Seattle Seahawks News and Gear

Big Savings at ProFanGear with Fanatics.comCalling all Seattle Seahawks Fans. Thanks for visiting this news blog site.Shop the newest Seattle Seahawks fan gear at If you are looking for gear click the link to Shop for Seattle Seahawks Gear. I’ve teamed up with Fanatics to connect my readers with the best selection of officially licensed Seattle Seahawks fan gear out there. If you purchase through my links, I will earn a commission that will support the work I do on this site. Seattle Seahawks fans bookmark this page and keep up with the latest 49ers news and happenings. Thanks again for visiting.



Field Gulls - All Posts The stupidest name in smart football analysis.

  • Why Seahawks QB Russell Wilson will vote against the proposed CBA
    by John P. Gilbert on February 27, 2020 at 6:00 pm

    Photo by Rich Graessle/PPI/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images Even with the 2020 NFL Combine getting into swing this week, one of the biggest stories surrounding the NFL has been the proposed CBA that the NFL owners have sent to the players for their vote. While some of the players who helped negotiate the CBA have come out in support of the deal, including Washington Redskins long snapper Rick Sundberg and New Orleans Saints punter Thomas Morstead, others have come out in opposition. Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson publicly stated on social media Wednesday that he is against the deal. The @NBA & @MLB are doing it right.Players come first.ALL @NFL players deserve the same. WE should not rush the next 10 YEARS for Today’s satisfaction.I VOTE NO.— Russell Wilson (@DangeRussWilson) February 26, 2020 Later Wednesday, perhaps in a bid to regain his status as an elite quarterback, Aaron Rodgers decided to copy Wilson’s stance. My thoughts. #— Aaron Rodgers (@AaronRodgers12) February 26, 2020 Getting in on the action was Pittsburgh Steelers center Maurkice Pouncey, who posted the following NOT SAFE FOR WORK video to social media regarding his thoughts on the proposed deal. “Bullshit Ass Deal” - Maurkice Pouncey.— Gregg Giannotti (@GioWFAN) February 26, 2020 Obviously, the question then becomes why is the deal bad for the players? The short answer is that the answer is not, in and of itself, bad. The deal brings about certain changes the players have asked for, and it includes significant increases in minimum salaries. Those are all good. The reason why the players should vote no on the deal, however, is not because it’s a bad deal. Rather, the reason is because they can get a better deal. That may not make a lot of sense, so here’s an analogy to help explain things: Getting punched in the mouth is bad, but it’s better than being punched in the mouth twice.This deal is a punch in the mouth, and the following is a very short, very simple explanation of why. To start with, the key to this explanation is the owners’ own words, specifically what the players will get over the next ten years in exchange for agreeing to this deal. More on the transformational CBA proposal now on the table, per sources: As part of the new deal, players go from 47% share under current deal to 48% share at 16 games, and then to 48.5% share if they go to 17 games, shifting $5 billion of revenue to players’ side.— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) February 20, 2020 There are two important parts of that tweet: The share of revenue going to the players increases from 47% to 48.5% (a 1.5 percentage point increase) and That 1.5 percentage point increase gives the players $5 billion in additional revenues over the next decade. Now, with the important points laid out, it’s necessary to take a step back and look at the current CBA and the revenue split and picture very quickly. Here are the NFL revenues by year under the current agreement. Now, as noted above, the current revenue split for the players is 47%, meaning the owners are getting 53%. Based on these figures, we know that the splits for the two sides over the course of the agreement are somewhere in the neighborhood of the following: Players: $58.21 billion Owners: $65.65 billion Now, with that $65.65 billion that the owners took in over the past decade there were: Zero franchises which went bankrupt Zero franchises unable to meet payroll Zero franchises which saw a decrease in franchise value Basically, the owners existed, and did so very, very, very profitably over the past decade while taking in $65.65 billion. So, that’s a baseline from which it is safe to make the assumption that owners and franchises are unlikely to go bankrupt or suffer financial strain over the next decade if they are to take in $70 billion or $75 billion or $80 billion. Bringing this back to Schefter’s tweet from above, the owners state that the 1.5 percentage point increase for the players moves $5 billion from owners to players. That’s awesome, because it not only gives players the ability to have higher minimum salaries and better benefits in retirement, it provides the numbers needed to calculate the projected revenue split for the owners going forward. If 1.5 percentage points of revenue split translates to $5,000,000,000, then the math for the revenue of the league over the next decade is very simple. Total Revenue = $5,000,000,000/0.015That’s an easy calculation, and yields total projected revenue, using the numbers provided by the owners, of $333,333,333,333.33. Taking that $333,333,333,333.33 and dividing it to the players and owners under the 48.5%/51.5% split the proposed CBA calls for, the allocations are as follows: Players: $161.67 billion Owners: $171.67 billion Recall from above the fact that from 2011 through 2020 under the current CBA that the owners took in roughly $65 billion and, by all accounts, have done very well for themselves. No teams are on the verge of bankruptcy. Some teams, like both the Los Angeles Rams and Las Vegas Raiders, have done so well financially over the past ten years that they have financed stadiums with costs in the billions. The Green Bay Packers not only didn’t go under, they were profitable enough to undertake significant upgrades to Lambeau Field and the area around the stadium. In short, NFL owners weren’t hurting over the past decade on their $65 billion. So, if a group can not only survive, but thrive, on $65 billion over a decade, is it a stretch to imagine that group getting by on $80 billion or $90 billion? It doesn’t seem like it, but the proposed CBA, with a 48.5%/51.5% revenue split, would see the owners share go from $65 billion to $171B. That’s a raise of $105 billion for the owners over the next ten years, while it’s the players who are taking on the physical risks of a seventeenth game. It’s a $100B raise for the owners in spite of the players being the ones asked to do see both an extended regular season and extended postseason. Putting everything together, the CBA proposal in front of the players certainly is an improvement over the current agreement. Approval brings an increased revenue share, higher minimum salaries and better benefits. However, it leaves a whole lot of meat on the bone - somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion worth of meat left on the bone according to the numbers provided by the owners themselves. That’s $100 billion that is out there waiting to be tapped into by the players for minimum salaries that are even higher than those proposed in the proposed CBA. It’s $100 billion out there to be used for better pensions, lifetime healthcare or whatever else the players decide they want to use it for. It’s $100 billion out there, waiting to be put to use improving the lives of current, former and future players. The question is simple: Will the players simply donate that $100 billion to the owners in order to help them become even wealthier? Or will the players unite behind one another in order to form the unified and powerful force necessary to be enough of a threat that the owners carve off a piece of that $100 billion - whether it’s $5 billion, $10 billion, $30 billion or whatever number - to share with the players. It’s now up to the players to answer that question.

