Certainly didn't see that coming. I didn't mean my light hearted jab to actually offend. Is there a disaster relief fund (that's not the shady Red Cross) I can donate to as a means to make amends?
2015 Seahawks: Our offense doesnt need Lynch, Graham or Rawls
- Thread starter wibi
- Start date
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Don't worry about it at all. I wasn't remotely serious or offended and I think Wibi would prefer his comment not keep getting thrown back at him. It was harmless then and it is now. Both of us have much thicker skin.
We are burning though.
Just when I thought this thread was going past the point of uselessness, Shelterdog throws out a gem. Thank you sir!Shelterdog said:
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
It was a contract negotiation. Babe Ruth once threatened to leave baseball and make more money boxing.
GeorgeCostanza said:
Thanks for continuing the theme.
In real Seahawks news, 3rd preseason game is tomorrow at the Chargers. They are still attempting to sort out the following:
1. 2 QBs or 3? Probably 2. Archer has played decently, but there's nothing there that is mandating keeping him and if BJ Daniels makes the team, he could backup.
2. Who is the FB? Coleman probably has the lead over Tukuafu.
3. The backup RB slots. Turbin is the same as always. Michael has gotten better, but still has issues with fumbling which is a cardinal sin on this team. Thomas Rawls is making a push to make the roster.
4. The O-Line- They are going to run with the following this week and see how it goes: Okung - Britt - Nowak - Sweezy - Gilliam. This will tell a lot. Too bad Mathis went to a pseudo-contrender, he'd have been a nice fit here.
5. Who is the 3rd TE - It should be the strongest blocker, since Graham and Willson are both superior pass catchers. I'm guessing Helfet has a lead on McCoy (injury history) and Allen
6. The WR group - How many make the team? Will Lockette's ST ability save him (I hope not)? Baldwin, Matthews and Lockett the Return God are really the only sure things here. Kearse is likely a lock, but if they need cap space, he's a potential casualty. BJ Daniels' ability to also play QB in a pinch will give him a leg up on the competition. Richardson starts on the PUP.
7. Backups in the LOB - Lots of guys in competition here, tough to say who's really standing out. Ronald Martin has looked good at both safety spots, as has Dion Bailey. Shead is likely the 3rd safety, so those two guys could be competing for one spot. According to reports, Will Blackmon has looked good as slot corner. Jeremy Lane likely begins year on PUP.
8. DL pretty much set. Edge guys are Avril & Bennett, backed up by high motor guys Clark and Marsh. The only potential question is in the middle where Mebane, Hill and Rubin are locks. That 4th spot is likely TY McGill's, but Jesse Williams is trying to make a run.
Seahawks sign Fred Jackson to backup Lynch. They also waive Robert Turbin, backup RB. And allegedly are trying to trade third-string running back Christine Michael.
I understand the first two, but surprised by the attempt to trade Michael.
I understand the first two, but surprised by the attempt to trade Michael.
Traded a 5th for chiefs Kelcie McCray. Which is not nothing. The plot thickens.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000523236/article/seahawks-trade-for-safety-kelcie-mccray
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000523236/article/seahawks-trade-for-safety-kelcie-mccray
All this crap with Chancellor (and others) is why it's so hard to maintain success in the ESPNFL.
PFT reporting that after he misses week one Chancellor's hold out will have cost him $1.87M. He's lost $1.11M in pre-season fines (30K per day) plus $250K of his signing bonus for missing training camp. Missing week one will cost him a game check (~$267K) and another $250K of his signing bonus.
Ed Werder reported earlier this week that Seahawks owner Paul Allen has stated that the Seahawks are done negotiating with Chancellor
Looks like we might be seeing a bit of Dion Bailey over the next few weeks unless Chancellor suddenly changes his tune.
Ed Werder reported earlier this week that Seahawks owner Paul Allen has stated that the Seahawks are done negotiating with Chancellor
Looks like we might be seeing a bit of Dion Bailey over the next few weeks unless Chancellor suddenly changes his tune.
Has Chancellor outperformed his contract? I believe the answer is yes; he was underpaid for the duration of his rookie contract because of his draft slot. He was fairly compensated in the first year of his new contract, but continued to improve as a player, and was again underpaid last year. Given his projected performance, he would be underpaid again this season.
So, I get Chancellor's point. He isn't being paid commensurate with his ability or importance.
