HumanCockroach wrote: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 wrote:
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.
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
idhawkman wrote: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?
obiken wrote: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 wrote: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.
idhawkman wrote: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.
HumanCockroach wrote: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 wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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?
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.
NorthHawk wrote:
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.
obiken wrote:
Great, how in the hell are we going to afford that??
NorthHawk wrote: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.
HumanCockroach wrote: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.
HumanCockroach wrote: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 wrote:I'm not buying your strawman examples of people who are NOT holding out. Spare me the drama.
Users browsing this forum: River_Dog and 9 guests