  • Steve Raible retires from TV, will stay as Seahawks radio voice
    by Mookie Alexander on February 27, 2020 at 5:00 pm

    Photo by Jesse Beals/ Icon SMI/Corbis/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images Steve Raible is retiring, but don’t worry it’s not from broadcasting Seattle Seahawks games on the radio. In a statement released on Wednesday, Raible announced that he’s ending his time with Seattle CBS affiliate KIRO-7 after 38 years as a reporter and news anchor. The statement reads, in part: Friends, We talked about this a few months ago, stepping back to spend more time with my bride, Sharon. Tonight, we make it official – announcing our retirement from KIRO 7. We will still have some time together. I will not be retiring until the late spring. You have trusted me to be a part of a remarkable team of journalists, photographers, and news managers for more than three decades. Thank you for that trust. And thank you for inviting me into your home. The great journalism you have counted on from KIRO 7 will continue with Monique and Morgan and Jesse and Dave Wagner and the finest group of professionals it has been my pleasure to work with. The good news for us is that he’ll still be calling Seahawks games for KIRO radio, so he’s only stepping away from the newscast business. Raible has been a staple of Seattle television ever since his retirement from the Seahawks in 1981. Seahawks fans know him as the team’s radio analyst from 1982-2003, then the play-by-play voice from 2004 to present day. He’s an iconic figure in Seattle broadcasting, and ever since he shifted to play-by-play, he’s been the man behind the microphone of the greatest run of Seahawks football in franchise history; three Super Bowl appearances, one Super Bowl win, eight NFC West titles, a “Fail Mary,” and a Beast Quake or two. Not only has Raible been an extremely popular (and extremely awesome) commentator at a local level, he’s been tasked in recent years with national gigs, where the “homer goggles” have to be taken off. He called three NFL games for Westwood One Radio from 2016-2017 — obviously, the Seahawks were not playing on those Sundays — and did the 2019 Apple Cup for Westwood One. Here’s to more wonderful seasons hearing Raible say “Touchdowwwwwwwn, Seahawks!” and “Holy Catfish!” on the airwaves, along with several “The Seahawks have won the Super Bowl!” lines in February.

