Earl Thomas

[HumanCockroach]

Wear and tear on free safeties is a misnomer. Typically free safeties aren't hitting constantly, or in pileups, the hits they take are drastically reduced compared to bulk of other players on both sides of the ball... long, long, extended careers aren't unheard of or even that uncommon... typically, shelf life on an exceptional, safety that isn't asked to perform like an Easley or a Kam, is between 12 and 15 years...

The real concern should be loss of speed do to age or injury... meaning Achilles, ACL,MCL type speed sapping injuries... uncommon for free safeties to experience those types of injuries, as they aren't typically in traffic. ( hell most of us in Seattle got to see first hand the difference... Easley vs Robinson... Eugene played what? 15? 16 seasons, went to a Pro Bowl in last two seasons in the league)

4yr or 5 yr contract, with no guaranteed money last two seasons isn't just appropriate, but intelligent. You get the bulk of his prime years, and can continue to benefit should he be a latter type player 13 + yr ...

Honestly, it surprises me how many want to trade him... did they say the same before Tez, Largent, Jones last contract?

When Easley was traded, I don't remember anyone happy... seems kind of weird is all... you aren't discussing Byron Maxwell or Brandon Browner, Josh Brown, or even Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, hell even Marshawn Lynch ......or Richard Sherman, you guys discussing more than likely, a first ballot HOF safety, a GENERATIONAL player... like he's a piece of old bubble gum that has no flavor left...

[Aseahawkfan]

Wear and tear on free safeties is a misnomer. Typically free safeties aren't hitting constantly, or in pileups, the hits they take are drastically reduced compared to bulk of other players on both sides of the ball... long, long, extended careers aren't unheard of or even that uncommon... typically, shelf life on an exceptional, safety that isn't asked to perform like an Easley or a Kam, is between 12 and 15 years...

The real concern should be loss of speed do to age or injury... meaning Achilles, ACL,MCL type speed sapping injuries... uncommon for free safeties to experience those types of injuries, as they aren't typically in traffic. ( hell most of us in Seattle got to see first hand the difference... Easley vs Robinson... Eugene played what? 15? 16 seasons, went to a Pro Bowl in last two seasons in the league)

4yr or 5 yr contract, with no guaranteed money last two seasons isn't just appropriate, but intelligent. You get the bulk of his prime years, and can continue to benefit should he be a latter type player 13 + yr ...

Honestly, it surprises me how many want to trade him... did they say the same before Tez, Largent, Jones last contract?

When Easley was traded, I don't remember anyone happy... seems kind of weird is all... you aren't discussing Byron Maxwell or Brandon Browner, Josh Brown, or even Matt Hasselbeck, Shaun Alexander, hell even Marshawn Lynch ......or Richard Sherman, you guys discussing more than likely, a first ballot HOF safety, a GENERATIONAL player... like he's a piece of old bubble gum that has no flavor left...

You already know we have a bunch of fans that think finding talent like Earl, Sherm, or even Russell is as easy as pie. Just trade them for first round picks and you'll pick up another equal talent because you know, that's how the NFL works and has always worked. That's the logic. Ridiculous logic that shows clearly why FOs should never brother to listen to fans.

Talent is a commodity that is rare and hard to find. Once you find and cultivate a rare talent, you should hold onto it as long as possible. Given that Earl is nowhere near done and still one of the best safeties in the game that makes it easier for us to use less CBs, we should retain him as long as possible if the price is in line with market value. Total nutso how many fans are like, "He's played too long" or "He may be too old" or "He's had wear and tear." Give me a break. You can't perfectly time player decline. Until it happens, you keep the player if it makes your team better. Earl makes our team better. Simple as that.

As far as playing hardball with holdouts, waste of time. Just do a quality deal and get him signed. Then he shows up. Problem solved. He's not holding out for some crazy sum of money. He wants a market price extension to ensure he's covered for likely the rest of his career and life. He's earned it. Work a deal get it done.