Meanwhile, the team - like all NFL teams - is trying to hold the line on re-negotiations because if they do it for Chancellor, they will have this situation with others who outperform their deals. And because teams never want to pay a player as much as he's truly worth.
The problem is Lynch, and how Seattle already set the precedent of "giving in" to an important player's demands. So they are drawing a line on Chancellor now because they don't think losing Chancellor is as big an impact as losing Lynch would have been.
Again, I see Chancellor's point; he's one of the five or six most important players on the team but he's not worthy of the same "special" treatment as others because the team controls who they make exceptions for, and who they stiff arm. From the player perspective, that is disrespect. Reports that the sides were "less than a million" apart factor in here - that's basically what Seattle gave to Lynch, and what started this whole chain of salary bump requests. And Chancellor sees this latest announcement from the owner - who has a million dollars in the change dish of his 3rd car at his 3rd vacation home - as proof the team doesn't value him.
So, I don't see this being resolved in a way that makes Seahawks fans happy. Chancellor will sit out, the team will pout, and eventually, the best strong safety in the game will be traded for a draft pick. Which is sad for football fans, as the Chancellor-Thomas duo was ridiculously good together.
But make no mistake - this is not "the player's fault". It is the team, and Paul Allen's, fault. They set the precedent with Lynch, they paid Wilson, Sherman and Thomas much, much more than Chancellor, and they refused to budge, citing a "policy" that they made up because they don't want to make other hard decisions under the cap. I hope Chancellor digs in and forces a trade to wherever he can be paid as he deserves. And I hope that shortly after, whomever replaces Chancellor flounders, proving to the team - and fans - that a spat over a million bucks was stupid and damaging to what should be a team focused on a third straight SB appearance.
Players in the NFL gotta get what they can, when they can, using whatever leverage they can find. They are the ones risking their long term health on every down. And Paul Allen - a guy in the top 25 of the richest people in America - will go on profiting on their efforts, while paying them a relative pittance for their sacrifice. It's a shame, and no right thinking football fan should ever support "management" over a player because of it.
So, I get Chancellor's point. He isn't being paid commensurate with his ability or importance.
Meanwhile, the team - like all NFL teams - is trying to hold the line on re-negotiations because if they do it for Chancellor, they will have this situation with others who outperform their deals. And because teams never want to pay a player as much as he's truly worth.
The problem is Lynch, and how Seattle already set the precedent of "giving in" to an important player's demands. So they are drawing a line on Chancellor now because they don't think losing Chancellor is as big an impact as losing Lynch would have been.
Again, I see Chancellor's point; he's one of the five or six most important players on the team but he's not worthy of the same "special" treatment as others because the team controls who they make exceptions for, and who they stiff arm. From the player perspective, that is disrespect. Reports that the sides were "less than a million" apart factor in here - that's basically what Seattle gave to Lynch, and what started this whole chain of salary bump requests. And Chancellor sees this latest announcement from the owner - who has a million dollars in the change dish of his 3rd car at his 3rd vacation home - as proof the team doesn't value him.
So, I don't see this being resolved in a way that makes Seahawks fans happy. Chancellor will sit out, the team will pout, and eventually, the best strong safety in the game will be traded for a draft pick. Which is sad for football fans, as the Chancellor-Thomas duo was ridiculously good together.
But make no mistake - this is not "the player's fault". It is the team, and Paul Allen's, fault. They set the precedent with Lynch, they paid Wilson, Sherman and Thomas much, much more than Chancellor, and they refused to budge, citing a "policy" that they made up because they don't want to make other hard decisions under the cap. I hope Chancellor digs in and forces a trade to wherever he can be paid as he deserves. And I hope that shortly after, whomever replaces Chancellor flounders, proving to the team - and fans - that a spat over a million bucks was stupid and damaging to what should be a team focused on a third straight SB appearance.
Players in the NFL gotta get what they can, when they can, using whatever leverage they can find. They are the ones risking their long term health on every down. And Paul Allen - a guy in the top 25 of the richest people in America - will go on profiting on their efforts, while paying them a relative pittance for their sacrifice. It's a shame, and no right thinking football fan should ever support "management" over a player because of it.
Good analysis above. Interestingly, Chancellor is increasingly playing the card that he is also a locker room leader--after Percy and the Golden Tate stuff there's value in that.
Further, Lynch is a little crazy, and he's going around wearing a Chancellor jersey, and they are BFF's. I think Chancellor is using that--Lynch could go south on them.
