn't even take into account the year length differences.

You keep trying to suggest that there's this preponderance of evidence that what I'm saying is wrong. Except.. you haven't mentioned any of it.

by putnamp (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 4:21pm

Demorrio Williams also got handled in the game people are down on Kerney over.

As for signing secondary help - there wasn't much out there, and they may've been down on Deon Grant for whatever reason. It's also entirely possible they want to use Jordan Babineaux as a Free Safety. Kerney does seem redundant to me, but if he can bring a spark that Wistrom's been lacking at times, then that's good.

by Karl Cuba (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 4:22pm

because I really can't be arsed arguing with you anymore

by putnamp (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 4:24pm

Sorry, to clarify above:

They swapped Kerney and Williams from left to right end, and Williams got handled as well. Mike Sando mentioned it in his blog, but when I tried to link to it, my comments got eaten. And now his blog is down. :(

by Kal (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 5:40pm

I guess I'd rather the Seahawks work on getting better secondary and a Guard than get a position they were otherwise fine at for more money than they should've spent. If they couldn't get who they wanted, save the money and either work on trading or work on signing people to longer-term contracts.

by Another Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 6:40pm

Based on some of these comments, I suppose this isn't obvious to folks who don't follow the Seahawks closely (and sadly, many who do), but this was not a redundant move. Both Fisher and Wistrom tend to wear down late in games, as they - like most of Seattle's D - fit in the "smaller but quicker" category. Adding Kerney, along with the developing Rob Sims, gives them a formidably deep rotation with very little dropoff as they cycle players in and out. They're clearly building for depth rather than trying to spend the majority of their $$ on superstar front-liners and scrubs backing them up.

by Truman (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 7:16pm

Williams is a LB who would have only been playing the position due to injury.
The thing with Kerney is, I really can't remember any games where he made a big difference to the outcome. Can anyone?

by Truman (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 7:20pm

Actually that doesn't sound right at all, Walter Jones has to have about a hundred pounds on Williams.
I think it must have been someone like Chauncey Davis?

by Kal (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 8:13pm

Spending the amount of money they did on Kerney is not building depth. It's overspending for a mediocre player. Couldn't they have picked up depth in the draft, if they were concerned? Or waited to get someone a bit less high-profile than Kerney?

Just seems weird. Also reminds me a lot of the problems in hockey - spending huge salaries on really meh guys.

by Another Jake (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 9:44pm

Re: 58: "Meh" is in the eye of the beholder, and as many have discussed in this thread, it's hard to know exactly how much they *really* paid for Kerney. If you followed the Hawks more closely you'd know that they don't have the draft picks to pick up an immediate contributor at DE, and for this team the window is now. (Sims, drafted last year, is the depth guy you're thinking about.)

You're also awfully dismissive of Kerney. He's not a superstar, but he was the best available end on the FA market, as well as fitting in with the Hawks' philosophy of smaller, faster D linemen. You may disagree with the philosophy but that doesn't make it a head-scratcher of a decision, or Kerney a "mediocre" player.

On that note, if folks are dismissing Kerney's effectiveness because he got destroyed by Walter Jones in 2005, then nearly every RDE the Seahawks played that year can be lumped into the same category.

by Kal (not verified) :: Wed, 03/07/2007 - 10:39pm

His being the best on the FA market doesn't make him a good player either. And again, it still confuses me primarily because of the needs at other key positions; the one place that the entire defensive team did not appear to be bad last season was at the defensive line, at least according to stats (ranked 10th by FO) and my observations. Offense they clearly needed line help; I can respect that they tried and failed to land a good guard.

Building depth is good, but even if Kerney is the second coming of Richard Dent I'm not sure that it matters when your secondary is porous and your LBs aren't playing as well as you hope, and your OLine is doing a crap job of blocking.

I would like to see them get rid of some of this embarrassment of riches at receiver to a team that needs it in exchange for some good secondary and/or line help. I don't think that'll happen though; DJax is too injury-prone to be a sexy trade, and they're not going to trade Branch. Someone might make an offer on Hackett though, and that would be a damn shame.

by Insancipitory (not verified) :: Thu, 03/08/2007 - 5:37am

It's worth noting that while Jones in 2005 regularly took the guys he was lined up against to the woodshed, Kerney was just annihilated. As a Seahawks fan I felt a little bad for him. I guess if Winstrom isn't long for the team, it makes a certain amount of sense to replace him now, and it's hard to make the case that Winstrom played up to the value of his contract. But I'd still be sorry to see him go. That said, while they tried to address guard, which still has me worried Gray 2006 was conjuring of impressions of Kerney 2005, the problems at DT don't seem to be solving themselves, which likely contribute significantly to the unrealized expectations of the linebackers, and cascade into brutal lapses in coverage. Those are two pretty serious unaddressed concerns going into 2007.

by putnamp (not verified) :: Thu, 03/08/2007 - 4:14pm

I thought we'd all gotten this straight years ago.. There's no n in Wistrom.

by Kal (not verified) :: Thu, 03/08/2007 - 8:25pm

Well, so much for Wistrom.

by putnamp (not verified) :: Thu, 03/08/2007 - 10:22pm

Guess the Seahawks FO thought he was redundant too :p

It's possible he wasn't planning to continue playing, as well, given his injury problems. I hadn't heard anything about that, though, so I'm a little surprised. Kinda saddened, honestly, but I understand the motives.