All these people crying about holdouts act like it's some fringe player holding out and we're buckling. The best players have the luxury of pushing for a better salary because they earned it. Same as any normal worker would if they were highly valuable to their company.

[idhawkman]

You already know we have a bunch of fans that think finding talent like Earl, Sherm, or even Russell is as easy as pie. Just trade them for first round picks and you'll pick up another equal talent because you know, that's how the NFL works and has always worked. That's the logic. Ridiculous logic that shows clearly why FOs should never brother to listen to fans.

Talent is a commodity that is rare and hard to find. Once you find and cultivate a rare talent, you should hold onto it as long as possible. Given that Earl is nowhere near done and still one of the best safeties in the game that makes it easier for us to use less CBs, we should retain him as long as possible if the price is in line with market value. Total nutso how many fans are like, "He's played too long" or "He may be too old" or "He's had wear and tear." Give me a break. You can't perfectly time player decline. Until it happens, you keep the player if it makes your team better. Earl makes our team better. Simple as that.

As far as playing hardball with holdouts, waste of time. Just do a quality deal and get him signed. Then he shows up. Problem solved. He's not holding out for some crazy sum of money. He wants a market price extension to ensure he's covered for likely the rest of his career and life. He's earned it. Work a deal get it done.

All these people crying about holdouts act like it's some fringe player holding out and we're buckling. The best players have the luxury of pushing for a better salary because they earned it. Same as any normal worker would if they were highly valuable to their company.

Not sure if you meant to give us that laugh or not but do you see the irony in your post when you say for FOs not to listen to fans and then go on for 3 paragraphs telling the FO How to work this situation?

[HumanCockroach]

If the team signs ET to a 4 year contract, he'll only play 3 of them before holding out for another contract since that is now his M.O. so he'd be 32 on his next contract

So only 3 or 4 more pro bowl, hof type seasons after this contract, so where's the concern?

Even average safeties are still performing into their early 30's, much less top tier ones, so I'm completely missing what point your attempting to make... if he's 32 when he wants another contract, ......or 33, even 34,35,36 you weigh it, but you're discussing dropping a generational, hot safety because he's old, at 29... ( how olds Wison, KJ, Baldwin and Wags by the way?)... he is still in his prime, why anybody would think dumping him at this point is a desirable idea, is baffling ( just like the other 4).

[Aseahawkfan]

Not sure if you meant to give us that laugh or not but do you see the irony in your post when you say for FOs not to listen to fans and then go on for 3 paragraphs telling the FO How to work this situation?

If you read it again, you'll see I'm not telling the FO to do anything. I'm expressing what talent is and what I think of holdouts. So if you read that as me telling the FO what to do, you are mistaken. I don't share the idea that talent is that easy to replace and holdouts are some kind of wrong, bad, action by players.

[obiken]

ET is done in 2 years, he's done, time to move on.

[RiverDog]

The only way I'd support a trade is if Earl wants out. Apparently the best proposal we received when we were toying with the idea, from the Cowboys, was a 3rd rounder, a laughable offer.

Give him Eric Berry money, but only 3 years, 4 if the final year isn't guaranteed. If he asks for an outrageous amount, it means he wants to be traded, his politically correct statements to the contrary notwithstanding.

[HumanCockroach]

ET is done in 2 years, he's done, time to move on.

Seems sound, I mean Carolina moved on from Julius Peppers because he was old..... a DECADE ago.... there's DBS playing , starting, performing at 39, Harrison still playing, slew of mid to late thirties PRO BOWL players.... Earl's got to be done at 31, despite being generational player, and playing perhaps his best season in the pros just last year....

Do y'all even WATCH football? Or at the very least, pay attention to performance, trends, etc? Or you simply can't grasp the grass not always greener on the other side, so you clamor for change, regardless of it putting your team in a better position?

