CincinnatiKid Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 According to ESPN.com Warrick has signed a 1 year deal with the hawks. At least he won't be in the AFC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengal Joe Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 I'm glad. I'd much rather him go to the NFC than to the Ravens or Patriots. Maybe they finally will have someone who can catch the ball in Seattle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonX5 Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 More info from Hobson...It took wide receiver Peter Warrick a day to find another team, but it will take him 60 catches to match the $2.2 million salary he would have received as a Bengal. ESPN.com reported Wednesday that Warrick reached a one-year deal with Seattle that gave him a base salary of $900,000 with a $500,000 signing bonus. He'll make an extra $220,000 for 30 catches, $440,000 for 40, $660,000 for 50, and $880,000 for 60. Warrick caught more than 60 balls twice and at least 50 in two other seasons.I guess Warrick didn't want to waste any time to start learning a new offense. If I were a Seahawks fan, I'd be very happy right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontPushMe Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 They got a good player at a great price, provided he can get back from that injury. I wish him the best, he was fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 Best of luck, Peter.Now...as to a bet with Hair...let's see. As I recall, you proposed wagering a bottle of scotch, Lagavulin I think (forgive the spelling, I'm sre I got it wrong) back when we were bantering about a Perry bet. Frankly, I think that stuff has no taste and smells like airplane fuel...but it does have a kick.So all right. I got a $70 bottle of 16-year-old scotch that says Warrick hits the 60 catch mark and maxxes out his contract with the hawks this year. You in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who? Posted August 31, 2005 Report Share Posted August 31, 2005 I'm glad. I'd much rather him go to the NFC than to the Ravens or Patriots. Maybe they finally will have someone who can catch the ball in Seattle. He's really not that good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalindian Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Better than anyone the Brownies have. Oh wait, the Brownies have good WRs, just nobody that can throw.Just playin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 The Seahawk receiving corps suddenly looks much different. Darrell Jackson and Peter Warrick at one and two? Not bad at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbx182 Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 peter became expendable $$. i don't think he'll be what he once was, rushing back to play too soon after the injury probably hurt his career. but that just tells you the team player he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who? Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Better than anyone the Brownies have. Oh wait, the Brownies have good WRs, just nobody that can throw.Just playin. Haha Trent is going to surprise you! Don't worry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geep Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Glad P-Dub got a deal done so quickly. Good luck Peter. I for one hope to watch you shine this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontTakeAkili Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 I wish Warrick would ahve played in Cincy for that deal. Seattle is out very little if PDUB doesnt pan out and pays him what he is worth if he catches 60 balls.Did the Bengals offer him some kind of restructured deal that was incentive-laden? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cHaD711Johnson Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 I don't think he will get back to old form...and Marvin definitely doesn't either or he wouldn't have been released Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Superbowl 40Seattle 58Cincinnati 3Superbowl MVP - Peter Warrick, 13 catches for 210 yards, 3 TDs (1 punt return)How 'bout them apples? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Next_Big_Thing Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Superbowl 40Seattle 58Cincinnati 3Superbowl MVP - Peter Warrick, 13 catches for 210 yards, 3 TDs (1 punt return)How 'bout them apples? Put down the crack pipe. Warrick has only scored more than 1 TD ONCE in his career, and Seattle's defense couldn't stop our running game and hold us to 3 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalboomer7 Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Here's what I don't understand. Why couldn't he have restructured and played in Cincy for that contract? Oh, Well, now that he is all the way across the coast and in the NFC I will surely be rooting for him. Looks like he is going to try and prove he's healed, then go after a fat FA contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Best of luck, Peter.Now...as to a bet with Hair...let's see. As I recall, you proposed wagering a bottle of scotch, Lagavulin I think (forgive the spelling, I'm sre I got it wrong) back when we were bantering about a Perry bet. Frankly, I think that stuff has no taste and smells like airplane fuel...but it does have a kick.So all right. I got a $70 bottle of 16-year-old scotch that says Warrick hits the 60 catch mark and maxxes out his contract with the hawks this year. You in? First, we were discussing Warrick's health and whether he would be able to match his 2003 numbers. You said he was healthy and could think no reason why he wouldn't. I said he wasn't and wouldn't come close. So why would I accept a bet that has me paying off if Warrick catches nearly 20 fewer balls than he did in 2003? In addition the article I just read states that Warrick will be expected to fill the punt return roll for the Seahawks so those numbers should be included as well. Touchdowns too. Might as well include rushing totals as well because a healthy P-Dub is Mr. Reverse. C'mon, try again....and may I suggest a slight rounding off of each total is fair. 79 receptions819 yards receiving18 rushes157 yards rushing25 punt returns273 yards1,249 total yards8 touchdowns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Well, given that reports are Warrick is third on the depth chart and coveted most for his punt/kick return potential, I think a bet referencing his current contract is more fair. Heck, Hobson seems to think that Warrick will struggle to pull down 30 balls; if he's right, this is a slam-dunk bet for you. But you want a sweetener? Fine. I'll give you odds: you win, you get your $70 bottle of plane fuel. I win, all you owe me is another $24 case of Corona. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Well, given that reports are Warrick is third on the depth chart and coveted most for his punt/kick return potential, I think a bet referencing his current contract is more fair. But a bet based upon Warrick catching 60 balls is ample proof that nobody thinks he'll put up his old numbers....which was my point all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadraftnick Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 I am not so sure we will miss Warrick.He was never the player for the Bengals that he was at Fla.State.He really only had one good year.The other years he dropped way too many passes. I dont know why they did not at least get 6th or 7th round pick out of him.He was a top 5 pick in the draft.When you give your hand that you are going to cut him other teams just wait for you to cut him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobcat Bengal Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 They got a good player at a great price, provided he can get back from that injury. I wish him the best, he was fun to watch. Ditto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Bengals_Fan Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Well, given that reports are Warrick is third on the depth chart and coveted most for his punt/kick return potential, I think a bet referencing his current contract is more fair.But a bet based upon Warrick catching 60 balls is ample proof that nobody thinks he'll put up his old numbers....which was my point all along.In fairness, how many times did he put up his "old" numbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 Well, given that reports are Warrick is third on the depth chart and coveted most for his punt/kick return potential, I think a bet referencing his current contract is more fair.But a bet based upon Warrick catching 60 balls is ample proof that nobody thinks he'll put up his old numbers....which was my point all along. If Warrick was going to be their starting slot receiver, I'd take the "vs. 2003" bet. But he apparently isn't. Would any No. 2 wideout in the league match his "old" numbers if moved to No. 3 or spot duty? Sorry, but I'm not that stupid.But we still have 10 days before the season starts. He may move up the depth chart by the 11th. If so, we can go with the 2003 bet. Otherwise, we can go with my proposal, or you can propose something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalFanInNJ Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 ESPN reported that the Pats were trying to acquire Warrick BEFORE he was released. If this is so, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T WE ACCEPT IT?? I would rather have a 7th round pick over nothing at all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stripes Posted September 1, 2005 Report Share Posted September 1, 2005 ESPN reported that the Pats were trying to acquire Warrick BEFORE he was released. If this is so, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T WE ACCEPT IT?? I would rather have a 7th round pick over nothing at all! If this is true, then my assumption is the Bengals wanted to keep Warrick out of the AFC. I bet the Seahawks had contacted them, and agreed to snatch him up as soon as he was released so nobody in the AFC could have him. 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.