Randall Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Agreed - this increases their chances to repeat as the 3rd place in the NFC West ... I think last year was the aberration. Would they draft Crabtree too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 This is a GREAT move for the Seahawks !!! Housh is a talented, hard working receiver who has a strong desire to win. He proved that to me when he continued to perform at a high level, despite his team falling apart around him. The Seahawks are a team that could surprise many this season, as they are much better than last year's injury-riddled season would indicated and adding Housh makes their passing game dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 15 million guaranteed? I'm more than okay with that; I thought someone else was going to double that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 .... i see it as a situation where the "wealth" will be shared a little too much. if i were a seahawk fan, i'd be pretty happy. Up until last year, Hass pretty much has always had a wealth of WR's 2005 - Djax, Jurivicies, Engram 2006 - Djax, Engram, Branch, Burleson 2007- Engram, Branch, Hackett, Burleson Depending on whose healthy, he has always favored 1 WR and made them very productive. Engram will probably not be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/? Houshmandzadeh: QB situation made difference March 3rd, 2009 – 12:39 PM by Judd Zulgad The fact the Seattle Seahawks offered free-agent wide receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh a $40 million, five-year deal with $15 million in guarantees certainly played a major role in his decision not to come to the Vikings. But that wasn’t the only factor. The Vikings quarterback situation did not help matters. Check out this question-and-answer portion from Houshmandzadeh’s appearance today on “The Dan Patrick Show,” which airs locally on 690-AM, The Score. Q. What were some factors in your decision? A. “Ultimately, I thought when I started comparing things, you look at the guy who is going to touch the ball every play and that’s Matt Hasselbeck and that kind of weighed the decision a little bit in the favor of the Seahawks.” Q: If looking at the other two teams, who had a better chance, Minnesota or Cincinnati? A: “Uh, Minnesota.” Q: But they have a quarterback situation that is in a state of flux. If that had been firmed up, would it have tipped the scales toward Minnesota? A: “Oh yeah, yeah. But that’s not the case, you know. So hindsight is 20-20. I’m happy here. Seattle has been good for years and years and years. They had a bad year last year, and we’re going to bring it back this year.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Mania Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 http://blogs.startribune.com/vikingsblog/? Houshmandzadeh: QB situation made difference March 3rd, 2009 – 12:39 PM by Judd Zulgad The fact the Seattle Seahawks offered free-agent wide receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh a $40 million, five-year deal with $15 million in guarantees certainly played a major role in his decision not to come to the Vikings. But that wasn’t the only factor. The Vikings quarterback situation did not help matters. Check out this question-and-answer portion from Houshmandzadeh’s appearance today on “The Dan Patrick Show,” which airs locally on 690-AM, The Score. Q. What were some factors in your decision? A. “Ultimately, I thought when I started comparing things, you look at the guy who is going to touch the ball every play and that’s Matt Hasselbeck and that kind of weighed the decision a little bit in the favor of the Seahawks.” Q: If looking at the other two teams, who had a better chance, Minnesota or Cincinnati? A: “Uh, Minnesota.” Q: But they have a quarterback situation that is in a state of flux. If that had been firmed up, would it have tipped the scales toward Minnesota? A: “Oh yeah, yeah. But that’s not the case, you know. So hindsight is 20-20. I’m happy here. Seattle has been good for years and years and years. They had a bad year last year, and we’re going to bring it back this year.” OK, so apparently Cincinnati wasn't really even in contention. Not surprised, can't blame Housh, it's been a mess here. But.... 1) In Cincinnati you have an "All-Pro-before-he-went-loco" who has been taking up double teams for 5 years. You also have a QB who if given time will kill you. TJs best situation purely for personal stats is in Cincy. Don't blame anybody who feels it's not worth it here. He's been very professional about it. 2) In Minnesota you have the best RB in football, so you will almost always have 8 in the box against you. You also have a pretty good line protecting an average at best QB. Personal stats would suffer, but I think the best chance for playoff potential (when you factor in very good DEF) in next 3 years 3) In Seattle you get a good but breaking-down QB. You alse NEVER EVER have 8 in the box against the run. You also have some other average receivers. Better chances than Cincy, but less than Minn. But what you mostly get is the most money, and that's all that ever really plays into these guys (not just TJ). Prediction - TJ will still be a good receiver over the next couple years, but not worth what he's being paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 It took Houshz 5 1/2 hours to realize what Childress has yet to learn. That the Vikes need a QB on their roster. It isn't going to be Cutler as if that was ever going to happen anyway. Seriously. I also got a good laugh when I saw this clip in the Star Tribune. Vikings coach Brad Childress was elusive when asked at Rosenfels' introductory news conference whether the team would add a top-tier quarterback. "Don't know, I'm not clairvoyant," Childress said. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skilly Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 OK, so apparently Cincinnati wasn't really even in contention. Not surprised, can't blame Housh, it's been a mess here. But.... 1) In Cincinnati you have an "All-Pro-before-he-went-loco" who has been taking up double teams for 5 years. You also have a QB who if given time will kill you. TJs best situation purely for personal stats is in Cincy. Don't blame anybody who feels it's not worth it here. He's been very professional about it. This is something that has been bothering me for awhile. With all the crap Chad Johnson dealt out last offseason, why do the Bengals continue to stick with this guy? It's not like he had a stellar season last year, and ever since the "HoF coat game" he hasn't been the same. Housh was the only reliable receiver they had, but I guess they figured his age was too much a factor in deciding to pay him the big bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted March 4, 2009 Share Posted March 4, 2009 Up until last year, Hass pretty much has always had a wealth of WR's 2005 - Djax, Jurivicies, Engram 2006 - Djax, Engram, Branch, Burleson 2007- Engram, Branch, Hackett, Burleson Depending on whose healthy, he has always favored 1 WR and made them very productive. Engram will probably not be back. i think hass will be fine.. it's tj's numbers that will drop imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 (edited) Forsett is not an NFL caliber talent. End of story. I LOVE Housh. I HATE this signing. This is a Seattle Mariner type signing. This is vastly overpaying for veteran that the fans will love, just to throw some money at their problems. The fact is, this ends the Seahawks free agency for the next 3-4 years. They were already in cap hell. Now this!? I mean, I like Housh, but 9 mil a year!?!? For a guy that isn't a deep threat and can't run after the catch? He'll be 32 by the time he takes the field for the Hawks. Not that Housh isn't better, but we could have had almost the same guy for 2 million (Engram). Housh will be playing Burleson's spot, so I guess we are flushing Nate's however many million down the drain. I tell you what, this had better mean that either Burleson or Branch are gone, maybe both. We'll be paying like 30 million per year in overpaid receivers. That can't be good. The thing I keep coming back to is that Housh is too much like the receivers we already have. We still don't have a YAC guy, we still don't have a deep threat. Don't get me wrong, I think Housh will do well here, I just don't think it will translate to playoff games. I think we have much bigger issues that throwing money at an old WR can't cure. I dunno, maybe the RB position!?? I agree, Wells is a HUGE reach at #4 overall, but he is a good player, and it is impossible for any team to have a bigger need at any position than the Seahawks have at RB. Wells has a ton of burst for a 230lb+ tailback. After years of not being sold, I'm sold on the kid. He looked like an absolute beast the second half of the season, and with much more burst than I expected. They NEED a RB. If that means they have to reach and overpay to get one, unfortunately that is the hole they've created for themselves. In conclusion, the Seahawks have wayyy to many holes that they now will be unable to fill because they felt like giving huge money to a 32 year old WR that can't stretch the field. Edited March 5, 2009 by Seahawks21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.