So part of Fred Jackson's job is holding Marshawn's hand--I'm surprised he didn't get more money for it, since BB was also calling. They must have promised him touches?
Further, Lynch is a little crazy, and he's going around wearing a Chancellor jersey, and they are BFF's. I think Chancellor is using that--Lynch could go south on them.
So part of Fred Jackson's job is holding Marshawn's hand--I'm surprised he didn't get more money for it, since BB was also calling. They must have promised him touches?
I think this Grantland piece summed up why, sure, in the abstract Chancellor deserves more money, and in reality there's a limit to that.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-nfl-preview-seattle-seahawks-kam-chancellor-contract-holdout/
This isn't just any renegotiation -- it's early in the contract term and what he's asking for means there'd likely be another hold out next year (or little cost for not holding out).
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-nfl-preview-seattle-seahawks-kam-chancellor-contract-holdout/
This isn't just any renegotiation -- it's early in the contract term and what he's asking for means there'd likely be another hold out next year (or little cost for not holding out).
People all around NFL say that "early" in the contract somehow makes this different.
No, it doesn't. NFL teams don't care where it is in the contract (other than salary cap considerations). If you're underperforming you're going to take a pay cut or we're going to cut you.
Yet someone vastly outperforms their contract, it the "sanctity" of the contract. We can't touch it.
I have no sympathy for the NFL GMs and teams. They've tried to have this both ways for way too long with no consequences (and know fans will back them).
It's even more true now that they have these ridiculously low rookie deals (that can't even be touched till 2nd to last year) in cases where guys vastly outperform the contract. It actually means we will probably soon see more players taking stances similar to Chancellor anytime they outperform a contract outside the rookie one.
No, it doesn't. NFL teams don't care where it is in the contract (other than salary cap considerations). If you're underperforming you're going to take a pay cut or we're going to cut you.
Yet someone vastly outperforms their contract, it the "sanctity" of the contract. We can't touch it.
I have no sympathy for the NFL GMs and teams. They've tried to have this both ways for way too long with no consequences (and know fans will back them).
It's even more true now that they have these ridiculously low rookie deals (that can't even be touched till 2nd to last year) in cases where guys vastly outperform the contract. It actually means we will probably soon see more players taking stances similar to Chancellor anytime they outperform a contract outside the rookie one.
That's the key. Lynch was heading into the last year of his deal when they renegotiated. Chancellor has 3 years left on his deal.
edmunddantes said:
you're turning this into a morality play, not a business negotiation.
1: of course it matters. In this case, if Seattle gives KC all of his money this year, he'll simply hold out again next year. That'll ruin their cap space.
2: I have no sympathy for the NFL or the players -- it's just millionaires and billionaires dividing up a very big pie. Certainly I think players deserve the money more than the teams, but rooting for the players in individual negotiations seems to me nearly as silly as rooting for the teams -- the union and the league figure out what the salary cap is and most teams pay out that money, so we're just talking how the money is divided up among players, not more overall money going to players.
As a Pats fan, I think we all root for the team to get better deals out of players. Not because we want more money for Kraft but because it allows the team to win by having more money for other good players. The same is true for Seattle. If they cave they're hurting their chances to win. And, per your moral argument, they're really not giving any more of their money to players, they're just dividing it up differently among players (or close enough...I know there's some margin).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to say I root for the players.
I just don't bemoan any player trying to get more of what they believe they earned using the same tactics the teams use. If you outplay your contract, you should get more if you can leverage the situation. Just as the team will cut you in a hot second if you underperform.
I just don't bemoan any player trying to get more of what they believe they earned using the same tactics the teams use. If you outplay your contract, you should get more if you can leverage the situation. Just as the team will cut you in a hot second if you underperform.
To me this makes the Jimmy Graham trade even more questionable. They gave up a first-round pick and their starting center to get a great player, sure, but one making $9 MM / year. Now they no longer have the cap space to fix Chancellor's contract or the next star who grumbles about his contract. Meanwhile they haven't made a first-round pick in three years so the young talent reinforcements aren't there.
It's tough to argue with success and I have a lot of respect for what Carroll and Schneider have done, but some of what they've done I disagree with and this Chancellor situation seems like a natural result of that team-building approach.
It's tough to argue with success and I have a lot of respect for what Carroll and Schneider have done, but some of what they've done I disagree with and this Chancellor situation seems like a natural result of that team-building approach.
