HawkShack.com

by **RiverDog** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:31 am

Hawktawk wrote:Cam is the best SS in the league by a MILE. He is the most feared hitter in the league. Did you all miss the playoff game vs Carolina? My God this is superman.
Hes a HOF type talent.
As his holdout lingers we are hearing more and more about his leadership in the locker room holding the team together and getting everybody's mind right as well.
He isn't replaceable folks.The d will not be the same. This team will have to find another way. If it aint broke dont fix it.
PAY HIM

Gees, hawktalk. You wanted to throw open the coffers to Russell Wilson and "pay him", too. Is there no limit to what you are willing to mortgage? Suppose next season Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas both decide to join the holdout party, both with multiple years left on their contract, should we pay them, too? Why not throw in Russell? Why shouldn't he hold out in 2016 as well? In your mind, what good is a contract if it's going to get re-done with multiple years left on it?

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:03 am

Maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measured in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam.

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:04 am

Gees, hawktalk. You wanted to throw open the coffers to Russell Wilson and "pay him", too. Is there no limit to what you are willing to mortgage? Suppose next season Richard Sherman and Earl Thomas both decide to join the holdout party, both with multiple years left on their contract, should we pay them, too? Why not throw in Russell? Why shouldn't he hold out in 2016 as well? In your mind, what good is a contract if it's going to get re-done with multiple years left on it?[/quote]

Cam is grossly underpaid. He got paid like a good player before the Hawks epic run which he was a huge part of. The team success propelled ET, Sherm, Wags, Russ and yes Beast who got redone after already being given TOP money into the economic stratosphere. Now the guy whose biological clock keeps ticking wants to have a little more security for all the crushing blows he delivers and thus absorbs on the way to being an extremely key member of back to back SB teams.

John Schneider wants to have it all ie cap flexibility forever. Its a lofty goal but its impossible. You don't deep six a season with this much promise over 800 grand being moved over.Now is the time for the Hawks. Its all about the window unless these guys can build a patriots west team. That is much more challenging in our division than the patty cake AFC east the Pats have owned for over a decade.
PAY UP

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:18 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measures in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam.

I think you're right Bob. Its time. Many of these guys pay an awful price later on for being our heroes and making us cheer. They should get taken care of.

by **RiverDog** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:30 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

Back when the League profits were measures in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

It wouldn't break my heart if we were the ones to open that Pandora's box for Kam.

It would mine.

If we were going to "open Pandora's box", it should have been done with Russell, not with Kam. They should have given him a 100% guaranteed deal if that's the road they wanted to embark on. Russell honored his commitment, Kam didn't honor his. I don't mind adapting a change such as you suggested, but not as a reward to a holdout.

And I do not agree that it would eliminate "all this crap." There still would be nothing to stop them from holding out and tearing up an old agreement and demanding that some other terms in a contract be re-visited.

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:34 am

It would totally eliminate what Kam is asking for. Guaranteed contracts are funded 100% up front, so there would be no reason to ask money from 2017 to be moved to 2016 for fear of the team cutting you after the 2016 season.

by **RiverDog** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:37 am

c_hawkbob wrote:It would totally eliminate what Kam is asking for. Guaranteed contracts are funded 100% up front, so there would be no reason to ask money from 2017 to be moved to 2016 for fear of the team cutting you after the 2016 season.

It would eliminate what he is asking for today. It would not preclude him (or others) from holding out in the future over some other terms of his contract besides the guarantee, such as the number of years or the dollar amount.

Back when the League profits were measured in the hundreds of thousands it was not feasible to guarantee contracts for such a dangerous sport, but with profits now in the billions, and with all the scrutinuy on the NFL taking care of it's retired players with medical issues (especially brain related), it's time to make the change.

I'm not sure what that has to do with guaranteeing contracts, but I agree with the premise, particularly for the older veterans that weren't earning millions when they sustained their injuries.

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:51 am

Nothing is going to eliminate every problem the league has.