Thomas MORE valuable than ANY player on that team. Rather they trade ANYONE else. The foolishness of putting mediocre talent at corner, losing multiple pass rushers, and then "moving on" from a HOF safety cuz people have a hunch he's going to be to old ( despite NFL history for a player of his caliber at the position he plays saying the exact opposite) shows how incredibly little people understand how a defense works...

I'd rather cut Wilson and give Thomas his money at this point.... no reason to score points , if you cant keep the other team from scoring, might as well...

[idhawkman]

Many of the arguments for keeping ET are similar to the arguments I heard for resigning SA (and Lynch to be accurate). I was one of them asking to keep both of those guys, e.g. "pay the man, he's earned it..." Well we did pay them but then neither really performed because the Oline fell apart. There's lots of reasons why the oline for both teams fell apart and we don't have to rehash all of that but money was a big factor.

ET is similar in that he is most effective when we have good DL pressure and above average LB play. He can make up for lesser DB play but not all 3. Paying him 8-10% of the overall cap and paying Wilson almost double that ties up too much money in just 2 players. They both REQUIRE a better supporting staff to be as effective as they can be. So spend the money on great supporting characters and find a good to great replacement in their first contract term. That's the formula to win for us.

[c_hawkbob]

RB longevity does not equal DB longevity.

RB is all the way at one end of the spectrum and while DB's don't represent the other end of the spectrum (that would be kickers and QB's) they are at least on the other side of it.

[RiverDog]

Gotta agree with Cbob. You're comparing apples to oranges by comparing running backs to a DB, particularly a free safety. They don't take near the beating that a RB does, which is one of the reasons why you see them getting twice as many snaps per game. I also don't think that Earl's losing a step will be near as noticeable as it would be with a RB. His instincts will help make up for his losing a step.

Conventional wisdom for all contact sports says that an athlete's peak is in their late 20's. Earl just turned 29, so if he is beyond his peak, it's not by much.

[obiken]

Seems sound, I mean Carolina moved on from Julius Peppers because he was old..... a DECADE ago.... there's DBS playing , starting, performing at 39, Harrison still playing, slew of mid to late thirties PRO BOWL players.... Earl's got to be done at 31, despite being generational player, and playing perhaps his best season in the pros just last year....

Do y'all even WATCH football? Or at the very least, pay attention to performance, trends, etc? Or you simply can't grasp the grass not always greener on the other side, so you clamor for change, regardless of it putting your team in a better position?

Thomas MORE valuable than ANY player on that team. Rather they trade ANYONE else. The foolishness of putting mediocre talent at corner, losing multiple pass rushers, and then "moving on" from a HOF safety cuz people have a hunch he's going to be to old ( despite NFL history for a player of his caliber at the position he plays saying the exact opposite) shows how incredibly little people understand how a defense works...

I'd rather cut Wilson and give Thomas his money at this point.... no reason to score points , if you cant keep the other team from scoring, might as well...

All Righty then!! Fine, resign him Human, but after 30 you are filled with years of injury after injury. I am not wanting to get rid of ET, I just say we have too.

[Aseahawkfan]

Many of the arguments for keeping ET are similar to the arguments I heard for resigning SA (and Lynch to be accurate). I was one of them asking to keep both of those guys, e.g. "pay the man, he's earned it..." Well we did pay them but then neither really performed because the Oline fell apart. There's lots of reasons why the oline for both teams fell apart and we don't have to rehash all of that but money was a big factor.

ET is similar in that he is most effective when we have good DL pressure and above average LB play. He can make up for lesser DB play but not all 3. Paying him 8-10% of the overall cap and paying Wilson almost double that ties up too much money in just 2 players. They both REQUIRE a better supporting staff to be as effective as they can be. So spend the money on great supporting characters and find a good to great replacement in their first contract term. That's the formula to win for us.

You can't compare RBs, the shortest career length position in football, to a safety. C'mon now, ID. You been watching football long enough to know better.