This game could not have gone better for Kam Chancellor from a PR perspective. Honestly, his hold out likely cost Seattle a win, and the optics of the last TD going over Bailey is great for him, as well. It will be interesting to see where things go for here. I think he's the best safety in the game.
All well and good, but Mr. Allen is a hero in this town for saving the team when the last owner wanted to move it.soxfan121 said:
And I heard enough grumbling in barrooms when Lynch missed a few practices to know that there are fans who don't think kindly of stupid players who aren't satisfied making millions to play a game.
Fair enough, but they are still taking a $2.2 MM dead money hit for him this year, so it's not like they saved all that.wibi said:
Super Nomario said:
Right but you said that the $9M contract that Graham has will handcuff them because it removes the cap space they had to "fix" Chancellor's contract. I was merely pointing out that only talking about the $9M cap hit on Graham was a little disingenuous given Unger had a pretty hefty cap hit himself.
wibi said:
And I'm not sure Kam's contract "needs fixing" anyway. He's in a group with two other SS as the three highest paid SS in the game (Donte Whitner, Reshad Jones) making basically the same $7M per year. The only significant difference was the initial guaranteed money. 53% of Jones' contract was guaranteed right off the bat, and Whitner's contract was guaranteed 39%. Kam only had 28% guaranteed up front. But his guarantees are rolling (usually within 5 days after the beginning of the league year), so while the initial amount wasn't on the same level as the other guys' contracts, since then he's made up for it with his 2014 and 2015 salaries guaranteed. Here's an article with the details if you're interested.
There's nothing to really do here, so I can't blame the Seahawks for holding the line, because it will cost them more than just the cash. Their approach to the cap has been very calculated and for someone to upset the balance at this point will cost the team good players in the long run.
wibi said:
Yeah, Bevell's gotta go. Maybe this would have worked week 13 after the line has had time to jell, but they were being beaten a lot of this game.
Too the smart azz media who wrote that's why marshawn didn't get the ball in the superbowl ,how many times did russell get sacked yesterday," Delisa wrote in the Facebook post. "Dont worry i will wait on the answer plus it was totally different at the superbowl the line was better than yesterday no blocking and to the offense caller who should have been fired yes i said it Fired !!! He is the worst play-caller ever the only reason he called that dumb azz play yesterday is to be able to justify the 1 yard that wasn't called in the superbowl ,but most fans already figured this out .were still on a mission but i know the Seahawks staff loves that play caller more than a win ,go figure #nfldontpayme# I love this team and will stand up to anybody who tries to destroy it boom!!!!
They surprised me, I thought this game would be a blowout, especially after the first couple of drives, but they hung in there and only lost by 10. This is the first time since October 2011 that they've lost a game by double digits. After this 0-2 start, they finally get to go home and host the Bears.
I need to go through the film tonight, but my initial impressions:
1. Bevell has to go. His play calling the entire first half was atrocious. Because he's as predictable as they come.
2. This offenseive (sic) line needs to jell quickly. They are getting owned constantly. Tom Cable may be a good coach, but he's not a miracle worker. They better spend the top 2 or 3 picks in next year's draft on the O-Line, especially with Okung and Sweezy FAs after the season.
3. The defense just wore out at the end. For the most part, they played solidly. I'll be taking a closer look at the SS position with Chancellor out.
4. Baldwin had the kind of game we can expect from him once in a while. Lockett really didn't do much, but didn't really have many opportunities. And if they don't start getting Graham involved in the offense more, they might as well have flushed his salary down the toilet. I don't completely know if they aren't calling plays for him or Russell is hesitant to throw to him when he's covered, but they need to get the ball to him more, especially in the Red Zone.
More later...
I need to go through the film tonight, but my initial impressions:
1. Bevell has to go. His play calling the entire first half was atrocious. Because he's as predictable as they come.
2. This offenseive (sic) line needs to jell quickly. They are getting owned constantly. Tom Cable may be a good coach, but he's not a miracle worker. They better spend the top 2 or 3 picks in next year's draft on the O-Line, especially with Okung and Sweezy FAs after the season.
3. The defense just wore out at the end. For the most part, they played solidly. I'll be taking a closer look at the SS position with Chancellor out.
4. Baldwin had the kind of game we can expect from him once in a while. Lockett really didn't do much, but didn't really have many opportunities. And if they don't start getting Graham involved in the offense more, they might as well have flushed his salary down the toilet. I don't completely know if they aren't calling plays for him or Russell is hesitant to throw to him when he's covered, but they need to get the ball to him more, especially in the Red Zone.
