Jump to content

Seahawks extend WR Tyler Lockett


49erurtaza

Recommended Posts

Absolutely horrible extension.  The Seahawks still haven't extended Earl Thomas (who is arguably the best safety in the league), and they let Paul Richardson (a more proven receiver with more upside) walk in free agency for $8 million a season.  So let's pay Tyler Lockett $11 million a season?  I'm baffled by this move because it doesn't match the direction that you would assume the team is going in judging by their recent actions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, footbull3196 said:

Absolutely horrible extension.  The Seahawks still haven't extended Earl Thomas (who is arguably the best safety in the league), and they let Paul Richardson (a more proven receiver with more upside) walk in free agency for $8 million a season.  So let's pay Tyler Lockett $11 million a season?  I'm baffled by this move because it doesn't match the direction that you would assume the team is going in judging by their recent actions

(not saying I agree with it, because I don't) they're paying him for the player he could be based on pre-injury play, not the player he is. How often that actually works out? I have no clue. They're also assuming that his value at WR + KR/PR outweighs Richardson's value at WR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

(not saying I agree with it, because I don't) they're paying him for the player he could be based on pre-injury play, not the player he is. How often that actually works out? I have no clue. They're also assuming that his value at WR + KR/PR outweighs Richardson's value at WR.

And that's a fair point to make about Lockett's value as a KR, I forgot he was a 1st Team All-Pro a few years ago as a kick returner.  Still, hard to justify paying Lockett $11 million a season when they weren't willing to shell out $8 million a year for Paul Richardson.  IMO the WR that Richardson could be still exceeds what Lockett could be, but it's clear they're paying him more for his special team abilities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hopper15 said:

Marquise Goodwin's extension was such a steal.

Goodwin had no leverage because he had two years remaining with very little money on them. He should consider himself lucky that our front office even gave him an extension before they had to 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N4L said:

Goodwin had no leverage because he had two years remaining with very little money on them. He should consider himself lucky that our front office even gave him an extension before they had to 

He was only on a two year deal with one year left. He would have been a free agent after this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Forge said:

He was only on a two year deal with one year left. He would have been a free agent after this year

Yep. If he would have bet on himself with a full season with Jimmy no doubt in my mind it would have cost us a lot more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...