[NorthHawk]

Earl plays a physical game and along with speed, it makes him special.
But he's not a big guy at 5'10" and about 210lbs
Two things happen when players start to get old.
One is they usually lose some of their speed. Maybe ET will be one of the few exceptions.
The other is their bodies tend to break down. With the way he plays, this has to be a consideration. I keep thinking of Bob Sanders of the Colts
who was a pretty good Safety, but his style of play was too physical for his body. ET isn't as physical for the most part, but he's pretty physical
for a smaller Safety.

Taking into account the contract extensions for Kam, Sherm, and Bennett then seeing all three having do deal with injuries, the FO has to factor
into account how much longer ET can play at a high level and if he can stay healthy as age catches up.

[HumanCockroach]

And I keep thinking about the safety most similar in both stature and style of play. Ed Reed... go figure... he only played 15 or so years... Sanders was done before his 10th season, Hell he was done before his 7th season... why compare such dishonest safeties when there's a virtual blueprint that retired 2 seasons ago?

AND last I checked a guy named Berry didn't have to squabble to get another contract, drafted same year, less success, more injuries ( as well as cancer)... I'm not sure many are capable of evaluating players until they're gone at this point.

On a side note, if you only want one of the two ID, why the changing for the release of ET? I remember Seattle winning the SB with a cheap QB, why not clamor for the release of Wilson? Signing ET cheaper than paying Wilson * by a friggin MILE* and they're virtuallythe same age... you could sign far more with Wilson's cost off the books, not so much with ET... I mean. If that's how you want to swing it... I promise Thomas' 13m going to seem like peanuts in 3 years, compared to 33m a year... and truthfully, he's more valuable to Seattle at this point than Wilson is.... if both stopped playing tomorrow, one would be a HOF player, the other would be "arguably the best QB in Seattle history" the same way Alexander is.

That ain't me bashing, its me being completely honest. One is HOF player right now, the other short of that bar.

[idhawkman]

So it seems that most responders to my last post need to re-read my post. I'm not comparing ET to a RB, I said that the same reasons given for those guys are similar to the reasons for resigning ET. It is my opinion to let him walk because resigning him will be a big drain on the team's budget. Time will tell if I am right or not but the only two things that make ET special is his speed and verocity that he plays the game at. If he loses either, he's just a short DB that doesn't fit in our overall scheme.

-----Roach-----
Most posters here will let you know that I am no RW homer at all. What makes him different in this situation as opposed to ET though is: RW is not demanding a new contract. He's playing on his existing contract and that to me, makes all the difference in the world. When it is time to resign RW, I'll make a determination then as to whether it is a good thing or not.

[Aseahawkfan]

So it seems that most responders to my last post need to re-read my post. I'm not comparing ET to a RB, I said that the same reasons given for those guys are similar to the reasons for resigning ET. It is my opinion to let him walk because resigning him will be a big drain on the team's budget. Time will tell if I am right or not but the only two things that make ET special is his speed and verocity that he plays the game at. If he loses either, he's just a short DB that doesn't fit in our overall scheme.

-----Roach-----
Most posters here will let you know that I am no RW homer at all. What makes him different in this situation as opposed to ET though is: RW is not demanding a new contract. He's playing on his existing contract and that to me, makes all the difference in the world. When it is time to resign RW, I'll make a determination then as to whether it is a good thing or not.

Earl's instincts are great too. You can't use speed if you don't have instincts and football intelligence. In fact, for speed to be effective you have to have amazing instincts, otherwise speed is just a really fast way to take you in the wrong direction.