More later...
On #2 - seems like most Seattle fans were generally in favor of the Unger-Graham trade - where do you guys stand on that after 2 weeks? Obviously it seems like Bevell isn't getting Graham involved enough so that is a factor, but Unger seemed like the glue of that line from an outsider's perspective.
But maybe this is kind of like Logan Mankins in New England where everyone outside of NE saw him as a Pro Bowl guard but knowledgeable Pats fans saw him in decline
But maybe this is kind of like Logan Mankins in New England where everyone outside of NE saw him as a Pro Bowl guard but knowledgeable Pats fans saw him in decline
tims4wins said:
Unger was good when he played, but he missed 10 games last year and 3 more games the year before. He's not at the top level any more. I was surprised by the deal, but I thought the trade off would work because the Hawks would FINALLY have a red zone passing presence.
Maybe I should be re-thinking that approach LOL.
DanoooME said:
What are your thoughts on Sherman? Not a great game for him, he got burned on a TD. Is he fat and happy on a new contract? Just a bad game?
I didn't see the Rams games so I'm not sure how he played in that one, but he didn't look good last night.
They're going to win their next two games by a billion and losing @ GB to Rodgers is never really a cause for alarm. Not sure why they traded for Graham if they werent going to change the offense to integrate him more, but would be completely unpanicked if I was a Seahawks fan.
Stitch01 said:
Totally agree. I think they do have to be somewhat concerned about their chances of both winning the division and securing home field, though. It is going to be pretty tough to overcome the 2.5 game deficit to the Packers for home field, and like someone mentioned in the game thread, they may have to beat Arizona twice in order to win the west. I have a tough time seeing them win multiple road games to make the Super Bowl.
Then again they were 3-3 last year and ended up with the top seed, and the Pats faced similar long odds and ended up as the one as well.
NortheasternPJ said:
He was targeted 3 times IIRC, and 2 of those were free plays on Michael Bennett jumping offsides escapades. One was the TD where he had to try and cover a man across the field and Earl Thomas was pulled out of position. The other was the DPI and on that one Sherman just drifted too far away from his man and had to scramble to get back and was off on the timing. Those were two big plays, so it makes it look like a lot worse than it really was. I'm not worried about him too much. He might have been trying to do too much (covering for Kam?) on the DPI, not sure what his thoughts were there. The third target I think was an overthrow.
In the Rams game, I think he gave up 1 completion on 2 targets, but don't hold me to those numbers.
I'm not worried about him as long as he's healthy. The opponents clearly still respect him, since Rodgers really only took a shot at him when he had a free play.
DanoooME said:
I'm curious as to your thoughts on that play. I thought it should have been whistled dead when the guard jumped out of his stance, which occurred prior to the ball being snapped. It even looked to me like both he and Bennett stopped, expecting the whistle, only continuing to play when they didn't hear it. Had that play been called correctly - in my estimation - Green Bay would not have gotten that field goal at the end of the half and the complexion of the game would possibly have changed.
Full disclosure: I went to bed at halftime, so I don't even know if that drive resulting in no points would have made any difference. It just drove me nuts because it was another in a long line of obviously bad calls that I've seen in both the college and pro ranks so far this season.
Bosoxen said:
I agree with the fact it should have been called. The guard clearly jumped, why did they ever let the play go? More poor officiating.
On Graham, Michael and Collinsworth speculated that Seattle's offense is much more free lanced than the precise route running required by the Saints' offense. That rings true and begs the question as to whether it will take long for Graham to make the adjustment. Or for the Seahawks to adjust to him. Either way, he's too good to not exploit.
NortheasternPJ said:
There were two other calls/flags last night that I just didnt understand.
First was the flag near the end of the first half where the back judge threw a flag and then started counting for too many men on the field against Seattle.
Second was the possession call on the fumble post screen interception. Every replay I've seen shows Britt coming out of the pile with the ball (and without his helmet) and yet the referees gave the ball to GB.
wibi said:
Yep. On the first one, the back judge threw the flag thinking Seattle has 12 men on the field. When he counted and realized he was wrong, the ref made up the "check the spot of the runner" BS which gave GB an unofficial timeout. GB was already out of timeouts and couldn't sub.
On the second, Britt ended up with the ball after the refs had already made the call that GB had possession.
Yeah, I think the second one was immediately recovered by a Packer who was then down by contact before all of the pile-on silliness started, but I'd have to look again to confirm.wibi said: