Think Seahawks trade for Jamal Adams was bad? The 49ers just said, "Hold my beer"

The Seahawks NFC rival might have set their franchise back by a couple of years by giving up on Trey Lance.
Michael Zagaris/GettyImages
1 of 3

Some 12s insist that the Seattle Seahawks made a terrible mistake when they traded for Jamal Adams. They are seriously deluded, as the 49ers just showed how to culminate a truly terrible trade. For this, all 12s should rejoice over the Trey Lance affair.

Now, I know you're not one of those 12s that constantly bray that Jamal Adams is a terrible player. Nor are you one of those who proclaim that the Seahawks trade for Adams was their worst deal ever. You're not that guy, right? Because if you are, you might be a bit miffed by the end of this article. Okay, you're probably already a bit put out, assuming you understand that by choosing the word "bray", I'm equating your opinion to that of an Equus asinus. Go ahead, Google it for your richly deserved insult, as I'm frankly tired of those sadly ill-informed outbursts.

Yes, Jamal Adams has been injured far too often. You're right, he only played 15 snaps in 2022 before he was lost for the season. He missed five games in 2021, and four in 2020, his first in Seattle. Yessir, that's a lot of missed time, no doubt. Pete Carroll and John Schneider should be tarred and feathered for trading two first-round picks away for such an injury-prone player.

Except that Adams only missed two games in his first three seasons in the league. In fact, he played on 100 percent of the defensive snaps in 38 of the Jets 48 games. He was inactive for two of those 48 games. Other than that, the most snaps he missed in a single game was in week 3 of his first season, where he played on "only" 54 of 63 snaps.

Why the Jamal Adams to Seahawks trade was in no way a bad deal

The narrative that the Seahawks should have never traded for Adams because of his injury history is patently absurd. If you knew that Adams was going to be injured this often, please explain why you failed to invest heavily in Moderna stock at the same time, Nostradamus. There was nothing in his track record to suggest he'd have the injury troubles he's faced in Seattle. Why would Carroll and Schneider look at his snap counts and spend one second worrying about his durability? They wouldn't.

Before I delve into what truly qualifies as an awful trade, I have to address two more pillars of the "Jamal Adams trade was awful" argument. I've already dealt with the injury problem. Yes, I agree that it would be terrific if Adams had been able to play on 95 percent of the Seahawks' plays, as he did with the Jets.

But as there was no reason to think he would do anything other than continue that trend, the Hawks cannot be faulted for the trade. Nostradamus isn't on the staff. If you can verify that you knew for a fact that Adams would be injured this often when the deal was made, please comment with your proof. And that's not happening, is it?