How dangerous the sport is has always been the primary justification for not guaranteeing contracts in the NFL.

by **Hawktown** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:20 am

Hawktawk wrote:Cam is the best SS in the league by a MILE. He is the most feared hitter in the league. Did you all miss the playoff game vs Carolina? My God this is superman.
Hes a HOF type talent.
As his holdout lingers we are hearing more and more about his leadership in the locker room holding the team together and getting everybody's mind right as well.
He isn't replaceable folks.The d will not be the same. This team will have to find another way. If it aint broke dont fix it.
PAY HIM

It's kinda too bad IT IS broke so it kinda needs a fixin. DO NOT PAY THE FOOL! I would still bench him if he comes back or force him to retire, that will never change.

by **Hawktown** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:31 am

I just don't see guaranteeing the players contract being a good option for a number of reasons I'm sure. Cut/traded players would go against the cap (dead money), up front money would take a lot in cap in a particular year (especially if there are multiple contracts to do), players would have already been paid so they may take some plays off. I'm sure I could come up with plenty more reasons that guaranteed contracts are not a good idea though I admit I may not be correct in all my views/assumption in how guaranteed money works against the cap.

by **mykc14** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:31 am

Hawktawk wrote:
Cam is grossly underpaid. He got paid like a good player before the Hawks epic run which he was a huge part of.
PAY UP

How in the world is he 'grossly underpaid?' He is the second highest paid player at his position. Actually barely second, only by $2,500 (Kam: 7,000502. Reshad Jones: 7,003,00). He is not underpaid by any stretch of the imagination. He makes a lot of money and deserves more than he makes, but it's not like he is being paid in the bottom half of the league in at his position. Besides this supposedly isn't about how much he makes per year, but instead about guarantees in future years.

by **burrrton** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:27 am

Maybe the NFL just needs to start guaranteeing contracts like everybody else, that would eliminate all this crap.

On the contrary, if by "everybody else" you mean MLB and NBA, I'd rather they *quit* guaranteeing contracts and join the more successful business model of the NFL.

I don't want my team tied to some guy who gets his big, multi-year contract then goes to s***.

As I've said, I don't care if they do happen to get guaranteed contracts in the next CBA, but I don't have any hero worship for millionaire athletes just because their employer is successful, and I don't think it would be necessarily good for the league.

by **kalibane** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:41 am

Hawktown wrote:I just don't see guaranteeing the players contract being a good option for a number of reasons I'm sure. Cut/traded players would go against the cap (dead money), up front money would take a lot in cap in a particular year (especially if there are multiple contracts to do), players would have already been paid so they may take some plays off. I'm sure I could come up with plenty more reasons that guaranteed contracts are not a good idea though I admit I may not be correct in all my views/assumption in how guaranteed money works against the cap.

There is no reason why guaranteeing contracts would be bad except it would cost owners a little bit more money. Dead money is a product of the structure of the current contracts which is a product of contracts not being guaranteed.

Players/Agents compensate for contracts not being guaranteed by getting signing and roster bonuses worked into the contract which makes sure the player gets a certain amount of money. Contracts are then written with an inflated number of years that the team never intends to pay for to lessen the impact of the signing bonus on the cap. And then before the contract is up the player will be released or extended.

If you guarantee contracts then signing bonuses and roster bonuses are eliminated because players don't need them to guarantee that they get paid. When you eliminate signing bonuses you eliminate extra years being tacked onto the contract purely for the sack of salary cap ramifications. And when you trade a player the team you are trading them to will automatically assume the rest of their salary on their cap with no penalty to the player's former team.

What you would get are shorter contracts with higher annual salaries, a salary cap that's far easier to manage, with fewer loopholes. And because the whole prospect of guaranteeing contracts would necessitate renegotiating the CBA you could include some kind of cap exemption that you can use on a limited basis if a player suffers an injury or simply can't play anymore and needs to be released from the team before his contract is up.

by **kalibane** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:43 am

You are obsessed with this hero worship concept Burrton it has nothing to do with people thinking about "poor millionaire athletes" it's about preventing these kind of holdouts.

And the NFL not guaranteeing contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how successful they are in comparison to other sports leagues.