  • Report: Comp pick formula would change under new CBA
    by John P. Gilbert on February 27, 2020 at 4:30 pm

    Photo by Steven Ryan/Getty Images All eyes are on the NFL Combine this week, with the overwhelming majority of front office personnel, members of coaching staffs and media members in Indianapolis. However, even with fans preparing to tune in to watch the players perform starting this evening, the CBA proposal that has been put on the table by the owners is still managing to stay in the news cycle. The big report Thursday about the proposed new CBA is how the agreement would significantly change the way certain free agents count in the calculation of comp picks. An interesting aspect of the proposed CBA that NFL players will vote on: The compensatory pick calculation would be revised to exclude many “core veterans,” including those who sign 1-year deals making less than $1.75 million. The hope is it allows players to sign more quickly.— Tom Pelissero (@TomPelissero) February 27, 2020 So, while fans of the Seattle Seahawks have been wringing their hands about the signing of free agents such as D.J. Fluker and Jaron Brown in the spring of 2018 that prevented the Hawks from being awarded any comp picks in the 2019 NFL Draft, things could change. Under the proposed rule, the one-year, $1.5M contract Fluker signed in 2018 would not have counted in the computations, however, Seattle still would not have received any comp picks in 2019 because the net loss rule would have applied. In any case, the CBA laying out the specifics of the comp pick process would be big, as it has been largely a black box process that experts, such as Nick Korte of have had to reverse engineer through trial and error over the years. So, while the CBA has been put to the players to vote on, it appears as though the NFL is working to continue leaking ways in which the new CBA would benefit the players not on blockbuster contracts like Russell Wilson and Aaron Rodgers who have come out in opposition to the deal.

  • Vic Beasley would be a worthwhile reclamation project
    by Alistair Corp on February 27, 2020 at 4:00 pm

    Dale Zanine-USA TODAY Sports In our 2020 iteration of Finding Free Agents, we’ll attempt to answer three questions for each player: Why would the Seahawks be interested? What would their contract look like? What is the likelihood they reach free agency? Throughout the series, we’ll be focused on specific positions of need in Seattle: Wide receiver, offensive line, defensive tackle and EDGE. In Vic Beasley’s sophomore season, it appeared as though the Falcons had a star: the pass rusher finished with 15.5 sacks to go along with six forced fumbles in a campaign that ended with him being named first-team All-Pro. In the three years since, however, the 27-year-old has just 18 sacks and three forced fumbles. He wasn’t helped by a brief move off-ball, but more and more, Beasley’s 2016 looked like an anomaly. So much so, in fact, that it was relatively surprising that Atlanta didn’t move on from him last offseason. This time around they are and one of the more intriguing EDGEs in a deep class will hit free agency. Why would the Seahawks be interested? Beasley has played his entire career in Dan Quinn’s defense, meaning the transition into Seattle’s defense would be seamless. While Beasley has yet to reach double-digit sacks since his outstanding 2016, his pressure rate has been solid for a secondary or tertiary rusher (in the 9-10 percent range), and as a 5-8 sack player, that matches expectations. The Seahawks wouldn’t sign him expecting him to be a game-changing LEO, but rather a solid speed threat off the edge. With a premier rusher on the other side of him, Beasley could find success working in one-on-ones and using his speed to loop inside. With the exception of arm length, Beasley is in the 87th percentile or above in every size and athleticism area Seattle values in EDGEs. He has familiarity with the scheme and fits the profile. The Seahawks and Beasley make a ton of sense together, and that includes the contract fit. What would Beasley’s contract look like? In a perfect world, Seattle re-signs Jadeveon Clowney and pairs him with a top-tier speed rusher, such as Yannick Ngakoue. More likely, however, the Seahawks will land a high-priced pass rusher (be it Clowney or someone else) and pair them with a mid-priced pass rusher in a deep rotation. Beasley could certainly be that mid-priced piece. With an All-Pro season a distant memory, Beasley is highly unlikely to break the bank. It’s going to make some folks shudder, but the one-year deal Seattle gave Ezekiel Ansah last spring offers a good point of comparison. Both had red flags—though stemming from different things—but both had production in their past, too. Ansah received $9 million, with health-related bonuses, last offseason. A deal for Beasley wouldn’t necessitate bonuses for him staying healthy, but a one-year deal in the $9 million range would be solid, and allow the Seahawks to fill out the defensive line around Beasley and whoever is leading the charge. Will Beasley reach free agency? Yes, as this truly wild tweet told us: BREAKING NEWS: We will not pursue negotiations with Vic Beasley this offseason.— Atlanta Falcons (@AtlantaFalcons) February 3, 2020