[HumanCockroach]

I wasn't saying they should be looking to dump either player to be clear, I'm saying I've heard things like he's to old, to expensive, they had more success with younger players yada, yada, yada... I'm really just attempting to illustrate the lunacy of talking about, much less encouraging the loss of a HOF player still in their prime over what amounts to one average football players salary.... basically a veteran retread DT or something of that nature( or two Brandon Marshalls)... we're discussing 3m dollars a year like it's Kirk Cousins contract.... smh

[idhawkman]

I wasn't saying they should be looking to dump either player to be clear, I'm saying I've heard things like he's to old, to expensive, they had more success with younger players yada, yada, yada... I'm really just attempting to illustrate the lunacy of talking about, much less encouraging the loss of a HOF player still in their prime over what amounts to one average football players salary.... basically a veteran retread DT or something of that nature( or two Brandon Marshalls)... we're discussing 3m dollars a year like it's Kirk Cousins contract.... smh

Look, we can attack each other's opinions and call them Lunacy but it doesn't change the fact that you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither is lunacy. It is just our opinions. You don't have to take it so personal just because someone doesn't agree with your position.

[Aseahawkfan]

Look, we can attack each other's opinions and call them Lunacy but it doesn't change the fact that you have your opinion and I have mine. Neither is lunacy. It is just our opinions. You don't have to take it so personal just because someone doesn't agree with your position.

We're Seahawks fans. The thought of a team you root for year after year after year getting worse is personal. You're basically wanting to make our team worse because you don't want to pay market value for one of the best safeties to ever wear a Seahawks uniform still in his prime with at least two to three more high quality years in the tank. Why would someone not question that? It's like people saying trade Russell if he asks for 30 million dollars like teams don't spend decades trying to find a talent like Russell Wilson, the best QB to ever wear the Seahawks uniform. How can anyone as a fan be happy to listen to such talk? It's such a lack of appreciation for talent that it is hard to understand.

This isn't fans wanting to hold onto some aged player that can't do the job any longer. This is fans rooting for a team with a Hall of Fame talent that is integral to our defense wanting to retain that talent.

I still remember you bagging on Earl again and again not long ago. I don't understand your lack of appreciation for Thomas's talent. Never have, never will. The guy was the cornerstone of the Legion of Boom. He inspired more fear in opposing QBs than any player on the team. He is the primary reason teams feared to throw deep on us. Sherm shut down half the field, Earl shut down the deep passes. All we had to defend was the side opposite Sherm and the short middle of the field. Those two allowed us to play with lesser talents opposite Sherm and in the nickel. Sherm is gone. Now there is just Earl to back up our DBs. And you want to toss that away? I don't get that at all.

[HumanCockroach]

Ok... that's fair ID, so I'll simply put it this way.... find me the 3m dollar player that improves that defense, and performs better, and is more crucial to it, and I'll listen.... otherwise, I'm sorry that imo it is lunacy to encourage getting rid of a 29 yr old, hof safety, generational talent, that is more important to the Seahawks success than ANY other player on the team ( perhaps available throughout the entirety of the NFL to be honest).

I don't understand that idea anymore than a fan who says Easley was overrated, or Jones was a scrub, or Largent had bad hands, or Kennedy was a wuss.... that's simply crazy talk to me, and the Earl is to old, or doesn't buy in ( the funk that even MEAN? Pro players don't buy in, ...it ain't Tripoli facing alien hoards, it's a business, always has been always will) or he's old because he's on a third contract, but others like Wilson, Wagner, Baldwin aren't because they are in their second, or they buy in, but Thomas doesn't? Huh?

I'm sorry if you think that's me attacking you bro, I honestly do, but my reaction to those statements, are genuine, just like they would be for ANYONE saying those things about the others mentioned.

Encouraging the dumping of a player of that caliber over 3m dollars is lunacy to me. That ain't a personal slight, it's my honesty opinion.