If the players got guaranteed contracts all that would happen is instead of a player signing a 6 year 50 million dollar deal with a 21 million dollar signing bonus you'd see that player get 4 years guaranteed for 30-35 million.

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:48 am

[quote="mykc14

How in the world is he 'grossly underpaid?' He is the second highest paid player at his position. Actually barely second, only by $2,500 (Kam: 7,000502. Reshad Jones: 7,003,00). He is not underpaid by any stretch of the imagination. He makes a lot of money and deserves more than he makes, but it's not like he is being paid in the bottom half of the league in at his position. Besides this supposedly isn't about how much he makes per year, but instead about guarantees in future years.[/quote]

He isn't making 7 million. He's making 4.5 million or thereabouts. The 4 year deal averages 7 mil but its monopoly money he might never see which is why he wants 4 moved up a year. I'm sure he will want a redo after 2016 which he fully deserves assuming he is still healthy enough to play at an elite level . If he isn't he will never see the end of this current deal because like every NFL deal its only a contract for the player, not the team. Kam has given every ounce of energy, played hurt and played very well hurt. He was the best player in the secondary last SB playing very injured. He was the best player in the secondary the year before against Denver. More and more is being made public about his leadership in the locker room. He's a must have player.

Schneider needs to get off his "principles". He already has gone against them and this has become a pissing match that will derail this dynastic run if it continues

by **kalibane** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:59 am

Nah Schneider is right on this one. If Kam gets more money we'll be right back here with Bennett next year. Then probably Sherman and Thomas the next year. I was surprised they budged on Lynch last year. Caving just encourages more holdouts.

by **mykc14** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:15 am

Hawktawk wrote:[quote="mykc14

He isn't making 7 million. He's making 4.5 million or thereabouts. The 4 year deal averages 7 mil but its monopoly money he might never see which is why he wants 4 moved up a year. I'm sure he will want a redo after 2016 which he fully deserves assuming he is still healthy enough to play at an elite level . If he isn't he will never see the end of this current deal because like every NFL deal its only a contract for the player, not the team. Kam has given every ounce of energy, played hurt and played very well hurt. He was the best player in the secondary last SB playing very injured. He was the best player in the secondary the year before against Denver. More and more is being made public about his leadership in the locker room. He's a must have player.

Schneider needs to get off his "principles". He already has gone against them and this has become a pissing match that will derail this dynastic run if it continues

So you just throw out the 5 mil signing bonus he has already received? He got 4.8 base salary last year plus his 5 mil signing bonus puts him at 9.8 mil he got in year 1 of this contract. If he would have shown up for work this year he would have got another 4.3 mil, giving him a total of 14.1 mil in the first 2 years of this contract. That's pretty darn close to 7 mil a year (7.1). Anybody who knows anything about football can look at his contract and see that as long as he continues to produce at at least a decent level he would have received the last 2 years of his contract because the cap hit isn't bad (6 and 8 mil), its 5+ mil this year.

by **Hawkstar** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:29 am

Anyone know where I can pick up a Dion Bailey jersey?

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:33 am

burrrton wrote:
On the contrary, if by "everybody else" you mean MLB and NBA, I'd rather they *quit* guaranteeing contracts and join the more successful business model of the NFL.

Again, the "successful business model of the NFL" isn't built on non-guaranteed salaries, but on fair revenue sharing.

*edit* Thanks Kal, for laying that out better than I (next time maybe I should read the thread through before replying)

by **Agent 86** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:50 am

kalibane wrote:Nah Schneider is right on this one. If Kam gets more money we'll be right back here with Bennett next year. Then probably Sherman and Thomas the next year. I was surprised they budged on Lynch last year. Caving just encourages more holdouts.

This is in essence exactly why Schneider cannot cave. The ramifications are potentially disastrous.

I think with Lynch, he was entering his final year of his deal, which I believe is why Pete and John were not adverse to moving some of his money. If you are entering the final year, and you have proven your worth, I am pretty sure they are going to be willing to do something for you. But not in Kam's case, I believe he still has 3 years left. I love Kam, but from I know and have read, I fully support the FO on this one.

