Official Seahawks vs Rams POST Game Thread

[burrrton]

They need to negotiate the right of a player to get payed at least 50% of the next year IF they are cut.

Not me- if the team I love wants to fire a player because they're too expensive for their production, I want them to be able to do it and put that money toward better players.

I'm not going to argue for millionaire athletes to have luxuries not afforded anyone else in society.

[mykc14]

Not me- if the team I love wants to fire a player because they're too expensive for their production, I want them to be able to do it and put that money toward better players.

I'm not going to argue for millionaire athletes to have luxuries not afforded anyone else in society.

I agree. Also, if I were a player I would hate this because it forces teams to give money to players whose play doesn't warrant their pay, which is why they would be cutting them, instead of players who are playing at a high level.

[Futureite]

I don't know guys - I think I pay this man. Irvin's point was that you have to make exceptions to the policy for certain players. It looked yesterday like he is one of those guys. I understand you cannot pay everyone and no one wants to set a precedent, but do you want to set a precedent for losing ballgames because possibly your best player on D is out? I know people have argued Sherman or ET is the best player, but Kam has elevated his game in recent years. This guy is a monster. He intimidates opposing players, is a lock down sure tackler in the box, he polices the secondary and lines them up correctly, and his instincts are off the charts. How many HUGE turnovers has he created in the postseason? Even though he's a Seahawk, I have actually become somewhat of a Kam Chancellor fan, simply for the way he plays. And although he's an alpha dog, he seems humble enough in interviews. In short, he's indispensable.

I'd sign him now and deal with Bennet or whomever else later.

[RiverDog]

The game is played between the goal lines, not the 20 yard lines.
When we got into the Red Zone, the OL play was not good at all - and that's where it counts the most.
You can run for 400 yards, but if you can't get it done when it's important, it's not worth anything.
I said earlier they looked better when they went up tempo, and I think that's part of the problem. They slowed down the process when it got tight and the OL didn't get it done then for the most part.
That Wilson threw 41 times tell us the coaches aren't confident in the run blocking and the 6 sacks tells us the pass blocking isn't very good, either.
They have to step it up if we're going to win enough games for another Division title.

I agree with all that, North. But you're missing my point, which was that I expected worse, that we wouldn't crack 80 yards and only get one or two rushing first downs, and those would be Russell's scrambles. And running between the 20's does count as it has a lot to do with field position, such as that one series that we bogged down just outside scoring range but pinned them back on their own 10 which yielded a short formation punt that Lockett took to the house. I don't know if he gets that same opportunity on a 3 and out inside our own 30.

We ran the ball well compared to previous efforts vs the Rams. That is a fact. Was it good or acceptable? No. But it was more than I expected, and must have been more than you expected as you've complained about the OL since before the draft.

[burrrton]

Irvin's point was that you have to make exceptions to the policy for certain players.

If you do it for "certain players", you get to explain to virtually every other starter on your team why they're not "one of those players" or you end up with *zero* cap management. Both are bad outcomes for the team.

I hope there's some way for the team to get him to come in, but no, you don't make preposterous exceptions like this for anyone.

I also like how Irvin seems to be implying that tearing up new deals is just what good execs know to do. When was the last time any franchise made a player one of the highest paid at his position, then tore the contract up a year into it?

Sorry, Michael- no, you *don't* make exceptions. You trust that the player is going to be bright enough to not want his multi-year contract redone every 12 mos.