[NorthHawk]

If there wasn't a Salary Cap, I doubt there would be a discussion, but in the future years we are going to have to re-sign Wilson to probably $30+MM per year Cap hit and Wagner, too if he's still healthy along with Duane Brown, Frank Clark, and Jarran Reed. If we keep Wagner, the Cap hits for him and Wilson would be north of $40MM per year and adding in Thomas we will be looking at somewhere around $55MM for 3 players.
That's why this discussion is taking place and will take place again when Wagner's contract is up.
With Thomas, he is probably the best fit for Safety for our Defense, but in a depressed market for Safetys at the moment, and him getting older, how much do you pay him? Do you make him the highest paid S in the league when we are re-building knowing that in a year or two he's only got 2 or 3 years left, or do you move on now and try to get something for him? It's a real tough decision to make, but it has to be done. It's further complicated by his seeming desire to play for Dallas. If he becomes a FA, he may sign there for less than he's offered here.

[HumanCockroach]

Is this where I'm supposed to point out that Seattle's greatest success occurred when Wilson was a cheap third round QB that wasn't the focal point of the team? Or that he'll be older than Thomas is now?

The idea of resigning Brown makes me want to vomit, and Wagner will be then going into his third contract, shouldn't we just jettison him? Mlb careers are far shorter than free safeties...

If it's money y'all are concerned with, wouldn't the discussion be about trading Wilson? 30m buys a hell of a LOT more players than 13...

Ultimately, is Brown more vital than Thomas to team success? He a HOF LT? The answer pretty clear to me. He didn't even perform at the level of a third round draft pick sacrificed, WHY IN THE WORLD, would you advocate an old. Underperforming, mediocre talent like Brown, with bad footwork, balance and hand placement over a hof safety in his prime???

[NorthHawk]

QB's and Safeties are apples and oranges.
Teams can change their scheming for different types of players at S, but it's much more difficult at QB.
There a reason teams look for Franchise Quarterbacks and not Franchise Safeties and once teams find Franchise QBs, they hardly ever let them go before their skills erode.
Therefore, QB's get much more money. It's simply supply and demand and there's less demand for an All Pro Safety then there is for a Pro Bowl QB.

I mentioned Brown because the FO has stated they want to re-sign him. What you and I think about him is irrelevant and it's going to cost some big $$$.

[HumanCockroach]

We aren't the front office, they said the same about Thomas but here we are discussing getting rid of a HOF safety in his prime so they have money to resign a mediocre talent on the offensive line for the same amount of money ( or more).

I'm not advocating the trading of Wilson, I'm pointing out the hypocracy in saying we should trade the more valuable player because it will cost an extra 3m dollars to keep him, but we're good paying an extra 16m a year for the second best player on the team or the same amount fir the 15th best player in Brown ( truthfully that might be a little high).

There's a hypocracy in that thought process, I'm highlighting that. Age, means little to me, production means more, as does VALUE.... I wouldn't think anyone would WANT to dump good to amazing players based on nothing but hunches, hearsay and for the love of God, the sports media, but here wr are anyway.

[NorthHawk]

Like I said earlier, nobody WANTS to get rid of ET from a talent perspective, but the reality is its a consideration by our FO hence the discussion.
There are reasons to do so as explained by others and myself and it's a reality that it might happen via trade or maybe just let him play out the contract and make him an offer in FA. There are a number of possibilities as to how it turns out from doing nothing to signing him long term. I doubt they do the latter at signifcantly more than his current salary, but maybe we might see 2 more years at an enhanced salary, perhaps with more guaranteed, but not what he's asking.

We got into Cap hell last year after the signings of Sherman, Bennett, and Chancellor to long term extensions, and I doubt they want to revisit it soon.

[Aseahawkfan]

Like I said earlier, nobody WANTS to get rid of ET from a talent perspective, but the reality is its a consideration by our FO hence the discussion.
There are reasons to do so as explained by others and myself and it's a reality that it might happen via trade or maybe just let him play out the contract and make him an offer in FA. There are a number of possibilities as to how it turns out from doing nothing to signing him long term. I doubt they do the latter at signifcantly more than his current salary, but maybe we might see 2 more years at an enhanced salary, perhaps with more guaranteed, but not what he's asking.

We got into Cap hell last year after the signings of Sherman, Bennett, and Chancellor to long term extensions, and I doubt they want to revisit it soon.