It's a tough one for me, I don't begrudge Kam like some others in here (and there are a lot who feel the same as I do). I get where he is coming from, and believe he thought because of who he was and what he has done, that something would get done. It doesn't look like it now. So can Kam swallow his pride and come back? It's not as easy as one would think once you have dug your heels in. No doubt he is feeling disrespected, and one does not come back so easily once that happens.

by **Hawktown** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:00 pm

There is no reason why guaranteeing contracts would be bad except it would cost owners a little bit more money. Dead money is a product of the structure of the current contracts which is a product of contracts not being guaranteed.

Players/Agents compensate for contracts not being guaranteed by getting signing and roster bonuses worked into the contract which makes sure the player gets a certain amount of money. Contracts are then written with an inflated number of years that the team never intends to pay for to lessen the impact of the signing bonus on the cap. And then before the contract is up the player will be released or extended.

If you guarantee contracts then signing bonuses and roster bonuses are eliminated because players don't need them to guarantee that they get paid. When you eliminate signing bonuses you eliminate extra years being tacked onto the contract purely for the sack of salary cap ramifications. And when you trade a player the team you are trading them to will automatically assume the rest of their salary on their cap with no penalty to the player's former team.

What you would get are shorter contracts with higher annual salaries, a salary cap that's far easier to manage, with fewer loopholes. And because the whole prospect of guaranteeing contracts would necessitate renegotiating the CBA you could include some kind of cap exemption that you can use on a limited basis if a player suffers an injury or simply can't play anymore and needs to be released from the team before his contract is up.

Thanks Kal!

by **burrrton** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:53 pm

[deleted]

You guys win. I can't debate it anymore.

Just get your ass in practice, Kam.

by **The POPE** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:13 pm

Well old man River don't feel alone. It's official now, another game out and Kam has PISSED OFF THE POPE

signed,

The Pope

by **savvyman** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:05 pm

Seahawks are one good offer away from trading Kam Chancellor in my opinion.

Remember Team Commandment #1 - #10? Thou Shall......

by **obiken** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:40 pm

Cant do it. They are getting pressure from the other owners not to settle. Once you start down that dark path forever will it dominate your destiny. Then Bennett would be waiting outside the door the very next day, count on it. After that Irvin, ect ect. You cannot re-negotiate contracts every year. Players around the league are watching this as well.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:45 am

kalibane wrote:You are obsessed with this hero worship concept Burrton it has nothing to do with people thinking about "poor millionaire athletes" it's about preventing these kind of holdouts.

And the NFL not guaranteeing contracts has absolutely nothing to do with how successful they are in comparison to other sports leagues.

If the players got guaranteed contracts all that would happen is instead of a player signing a 6 year 50 million dollar deal with a 21 million dollar signing bonus you'd see that player get 4 years guaranteed for 30-35 million.

Understood and agreed. But I still don't see what guaranteeing contracts has to do with ending holdouts. All it's going to do is eliminate one issue. What's going to prevent a player that feels he's out performed his contract from holding out for a new, larger dollar amount or a longer number of years? They need to put a stop to players that are under contract failing to honor the commitments they signed until the terms of that agreement have expired. Otherwise, those contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

IMO the authority to levy fines for not reporting must be taken away from the teams. The provision currently in place is nothing more than a paper tiger, like a 55 mph speed limit on a California freeway. If the fines are to be rescinded, they should be done so only as a result of a review process conducted by the league and based on the merits of the appeal. The team should have no say whatsoever if a breach of contract was justified or not. Once players realize that the first day they miss in a holdout is going to cost them money and that there is nothing that the team can do to prevent the fine, they will be much less likely to hold out. Of course, that is probably going to have to wait until the next CBA, but that's one of the things that needs to happen if we want to stop these holdouts that every one of us at one point or another in this soap opera has declared to be unjustified.

