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?
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said: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?
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said: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?
Just when I thought this thread was going past the point of uselessness, Shelterdog throws out a gem. Thank you sir!Shelterdog said:...although there but for the grace of god (who should have fucking warned Wilson...
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:He....
3. Thinks he can play major league baseball despite not playing four years and only hitting .229 in two seasons of A Ball.
GeorgeCostanza said:Just when I thought this thread was going past the point of uselessness, Shelterdog throws out a gem. Thank you sir!
ThePrideofShiner said: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.
@JasonLaCanfora: Rumblings among NFL execs and agents about Kam Chancellor perhaps seeking a trade. He hasn't been granted permission to speak to other clubs
All of that is what makes it so depressing to realize the Seahawks shouldn’t pay him. They can’t pay him. He’s reportedly looking to convert the next two years of his contract to a signing bonus, of which Danny Kelly of Field Gulls notes, “In other words, Kam wants the Seahawks [to] guarantee the next two years of his contract, and pay him for it up front.”
It’s usually empty rhetoric when teams balk at renegotiating deals because of the message it would send to other players, but in this case it rings true. This is more survival tactic than negotiating tactic.
Seattle’s already in the middle of a delicate balancing act trying to keep a core of superstars intact — signing Wagner and Wilson in July felt a little like a magic trick — but if the contracts that superstars do sign are rendered negotiable before they’re even halfway done, the whole thing becomes impossible.
It won’t matter if the Seahawks struggle with Bailey starting at safety. No amount of leverage gained by Chancellor will make it worthwhile for the Seahawks to cede leverage to every other star on the roster.
What we’re seeing instead is a situation where nobody is really wrong — Chancellor is right that he deserves more guarantees, and the Seahawks can’t afford to renegotiate every deal — and now everybody’s losing. Chancellor has the perfect team in the Seahawks, where he’s surrounded by players who hide his weaknesses and allow his strengths to wreak havoc. And the Seahawks have the perfect safety in Chancellor, a human knockout punch next to the suffocating coverage of Thomas and Sherman.
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).
edmunddantes said: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.
I would take Chancellor because of his size and versatility, and I'd take either Chancellor or Thomas over any other safety in the league.Kliq said:He isn't even the best safety on his own team.
Unger had nearly a 6M cap hit before the trade so it's no as bad as you make it soundSuper Nomario said: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.
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: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.
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:Unger had nearly a 6M cap hit before the trade so it's no as bad as you make it sound
Super Nomario said: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.
Ed Hillel said: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.
Myt1 said:Why run a read-option type run when they need one yard there? Way too long for a good D-line.
wibi 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:
DukeSox said:
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!!!!
wibi said:
In case anyone was wondering this was written by Marshawn Lynch's mom on her FB page after Sunday's game
tims4wins said: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
DanoooME said: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...
Stitch01 said: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.
NortheasternPJ 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.
DanoooME 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.
Bosoxen 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.
NortheasternPJ 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.
wibi 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.
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:
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.