The Chancellor extension was dumb and showed an emotional component that should not have been there. Pete Carroll was being soft and not very win forever with that signing. Sherm's was good signing before the injury. Bennett was cheap for his production. Not sure what the problem was with that signing. The only signing I vehemently disagreed with was the Kam extension. Strong safeties that can't cover are not worth that much money. Huge mistake.

But Earl I would muscle with the franchise tag to get a better price. There isn't any one else on the team worth franchising unless Russell loses his mind. At this point in Earl's career not signing and being franchised is more of a problem for him tha it is for the Seahawks.

[RiverDog]

Like I said earlier, nobody WANTS to get rid of ET from a talent perspective, but the reality is its a consideration by our FO hence the discussion.
There are reasons to do so as explained by others and myself and it's a reality that it might happen via trade or maybe just let him play out the contract and make him an offer in FA. There are a number of possibilities as to how it turns out from doing nothing to signing him long term. I doubt they do the latter at signifcantly more than his current salary, but maybe we might see 2 more years at an enhanced salary, perhaps with more guaranteed, but not what he's asking.

We got into Cap hell last year after the signings of Sherman, Bennett, and Chancellor to long term extensions, and I doubt they want to revisit it soon.

What's he asking?

[NorthHawk]

What's he asking?

From the reports I've read it's more than Eric Berry money which according to Spotrac has Cap hits of $13mm, $16.5mm, $13.5mm, $16mm, and $14mm.

[obiken]

From the reports I've read it's more than Eric Berry money which according to Spotrac has Cap hits of $13mm, $16.5mm, $13.5mm, $16mm, and $14mm.

Great, how in the hell are we going to afford that??

[RiverDog]

From the reports I've read (about Earl's contract demands) it's more than Eric Berry money which according to Spotrac has Cap hits of $13mm, $16.5mm, $13.5mm, $16mm, and $14mm.

I tried researching Earl's demands and couldn't find any information on what they are and would appreciate it if you could post the article where you're getting your information.

I wouldn't mind matching or going slightly above Berry's yearly amount so long as it's a shorter term, like 3-4 years. But I think that the real issue for the Hawks won't be money as much as it will be setting a precedent of rewarding a player for holding out while they're still under contract. Had they rewarded Kam with a new contract during his holdout it almost certainly would have led to Bennett holding out.

Since the Hawks are widely assumed to be in a rebuilding year and aren't expected to compete for the playoffs, they aren't under as much pressure to get Earl in the lineup as they would have been in past years. Therefore, I wouldn't expect them to cave in and will be content to wait him out.

[NorthHawk]

That was months ago so I don't know where the links are, however he was the highest paid Safety when he signed his current contract and it was said he wants to be so again.
The numbers come from when asked, he talked about Eric Berry's contract so we have a ballpark number and being the ultra competitive person, it's not inconceivable that he wants more.
Even if it's less than Berry, it won't be much less, so the $14mm to $15mm per year would be the range.

[idhawkman]

Great, how in the hell are we going to afford that??

Doesn't matter, he's a generational HOF first ballot player. /sarcasm

Money has to go around the whole team. DL and OL need some love in the money arena, too.

[RiverDog]

That was months ago so I don't know where the links are, however he was the highest paid Safety when he signed his current contract and it was said he wants to be so again.
The numbers come from when asked, he talked about Eric Berry's contract so we have a ballpark number and being the ultra competitive person, it's not inconceivable that he wants more.
Even if it's less than Berry, it won't be much less, so the $14mm to $15mm per year would be the range.

Fair enough, but I still think that we need to find out exactly what Earl's expectations are before we panic. If all he wants is Eric Berry money, they should be able to work something out.

And like I said, we might be debating a moot point as there's a good chance that the Hawks won't negotiate at all.

[HumanCockroach]

Recommend cutting the name that can't play mediocre football any longer, that costs the same amount of money that ETs asking for, whether they say they want to resign him or not, people seem to forget, that the player they are discussing, was replaced by a free agent undrafted player in Houston on a team with TONS OF CAP SPACE, they didn't need to dump him, they WANTED to... Seattle bit ( foolishly). The player in question never has been or will be the best offensive lineman' no matter how bad y'all want him to be, claiming they want to resign him doesn't mean squat except they don't want another holdout on a player they plan on using this year. A player by the way who held out for 8 wks just last year, of the regular season, from a team vying at the time for the playoffs, and wanted a raise in the neighborhood of the highest paid lineman in the game..... even IF you've fooled yourself into believing he's still remotely good,AND Seattle actually wants him, more than a stopgap ( vey doubtful in my mind based on his mediocre to below mediocre play last season) I know y'all can't be green enough to believe he's going to resign out of "loyalty" or "buying in" ......or some other such hyperbole for the same amount or less than they currently pay him....

Don't compound one enormous mistake ( the acquisition) with yet another one... that's how the dregs of the NFL operate...

[HumanCockroach]

Spare me ID, there's more players that can go to free up 3 to 4 million in cap space to retain Thomas. You know it, I know it, Seattle's front office knows it.....

For example... do you believe Byron Maxwell brings more to that defense that ET? It's not a Question of IF, any one claiming it is, doesn't understand football.

Here, I'll solve it... cut Brown... done.... don't sign Maxwell and Marshall... done.... don't resign Wright.... done... to infinity... pretending like there's simply "nothing that can be done" is bunk.

And if you don't think he's that ID, you can join the Largent has bad hands group, you obviously are incapable of evaluating defensive backs.

[idhawkman]

Spare me ID, there's more players that can go to free up 3 to 4 million in cap space to retain Thomas. You know it, I know it, Seattle's front office knows it.....

For example... do you believe Byron Maxwell brings more to that defense that ET? It's not a Question of IF, any one claiming it is, doesn't understand football.

Here, I'll solve it... cut Brown... done.... don't sign Maxwell and Marshall... done.... don't resign Wright.... done... to infinity... pretending like there's simply "nothing that can be done" is bunk.

And if you don't think he's that ID, you can join the Largent has bad hands group, you obviously are incapable of evaluating defensive backs.

I'm not buying your strawman examples of people who are NOT holding out. Spare me the drama.

[HumanCockroach]

That has what to do with anything? You want strawman.? You in this thread have given numerous unsubstantiated reasons to not resign Thomas, but ultimately, it boils down to you don't like the way he went about it. Could have saved yourself, and me a bunch of time by not making up reasons and just being straight forward to begin with. No mileage, or buying in, or silly untrue stuff, just you don't like players that holdout, so you don't want him resigned...Lmfao... ok, whatever.

Holdouts part of football, moving on...

[c_hawkbob]

Spare me ID, there's more players that can go to free up 3 to 4 million in cap space to retain Thomas. You know it, I know it, Seattle's front office knows it.....

For example... do you believe Byron Maxwell brings more to that defense that ET? It's not a Question of IF, any one claiming it is, doesn't understand football.

Here, I'll solve it... cut Brown... done.... don't sign Maxwell and Marshall... done.... don't resign Wright.... done... to infinity... pretending like there's simply "nothing that can be done" is bunk.

And if you don't think he's that ID, you can join the Largent has bad hands group, you obviously are incapable of evaluating defensive backs.

I'm not buying your strawman examples of people who are NOT holding out. Spare me the drama.

It would only be a straw man if the discussion were strictly about players that are holding out. That's not the case here. The thread's about Earl Thomas, His comparative value measured against other players, either at his own position or simply in relation to overall value to the team, are well within the parameters of the discussion at hand.

[idhawkman]

No, they are not relevant because their contracts are not in dispute at this time. When they become disputed by either expiration or by hold out then they will be comparable as to what the trade off are for their salary.