All Pro OT Trent Williams

Originally posted by tankle104:
Good o line are hard to find around the NFL. I bet we could get a hell of a haul for him. I'd love to keep him but I'd be curious what teams offer for him.

i like our chances to compete much better this year than last year. Just need our team to stay healthy. I don't think the Seahawks lost a single starter last year playing violent defense.

I'd be surprised if we received anything more than a 3rd for him. He's pushing 40 and started dropping off last year.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Good o line are hard to find around the NFL. I bet we could get a hell of a haul for him. I'd love to keep him but I'd be curious what teams offer for him.

i like our chances to compete much better this year than last year. Just need our team to stay healthy. I don't think the Seahawks lost a single starter last year playing violent defense.

Originally posted by tankle104:
Good o line are hard to find around the NFL. I bet we could get a hell of a haul for him. I'd love to keep him but I'd be curious what teams offer for him.

i like our chances to compete much better this year than last year. Just need our team to stay healthy. I don't think the Seahawks lost a single starter last year playing violent defense.

The problem with him is age. Teams interested in him are probably already pretty good since you wouldn't want to build a team around a player that old. He would be retiring by the time you built your team. He would be a fit for a team that's trying to solidify the O line to make a SB run. Those teams usually don't have high draft picks to give up.

Extend him for a year. Give him $30M in new money. Spread the hit between the two years.

Done. Move on to the rest of the offseason (and please for the love of everything start finding his replacement now).

Originally posted by Kolohe:
It doesn't matter, Trent Williams is at that age where this team is better off moving on. No sense holding onto Trent Williams another year, especially if we're not in a go-all-in win it all mode.

So you're willing to lose one of the best LT in the league just to save $4.6M on the Cap while adding $30+ million in dead Cap just to get back some 6th or 7th rounder?

Even if we cut him with a post June 1st designation it would save $25.5M in Cap space but still have $30+ million in dead Cap.

What do you think is better? Let him go for pretty much nothing and risk Purdy getting killed or keep him and at least have time to develop a draft pick behind him this season?

Originally posted by ScarScream:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
It doesn't matter, Trent Williams is at that age where this team is better off moving on. No sense holding onto Trent Williams another year, especially if we're not in a go-all-in win it all mode.

So you're willing to lose one of the best LT in the league just to save $4.6M on the Cap while adding $30+ million in dead Cap just to get back some 6th or 7th rounder?

Even if we cut him with a post June 1st designation it would save $25.5M in Cap space but still have $30+ million in dead Cap.

What do you think is better? Let him go for pretty much nothing and risk Purdy getting killed or keep him and at least have time to develop a draft pick behind him this season?

All this

Originally posted by Kolohe:
It doesn't matter, Trent Williams is at that age where this team is better off moving on. No sense holding onto Trent Williams another year, especially if we're not in a go-all-in win it all mode.

They signed Mike Evans, they're clearly not rebuilding lol. Pay Trent until he hangs them up….or someone gives a can't pass up trade after. He's still a top 5 tackle on the league.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by ScarScream:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
It doesn't matter, Trent Williams is at that age where this team is better off moving on. No sense holding onto Trent Williams another year, especially if we're not in a go-all-in win it all mode.

So you're willing to lose one of the best LT in the league just to save $4.6M on the Cap while adding $30+ million in dead Cap just to get back some 6th or 7th rounder?

Even if we cut him with a post June 1st designation it would save $25.5M in Cap space but still have $30+ million in dead Cap.

What do you think is better? Let him go for pretty much nothing and risk Purdy getting killed or keep him and at least have time to develop a draft pick behind him this season?

All this

I think the difference is it saves Jed and Co. more real cash than cap apace.

I don't want to lose Trent but we can't keep kicking the can. If it's reasonable figure it out and keep him. If it's not we need to rip the bandaid off unfortunately

Originally posted by frenchmov:
I don't want to lose Trent but we can't keep kicking the can. If it's reasonable figure it out and keep him. If it's not we need to rip the bandaid off unfortunately

It's more about him wanting more GTD cash. Kinda the same as what the Rams are doing with Stafford. Just give him more GTD cash and treat it as a yr to yr thing.

After today, his price is going to be high and he doesn't want to hear age. I bet behind the scenes it's very frisky.

The Washington Commanders have signed left tackle Laremy Tunsil to a two-year, $60.2 million extension that includes $52.65 million fully guaranteed, NFL Network's Cameron Wolfe reported Monday, per sources.

At an average of $30.1 million per season over the extension, Tunsil is now the highest-paid offensive tackle. Previously, the Los Angeles Chargers' Rashawn Slater held the title with $28.5 million per year.

With one year remaining on Tunsil's deal entering this offseason, Commanders general manager Adam Peters said in February that Washington was "very motivated" to get a deal done with him.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:

Originally posted by ScarScream:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
It doesn't matter, Trent Williams is at that age where this team is better off moving on. No sense holding onto Trent Williams another year, especially if we're not in a go-all-in win it all mode.

So you're willing to lose one of the best LT in the league just to save $4.6M on the Cap while adding $30+ million in dead Cap just to get back some 6th or 7th rounder?

Even if we cut him with a post June 1st designation it would save $25.5M in Cap space but still have $30+ million in dead Cap.

What do you think is better? Let him go for pretty much nothing and risk Purdy getting killed or keep him and at least have time to develop a draft pick behind him this season?

All this

I think the difference is it saves Jed and Co. more real cash than cap apace.

They shouldn't own a team if that's how they are going to operate. I know it's not my money, but that'd bush league. That's the s**t you see in places like CIN or other cheap organizations

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I think the difference is it saves Jed and Co. more real cash than cap apace.

It's this.

We will take a 34m dead cap charge if he's traded or released. They can spread that over two years with a post 6/1 designation, but it's 34m. It's a 38m cap hit if he plays out the final year of his deal, along with a 20m ish dead cap charge next year.

They save 32m in actual dollars though if he's traded or released now.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I think the difference is it saves Jed and Co. more real cash than cap apace.

It's this.

We will take a 34m dead cap charge if he's traded or released. They can spread that over two years with a post 6/1 designation, but it's 34m. It's a 38m cap hit if he plays out the final year of his deal, along with a 20m ish dead cap charge next year.

They save 32m in actual dollars though if he's traded or released now.

Would you make a trade with Kansas City?

Originally posted by Hoovtrain:
They shouldn't own a team if that's how they are going to operate. I know it's not my money, but that'd bush league. That's the s**t you see in places like CIN or other cheap organizations

People just have to look at their cash spending over the last handful of years. It was extremely high. Ownership got uncomfortable with it and Aiyuk's deal was the last straw.

It's unfortunate and there's a nuanced argument to be had about it. You definitely can't argue they have been cheap, but they clearly want to get cheaper… the unfortunate part is the spending has coincided with their most successful run as owners, from an on-field perspective. It's just not going to be win at 'any' cost. It's a business.

Originally posted by Superbowl:
Would you make a trade with Kansas City?

I'd f**king pay him, lol. But yes, I would trade him to whoever offered the most even if it was a team we didn't like.