Oh, and Obi, we're not going to have to worry about Irvin holding out. In all likelihood, he won't even be with the team next season. But you can bet your bottom dollar that if we cave on Kam, Bennett will be the next one to hold out. He almost held out this season.

by **kalibane** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:57 am

Riv,

All you have to do is listen to Kam's reasoning. He doesn't believe he's going to see the 2017 money if he continues in this contract because in most NFL contracts the final year or two is pure window dressing to make the average salary look good and spread out the cap hit of the signing bonus.

If the contract is guaranteed that concern disappears altogether. Nothing will stop all holdouts but guaranteeing the contracts will solve a lot of contract disputes.

When is the last time you've seen someone hold out in baseball, hockey or the NBA? People outplay their contracts in those sports all the time.

by **RiverDog** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:23 am

kalibane wrote:Riv,

All you have to do is listen to Kam's reasoning. He doesn't believe he's going to see the 2017 money if he continues in this contract because in most NFL contracts the final year or two is pure window dressing to make the average salary look good and spread out the cap hit of the signing bonus.

If the contract is guaranteed that concern disappears altogether. Nothing will stop all holdouts but guaranteeing the contracts will solve a lot of contract disputes.

When is the last time you've seen someone hold out in baseball, hockey or the NBA? People outplay their contracts in those sports all the time.

Sure, it would end Kam's specific concern in this one dispute. But I'm not concerned just about Kam. I'm concerned about stopping future holdouts.

Those other sports you mentioned are different animals. As has been noted, football is different because of the risk of injuries, long term health implications, and the length of their careers. There's more of an incentive in football to make every penny they can now and bargain when their play is at it's peak, which might come in the middle of a deal vs. the end of it. So if Bennett goes out and racks up 15 sacks and makes the Pro Bowl in 2015, the best time for him to negotiate a new deal with a larger dollar amount or longer number of years is in 2016, not at some point in the uncertain future when he might get injured or decide to retire. There's more of a chance that Felix Hernandez is still going to be striking out 200 batters at age 30 than Marshawn Lynch has at gaining 1300 yards as the same age, and Hernandez doesn't have to worry about concussions or blowing out his knee.

Guaranteeing contracts takes away one component of the holdout equation, it doesn't solve it.

by **kalibane** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:04 am

I said nothing can't completely end contracts. But you are completely speculating with zero factual basis for your speculation. It's really too lazy to just dismiss three sports where holdouts are a complete non issue on the basis of "apples and oranges" and you have no test to prove that it's apples and oranges, just your gut feeling.

The fact is the average NBA career is only about a year longer than the average NFL career. And guess what. If the NFL had to guarantee contracts the average NFL career would rise immediately because they couldn't just sign a guy to a 3 year deal and release him after one. So for instance a guy like Pierre Thomas would still be on a team instead of his career likely being over.

Guaranteed contracts would change a lot. The reason people hold out in the NFL is holdouts are the only leverage they have to get more guaranteed money.

by **NorthHawk** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 7:52 am

One of the biggest factors the players point out is they can be cut at any time and not get the money they signed for thereby making anything other than the signing bonus irrelevant for all but the best and healthiest players.
A guaranteed contract would at least take one of the largest rationalizations off the table for a player to choose to hold out.
There will always be those that claim they aren't paid enough - that happens in every workplace, but it would be much more difficult for the player to turn their back on their team mates if they are guaranteed 20 or 30 million dollars.

In my opinion, it probably would mean more players in the last year or two of their contract start pushing for an extension, so we might see more of that, but with 20 or 25% of the contract remaining, it would be a big disincentive to hold out. There will always be a few that will, of course.

As well, it might mean a general decrease in the amount a team would be willing to pay for a player if there are any issues at all.
A single youthful indiscretion could mean more teams would shy away from signing a player because the risk is considered higher.
That could cause some friction in negotiations as the team would point out every excuse not to pay higher guaranteed wages.

by **mykc14** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:27 am

[quote="kalibane"]Riv,

All you have to do is listen to Kam's reasoning. He doesn't believe he's going to see the 2017 money if he continues in this contract because in most NFL contracts the final year or two is pure window dressing to make the average salary look good and spread out the cap hit of the signing bonus.

[quote]

I know this was a response to RD about something else, but this part of your quote reminded me of something. This is another reason why Kam's holdout makes no sense because this is exactly what the Hawks don't usually do with their contracts. They don't usually have a crazy high cap hit with the last year of the deal. Clearly Kam and his agent have to see the remaining years of his contract, their cap hit, and know that if he continues close to his current level of play he is either going to play out those final years or get a new contract.

by **kalibane** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:33 am

Add it to the 57 other reasons. lol

by **Hawk Sista** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:16 am

I believe we would have won, crappy o-line n all, had our d not surrendered 34 points to Nick Foles and the effin Rams. People were confused, Dion Bailey fell, Bobby and KJ didn't know where the eff to be and forgot how to tackle. Had Kam been there to play his role as a a leader, QB of the D, and SS, this would not have happened. So, rather than blame a group of players who faced an Über talented D-line in their first start as a unit, why not say - had Kam been on the field and not put his own interests above the TEAM, we would have friggin won? Kam is the same guy that said "I'm so blessed to be a part of the Seahawks' organization" two years ago (right after becoming a very wealthy man) & he's the same guy who said LOB means Love Our Brothers. Really, now???

We could be 1 & 0 right now heading into Lambeau where they are licking their chops to avenge the many embarrassing losses they've endured at the CLINK. But, because Kam ain't there, we are 0 & 1. I can't help but to be pissed at him for that. He's one of my all time faves and it's just so disheartening. We will likely have to climb out of a hole to make the playoffs. I believe that hole would be more shallow were KAM where he committed to be.

by **NorthHawk** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:24 am

The fact is the Defense won't play great every game - even with Kam.
That the Offense (specifically the OL) couldn't rise to the challenge is the reason for this loss.
We had chances to score and work time off the clock, but couldn't get it done.
Expect more losses like this if the O doesn't get their collective act together.

by **Hawk Sista** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:53 am

I don't know what to say. We must've watched two different games. There were several reasons we lost, one of them being the Oline. To ignore the atrocious play on D is silly.

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:04 pm

Hawk Sista wrote:I don't know what to say. We must've watched two different games. There were several reasons we lost, one of them being the Oline. To ignore the atrocious play on D is silly.

The offense was going against a great defense and put up 24, which should have been enough to win the game at home without the defensive score.

That loss was on the D.

by **NorthHawk** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:07 pm

The Offense put up 17. One Defensive TD and one ST TD.
Maybe the Defense should have scored 2 TDs.
The Offense only scored one TD when it had the chance to score more.
That's not good enough in the NFL.

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:44 pm

NorthHawk wrote:The Offense put up 17. One Defensive TD and one ST TD.
Maybe the Defense should have scored 2 TDs.
The Offense only scored one TD when it had the chance to score more.
That's not good enough in the NFL.

I stand corrected on the technicality, but still, no way we should have scored 31 points and lost at home. No way.

by **kalibane** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:10 pm

Game was on the road and we also gave up a special teams TD so the D did not give up 31 points either.

The defense wasn't dominant but that's to be expected. It's not like Kam got injured and threw the game out of whack. Everyone knew going in Kam wasn't going to be there and that the Offense would need to step it up.

The D gave up some plays but the D also forced 3 turnovers and scored a TD. The Offense left way more points on the field than the Defense failed to stop and that was a direct result of the O-Line. The Rams defense is not great, they just have a great Defensive Line. When the Offensive line was able to slow the rush even a little Russell was able to move the ball easily.

by **NorthHawk** » Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:28 pm

It's a team game and when one side stumbles even a little the other side picks them up.
The Defense created 3 turnovers and scored a TD. I think that's a pretty good contribution.
Meanwhile, the Offense only scored 16 points.
A team that has been to two consecutive Super Bowls should be able to score more than 16 points on any team.
It's what separates the contenders from the pretenders.

I'm really hoping we get this turned around this weekend or 0-2 with our schedule might be a hole that is too big to climb out of.

HawkShack.com

Who is online