  • Schneider not pleased with Seahawks secondary in 2019
    by Mookie Alexander on February 27, 2020 at 3:00 pm

    You normally have to read between the lines whenever John Schneider and Pete Carroll are asked for individual or group assessments regarding the Seattle Seahawks. In this instance, it was Schneider who had the telling critique. Speaking at the NFL Combine earlier this week, Schneider was asked for his assessment of the Seahawks secondary, and he was diplomatically critical. “I think just like every position, you’re constantly looking to tweak it and figure out how you get better,” Schneider said. “Whether it’s a strong safety, free safety—obviously we want to get better. If I told you we were satisfied with the performance, I’d be lying. We all need to get better.” When you hear this from either Schneider or Carroll, it’s a pretty heavy criticism. This is right up there with Carroll responding “he played fine” for a player who performed terribly. Schneider was also asked about the state of the nickel spot, which saw rookie Ugo Amadi take the starting job late in the season. “Ugo [Amadi] did a nice job when he got out there,” he said. “We didn’t play a ton of nickel last year. You’ve got to look at the nickel position like a starter, right? Detroit got [Justin] Coleman, gave him a nice contract, he did a great job for them again. But we need to keep preparing along the way.” Schneider’s disappointment in the secondary as a whole is not entirely surprising, but it’s still something to actually hear him say it. The stats suggest that Shaquill Griffin had a really good year (worthy of a Pro Bowl nod as a replacement selection) and Tre Flowers improved from an inconsistent rookie season. So happy to see Shaquill Griffin earn a well deserved Pro Bowl nod for his 2019:- 55.9% completion when targeted- 6.7 yards per target- 14 PBUs (t-3rd in NFL)- Battled through a severe hamstring strain for the last 5 games of the seasonGriffin's best plays of the season:— Alistair Corp (@byAlistairCorp) January 20, 2020 Tre Flowers has played 33 games at CB in his life, learning the position in a system with unique technique.- Yards per target improved by 1.4 yards- Allowed 1 TD- Created 4 turnovers- 6 PBUs- Comp. % in coverage below 60 (58.9)Patience with him will be rewarded!— Alistair Corp (@byAlistairCorp) February 25, 2020 With that said, Quandre Diggs was brought over by robbery trade for a reason. A very specific reason. The Tedric Thompson experience.— Mookie Alexander (@mookiealexander) September 9, 2019 We also saw some distinctly lackluster play from Lano Hill, and Ugo Amadi was behind Jamar Taylor on the nickel corner depth chart before the Seahawks let go of Jamar late in the season. The definition of “explosive play” varies depending on what site you use, but Sharp Football Stats defines an explosive pass play as having gained at least 15 yards. In this category, the Seahawks allowed 60, which ranks 24th in terms of sheer volume. As far as explosive pass play rate, they were a middling 17th but that’s just me not saying “mediocre.” One can only wonder though how much better the secondary could’ve/would’ve fared had the pass rush not been so decidedly terrible for an entire season. No one is expecting Griffin/Flowers/McDougald/Diggs to be Sherman/Maxwell/Chancellor/Thomas, but even the original Legion of Boom thrived in part because in addition to being great at their respective jobs, the Seahawks pass rush of yesteryear was absolutely fearsome. Will we see the Seahawks look at adding to its secondary depth? I would assume so, although I’d be stunned if they spent any draft picks from rounds 1-3 on a corner or a safety unless McDougald is suddenly a cap casualty candidate. The safety position seems to be in good hands with McDougald, Diggs, and Marquise Blair. Your corner positions looked to be set with Griffin and Flowers, but given Griffin is a free agent after 2020 they may want to plan ahead in case they don’t re-sign Shaquill in the 2021 offseason. As much as I’m optimistic about Amadi, in the interest of “Always Compete,” they do need more depth at corner and not duplicate the mess that was the base-heavy defense of 2019.


Shop for Seattle Seahawks gear at