The (Unpopular) Argument for Not Signing Marshawn Lynch
I'm going to start here: I'm a good looking guy. Really. I am. Maybe not George Clooney good looking, but I'm ok. Just after college, however, I had a bit of a dry spell with the ladies. We're talking nine months of nothing. Then I met a girl (who I will refer to as Ashley, because that was her name) who changed everything. She was perfect. Attractive, outgoing, successful--you name it, she had it going for her. We dated for a short time, and my friends started asking me when I was going to pop the question. As I thought about it, I realized that I wasn't comparing her to my standard of who I wanted to end up with; I was comparing her to my past experiences. In other words, she stacked up nicely (read that in whatever sense you will) compared to 9 months of nothing, but when compared to other girls, she actually wasn't all that great.
The point? I think the Seahawks are me, and Marshawn Lynch is Ashley. He's great. Really, he is. He's fun to watch, he runs with ferocity, he makes it rain Skittles--he made it fun to be a Seahawks fan this year. But here's the thing: I just don't think he's the right one for us in the long-term. I think it would be a mistake to sign Lynch to a long-term deal.
First, I am concerned about his performance this year being a statistical anomaly. It is possible that Tom Cable's blocking scheme finally came together and the people in place clicked. It could be that Marshawn has matured and learned how to get the best out of himself. He posted career highs in carries, rushing yards, touchdowns, and yards per attempt. It stands to reason that these figures will fall next year, and come closer to his career averages. It is hard to remember back to the first four weeks of the season, but Lynch averaged about 35 yards per game over that span. Though it is possible that this is the start of something great, we must remember that he has logged 5 years in the NFL. How many running backs became great in their 5th year and then maintained that level of performance. I'm sure there's an example, but I can't think of one.
Related to this point is the contract year phenomenon, where a player performs at career high levels during his contract year, presumable because he tries harder due the potential financial rewards. This is admittedly less common in the NFL than other sports due to non-guaranteed contracts, but Marshawn should stand to gain ten to fifteen million in guaranteed money in a new deal. Brian Burke, of advancednflstats.com, did a profile of 28 mulit-million dollar free agent running backs who signed deals dating back to 2000. He found that, on average, these backs averaged .3 yards per attempt LESS than the previous year. There is plenty of recent anecdotal evidence of players regression after signing a big deal as well, from Sean Alexander locally to Chris Johnson this year.
Third, running backs have notoriously short NFL careers, at an average of 2.57 years (the shortest for any position). This is significant because if we sign Lynch and he flames out, we'll still have his guaranteed money counting against the cap for several years.
This is compounded by Marshawn's punishing running style. Yes, he pummels would-be tacklers. It's great fun to watch--but it also has to be taxing on his body. It stands to reason that he will wear down sooner than later.
Lastly, running back is the one position that can be filled adequately by early to mid round draft picks. Don't get me wrong, I'd love a top flight, bell cow type back (I realize that was Lynch this year. It was a great ride), it's just that there are many successful running backs that weren't first round picks.
So, what to do? Let him walk? Not exactly. My solution is to franchise him. The 2012 franchise tender for running backs is $7.7 million, down from $9.45 million last year. Franchising Lynch would serve a few purposes. It would give us time to find an adequate replacement. It would keep him motivated in the hopes of signing a long-term deal. It would give us a chance to see if this year was a fluke. Of course, it could backfire. He might not want to sign the tender and could hold out of camp. I doubt he would, since it would be an almost 300% pay increase.
I know this opinion is unpopular with the majority of fans, but the Seahawks have to do what's best for them long-term, and cap management is a huge part of that. I'd love to see another year of the Beast in Sea Town, but I'm wary of the effects of a long-term deal on our cap in the future.
The good news? I never even think about Ashley anymore. What I have now is so much better. Perhaps the same will be true of the Seahawks in a few years. Perhaps we sign Flynn and take the best player available with our first pick. And maybe, just maybe, that first pick is...Trent Richardson.
164 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well-written and enjoyable read.
Suggesting to franchise tag Marshawn was a curveball in your article I wasn’t expecting, and I agree- that is, if the Seahawks are going to use the tag this year, Marshawn is the guy they should use it on.
Too bad there is not a Franchise Tag for girlfriends...
“hey baby, let’s just be a couple for one more year. i’ll treat you as well as the average of the top 5 girls i’ve ever dated” probably wouldn’t fly.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Jan 12, 2012 7:57 AM PST reply actions 22 recs
If you really want to piss her off, merely use the Transition Tag.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Jan 12, 2012 2:05 PM PST up reply actions 13 recs
Which, of course, leaves open the possibility of some jerk muscling in to your relationship...
…by making her an offer with some sort of “poison pill.”
“If you agree to be my girlfriend this year, I will buy you TWO pieces of jewelry for every piece that your sister receives from her boyfriend” or something like that…
Outstanding
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." - Ernest Hemingway
by SKIRMISH on Jan 15, 2012 10:43 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
To be fair though,
Marshawn is not a 5th year wonder. He had success in his first two years, rushing for over 1k yards and making a pro bowl. His third years in the league he was suspended three games, and when he came back he was splitting carries with Fred Jackson, and in 2010, he was traded here in October.
One COULD (if they were an optimist) view this as a return to his actual level, not a sudden and unprecedented statistical outburst.
Also… Ashley. I’ve always liked that name.
by Tokyo Slim on Jan 12, 2012 8:00 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
Good point...
Especially when looking at total yards from scrimmage, rather than just rushing yards. His YPC his first two years were 4.0 and 4.1. Only 15 combined rushing TDs, but that could just as much be due to the shoddy play of the Bills. As far as splitting carries with Jackson, Jackson was a superior player behind the same line in ‘09, average 4.5 ypc to Marshawn’s 3.8.
I'm not saying he's a better RB than Jackson
Jackson got the chance to prove he was better because Marshawn was suspended. When Marshawn came back, it was a different situation than when he left and it impacted his statistics negatively. He went from being the workhorse back to being a change of pace back and that does not suit they style of his play. That’s all I’m saying.
Can't say I like the name
but then again, I’m probably stained by my experience with that neo-nazi religious herp derp crazy woman from Mass Effect….
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 12, 2012 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Well, she didn't HAVE to be with your crew all that long.
She wasn’t a part of mine very long, hahahah!
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
I picked up ME2 on the PS3 on a whim and set up my backstory where she lives.
Played ME and when it came time to chose I wasted that bitch.
"Tell my tale to those who ask. Tell it truly, the ill deeds along with the good and let me be judged accordingly. The rest is silence." ~ Dinobot
by beastwarking on Jan 13, 2012 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Hahah!
Nice effort on the 2nd go round.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Seahawks don't have much choice but to sign him.
He’s not a one year wonder, he’s always run this hard. And if it’s a result of Cable’s system + Lynch’s running style then so be it. It’s a good fit. That doesn’t even take into account that Lynch is the teams identity. He is the guy in the locker room.
And let’s figure the salary cap roughly. The seahawks are around 20 million under last I heard, and the total cap number is going up with the new TV contract at the same time as the salary “floor” kicks in after next season. So just going by memory and no real research (IOW google search) the seahawks are going to be OBLIGATED to spend about 20 million more after next season. And all the young guys and rookies on a wage scale means we have to give that money to veterans. And to be cap flexible teams are going to have to front load those contracts just to meet the floor.
If we don’t pay/reward our own in house guys and bring in FA’s and give them all that money we’ll end up like Philly with a broken locker room full of guys that resent the management as well as the new FA’s. Like DeSean Jackson who was promised to be paid but wasn’t, or Assante Samuel who ripped the GM for doing his job like a “fantasy football” player.
Pay Marshawn.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Jan 12, 2012 8:48 AM PST reply actions 7 recs
Agreed. Pay him. Pay that man his money.
There is no lack of effort in Beastmode, because big contract or not, thats HIS STYLE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jUBbCgMWmE
We’ll need to pick up a suitable back up/relief so he can continue to go stupid on defenses.
Pay him. Draft a project.
Get Okung and Carp and Moffitt healthy.
I trust Cable’s ZBS. As long as we’re getting the next guy comfortable in that system I’m all good with paying Lynch the big bucks.
8 Things:
- You make a couple of valid arguments in that there is a risk that Lynch doesn’t perform up to expectations because he did display a ferocity that I hadn’t seen from him in Seattle before and I think much more highly of him now than I did before, is it because of the contract year? There’s always risks to signing any player to a contract.
- It’s Shaun Alexander.
- Don’t compare him to Shaun Alexander. He was three years older than Marshawn when he re-signed and he had carried the ball between 295 times and 370 times in each of his previous 5 seasons. Lynch just carried the ball a career-high 285 times this past season.
- It’s been painful to watch this team the previous 5 seasons not have a running game and letting him go would feel similar to letting Steve Hutchinson go.
- It would be more cost efficient to pay him for what he is (a top 15-20 running back) than to pay him as a top 5 running back.
- His success can be somewhat attributed to Tom Cable which means it can be somewhat less attributed to being a contract year.
- Don’t expect to strike lightning in a bottle with a free agent running back or rookie running back, hoping he’ll perform as well as Marshawn, when you had the money and resources to just bring back Marshawn.
- Don’t let every bad thing that has ever happened to a running back contract deter you from ever taking another risk. RB’s last 2.57 years? Sure, every position in the NFL lasts a short time on average because playing at the pro’s is the hardest thing to do and 100’s of players are replaced every single season and many players last only a few games. Tell me what Pro Bowl level players average life span in the NFL is. How long Vai Tuau lasts shouldn’t apply to Marshawn Lynch. Chris Johnson performing below expectations shouldn’t apply to Marshawn Lynch. Let Lynch apply to Lynch and he’s got relative low mileage and is 25 years old, where you could reasonably expect him to play for 5 more years at a high level.
You’re assuming that the Seahawks are you and Lynch is Ashley when in reality, that metaphor doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. What player is ever going to be too good for his team or at the same level of his team? That’s like saying that you ARE George Clooney and that you can have any woman in the world. NFL teams are the top 32 “Hottest Guys” in the world, which means that only very elite players are ever going to be “too good for the team” and even then, I’m not sure any player is ever “too good for a team” because Peyton Manning is halfway out the door at Indy and Brett Favre/Green Bay was a terrible divorce. It’s not about Seattle “dating to their level” it’s about Seattle finding and retaining the best players possible and there’s no “better date” waiting behind door number two. Using the franchise tag on Lynch would not be a good idea, because then youre paying him like Chris Johnson, which as you pointed out, would be too much.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 12, 2012 10:20 AM PST reply actions 8 recs
NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world
NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world NFL teams are the top 32 "Hottest Guys" in the world
by jhmg16 on Jan 12, 2012 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
This comment was so odd, it might actually inspire nightmares.
It was that weird. Probably because I read the entire thing.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
by Nick Andron on Jan 12, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I did too. Kept searching for something else that was going to happen and didn't.
Not sure if that made it even more brilliant or even worse.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
My...brain.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
I'm scared
Seriously. I’m just a bit frightened.It’s right up there with “All work and no pay makes Lynch a dull boy.”
"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan
"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"
Wow! I lit a fire under Mr. Arthur!
by DeepHeat on Jan 12, 2012 5:49 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
No, I just thought it garnered a proper rebuttal.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 13, 2012 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
Heh, I think you mean warranted.
When you did the rebuttal, it had been garnered.
I think.
Shit.
Rebuttal
A. I am aware that Lynch and Alexander are different people, at different ages, and with different amounts of carries. By my rough math, one Beastly Lynch carry is equivalent to 5 Alexander pussyfoot runs.
B. It has been painful without a feature runner (just like my 9 dry months)…this is why I think, even though I love Marshawn, I question if he is the right one just because of one amazing run last year and 12 good games this year.
C. You’re assuming he’d take a long-term deal based on the 15th-20th best RB (which you admit he is). I think his agent will argue for top 10 RB pay. I think Deangelo Williams’s contract is a starting point and we’ll negotiate down (significantly) from there. This is the main reason I wrote the article.
D. If his success can be attributed to Tom Cable, then couldn’t other backs have similar success?
E. Fair point as to not expecting a rookie or free agent to replicate this season. Thing is, I don’t expect the man himself to replicate it.
F. Would you like bet an over under on 4.5 productive years out of Lynch? I’ll take the under.
G. Huh? The Ashley story was designed to show that we are head over heels for Lynch, myself included. I agree with you that he is the best option for NEXT year. My head tells me to be skeptical about if he is right guy to commit to long-term, though.
Thanks for the response—I’d be happy to continue the discussion.
by DeepHeat on Jan 12, 2012 6:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You're a very good writer and I'm very glad you're here, but it really seems like 100% of your analysis is based on gut feelings and wild speculation.
I don’t know how you expect anyone here to really engage with your opinions.
by jhmg16 on Jan 12, 2012 8:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks, I think :)
I’d say more like 50%, and I’d call it a gut call rather than wild speculation. You’re right in that I don’t have screen captures from a game and pretend that I know every players role on a given play and show what Lynch does or doesn’t do well. To be fair, though, the contract year phenomenon is real and must be considered when discussing Lynch. Also, it is fair to consider that as a bigger back with his style he is at a greater risk to wear down than most. Remember how fast Christian Okoye faded, or even Natrone Means. Now Lynch isn’t quite that large, but he runs with a similar toughness. Should we not consider the potential cap drawbacks of signing Lynch to a big deal? I thought I’d write the piece because it seems to me that most people think it’s a foregone conclusion that we will pay him, and I think we should at least swallow hard before doing so.
I don't think that the risk is as great as you think it is. I also find it low probability that Lynch will be worse than a 1000-yard, 4.0 YPC back for 3-4 more years.
The potential is there for greater success but I’d be satisfied with just that. I think that the last four years has probably set our bar low, but I also think you’re setting the bar too high. We don’t need an MVP, rushing-title back.. we just need a capable back and he’s the only one on the roster and one of the best in free agency. Unless we make an unbelievable move for one of the actual elite backs, I’ll take Marshawn instead.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 13, 2012 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks for the great read
One pointIi would like to make is that even though the average is 2.57 years, a big part of that is league perception.
The perception that running the ball is less valuable than passing.
the perception that feature backs are less appealing than platoons.
The perception that running backs take such a beating that they cant possibly sustain it.
On the other hand, id like to offer a different perspective. Most running backs are not that good. The really good ones, have pretty long careers.
That same shaun alexander had a 9 year career.
Jerome Bettis had a 13 year career (was anyone else a more violent runner?)
Walter Peyton 12 years
Frank Gore has a 7 + year career
Willis Megahee has had a 8 year career
Steven Jackson is heading into his 9th (has anyone else taken more punishment because his team sucked?)
Cedric Benson is heading into his 8th year.
There are not that many career ending injuries. Shaun Alexanders foot was weird.
Most backs only get a few years to prove they can play, if they are good they stay.
But most suck so they go home. Id venture to say Pass blocking is the major culprit in that.
Tailback is one of those positions where you literally have to have a lot of skills. You have to be durable to take 400-500 collisions a year (including blocking) You have to have Vision to see holes opening and to pick up blitzes. You have to be able to catch the ball. and you have to have a usefull running skill.
For example Forsett is a very good running back, but his running style doesnt match our offense. He isnt a bruiser, and he isnt a burner, he isnt a great reciever, he is simply really good at all of those, its hard to find a fatal flaw in his game, but he doesnt do any of those things, why is he still in the NFL? pass blocking.
You have to find a niche on a team, if a team doesnt need your niche, you are out of the league in a year or two.
Good point as to durability
But still, RBs fade fast. They can go from good to terrible in no time. I’m just weary of a long-term, 5 year deal with a big bonus.
by DeepHeat on Jan 12, 2012 5:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You can give a 5 year contract with out a lot of jeapordy, front load the guarenteed parts
Im sorry but we all know Shaun was all about “conserving himself”
He never fought for the extra yard and always shied from contact.
Marshawn doesnt. I think the main reason is competitiveness. Maybe im just feeling that cause of his style, but to me that is Marshawn. He is competetive, and i dont expect him to “milk” an injury or disappear, maybe decline. So if his gaurentees are in the first two years and the 3-5 years are non guarenteed, then it makes sense, because if he does decline, you cut him, or renegotiate. not a lot of bad can happen unless another freak accident occurs. Freak usually means “rare” so, play the numbers game and take a shot, maybe he is really good for another 5-7 years.
RB’s only started “rapid” declines recently.
Lets look at Seahawk backs only.
Sherman Smith 7 years
Morrice Morris- 7 years- still active
Curt Warner- 7 years
JL Williams- 8 years
Chris Warren- 11 years
Ricky Watters- 11 years
Shaun Alexander- 7 years
Marshawn has beat everyone else already in 2 years, he is now 8th on the all time seahawks rushers. somehow we keep premier backs healthy. with exception of Mo Morris, every one of those guys was a feature back.
I'd like to see a reexamination of Lynch's running style.
I’m not sure I would call it “punishing” as much as I would define it as “persistent”. He really doesn’t seek out contact. He tries to avoid it for the most part. After contact occurs, he keeps his balance, legs driving. Look at what he does after he gets through the line of scrimmage – a lot of jukes and moves. Cable’s system delivers the punishment, so it would occur no matter who was the RB.
Love your arguments, but no.
Re-sign him, draft a project. It’s a rich RB year, and we should be able to get a good to great RB in rounds 2 or 3.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
I'm good with this
A. For the right amount
B. No more than 3 years
If we like big and bruising, didn’t Terrence Ganaway (sp?) look good on the bowl, with speed too. It WAS the UW speed, but still.
by DeepHeat on Jan 12, 2012 5:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Couldn't think of a single RB who struggled for several years before coming into his own around year 5?
This scary looking guy did just that. 
So did this guy. 
Let’s not forget this one. Though I admit I mainly included the picture for… other reasons.
Those are just three players off the top of my head that improved significantly in their 4th/5th season from their earlier ones. Interestingly, like Marshawn, they all switched to a team that appreciated their talents more.
And that makes me wonder, how hot and how successful is Ashley today? Cause maybe while you thought you were George Clooney to her, she thought you were a little more George Wendt.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 4:08 PM PST reply actions 8 recs
Fun Fact: George Wendt is the uncle of Jason Sudeikis.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 12, 2012 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Whoa. Now that you say that, you can even see a little resemblance.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
With a mug like that, no wonder he's drinking.
by jhmg16 on Jan 12, 2012 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
You'll be here all week, and try the roast beef?
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
Fun fact: Woody Harrelson's father was on the grassy knoll.
He died in federal prison after he assassinated a federal judge. There is a nonzero chance he took a shot at JFK.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Wow.
Uhm… What is a “nonzero” chance?
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 1:41 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
He was there that day.
And he was a professional assassin. I don’t know. More than single digits.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Wow. That's pretty crazy-interesting.
I read somewhere some female actress’ mom is in prison for murder, but whomever the daughter is you’d never suspect. I can’t remember who though. Interesting where people come from and how they end up who they are later…
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
Fun Fact: Shelley Long is still a virgin.
Ok, I made that one up. But be honest, you could kind of see it, couldn’t you?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Not after her role in Money Pit, hahhah!
Walter: It’s a big house, we’ll divide it up! You stay in your half, I’ll stay in mine!
Anna: That is such a dumb idea. Sometimes it amazes me you ever passed the bar.
Walter: I’m sure it does, you’ve never passed a bar in you life.
Anna: You are so much less attractive when I’m sober.
Walter: Thank goodness it’s not that often.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
Very underrated Tom Hanks movie.
I’m in the floor!
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or fucking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. - Al Swearengen
I wish he'd do some good comedy again.
It’s been too long, and his timing is incredible.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
He'd be hard pressed to do any "comedy" that's not You've Got Mail.
Just more money and Oscars in the other movies.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 13, 2012 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
The world is crying out for Joe vs. the Volcano 2.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It really isn't.
Unless he throws Meg Ryan in the lava.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Jan 13, 2012 7:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Eh, I'm not sure those two prove the point you want them to.
Two bruising runners that hit the big round number target through quantity over quality.
Thomas Jones was absolutely considered a bust in Arizona.
Had a solid career once he left there. Not sure why that is a debate, unless it is just you taking the opposite side from me because of my anti-desean jackson bias.
Y/A by year
3.3 (AZ)
3.4
3.7
4.6 (Team change TB)
4.0 (Team change & full time starter status CHI)
4.3
4.1
3.6 (team change/still full time starter NYJ)
4.5
4.2
3.7 (team change/roll change KC)
3.1
Looks like a guy who got better and more impressive with full time carries both in Y/A and total yardage, and that doesn’t include the increased TD’s.
Besides, how are “two bruising runners that hit big round number target through quantity over quality” much different from Lynch, who is a bruising runner who appears better when he gets more quantity and turns it into quality— which is much like Jones and Benson???
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
Jones had a tough time cracking 4 yards a carry for most of his career.
He was a bust, had some decent years in Chicago and then had his below average play masked by getting enough carries to break the 1,000 yard mark.
They’re not different than Lynch. That’s the point.
I see.
I misunderstood you.
Still, there is much to be said for sturdy workhorse backs that you can rely on, who consistently pound the other team into submission, and play almost as well banged up at 80% as they do at 100%. On top of that, Lynch is a bit more explosive than TJ, and far more so than Cedric.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 8:24 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Jesus, Thomas Jones is beyond ripped.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Runs in the family.
Julius.

"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Meh, those arms are average.
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Jan 13, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Average. Julius Jones.
I see what you did there… hahah!
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I wanted so bad for JJ to be good.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Nice call on Jones and Benson
Those are definitely two examples. I happen to despise both RBs, but good call. Who is that third guy. More importanly, who is the girl?
by DeepHeat on Jan 12, 2012 5:40 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Seriously?
The guy is Reggie Bush, with a career year at Miami and his first 1000 yard season.
The girl is a little more famous. Kim kardashian (pretty sure I spelled it wrong, but pretty happy I don’t know the exact spelling.)
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 12, 2012 6:27 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
We'll see what the future holds, but I tentatively agree.
Though in his defense, New Orleans really wasn’t suited for his skillset at all.
I'm not sure it was entirely a fluke, but the changing of the guard could have a negative effect on him.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 13, 2012 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
Or a positive one? Maybe?
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
You did not want to know who the girl was....she's known as a Kardashian, but more importantly, she is a slut for hire
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 13, 2012 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
You do not want to bring Lynch back
But you want to waste our first round pick on Trent Richards. From what I have seen in Richards, he is like the Lynch we seen last year and early this year. He has a problem finding holes on cutbacks so if the hole is not were it is suppose to be the play is not going any were.
All we have to do is pay Lynch because he is already ours and he has proven to be able to learn from Cable to make better decisions about finding holes.
This is another issue, definitely.
We know what kind of a back Marshawn is, and we can get him without breaking the bank, then spend our 1st rounder on another need/area. We do NOT know what kind of a back in the NFL Trent Richardson is, though the assumption is he’ll be successful it is not a given.
RB is in fact, about the only position I absolutely do NOT want to see us spend 1st round draft capital on.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
If you franchise Marshawn now, you'll just have to pay more for him later.
As the whole Josh Brown ordeal has shown us, franchising a player to put off the inevitable long-term contract can lead to sour feelings; if Lynch produces just as well next season (or better) than he did this season, he’ll more than likely be asking for more money than he would demand this offseason, as well as being a year older to boot. And even if Lynch gets hurt or falls from prominence next season, it’s not like his contract will be 100% guaranteed or anything.
In the NFL today, long-term contracts are hardly long-term nor high risk. Carroll & Schneider were able to sign Sidney Rice and Zach Miller last year without breaking the bank, and I’m sure we can keep Beat Mode around without sacrificing any other piece to our “rebuilding mode” or whatever you want to call it.
Josh Brown is an idiot, and using him as a comparable isn't a good connection.
A kicker shouldn’t at all be concerned if they are franchised, they get top 5 money and play a position that is a long lasting one if you are effective in the NFL.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
I wasn't comparing the Josh Brown situation to the Marshawn Lynch situation, because there is no Lynch situation YET.
The Franchise Tag should be used if a team and a player are far apart on contract negotiations, and to prevent said player for bolting to another team. As implied in this post, to not even bother with contract negotiations and just slap the franchise tag on Lynch — because you’re unsure that Lynch can keep up the same level of production for another full season — would be an obvious slap to the face to Marshawn, and create ill feelings not unlike the Josh Brown situation (although we can’t repeatedly franchise Lynch like we did Brown).
Nowadays the Franchise Tag is more of extension device for contract talks, and most of the time the two parties agree on long-term contracts before training camp starts. It’s totally different from when we were tagging Brown and Walter Jones, which is why Carroll and Schneider WON’T use the tag just to get another year of Lynch.,
I don't like the Brown comparison either
I think Lynch is more like Walter Jones. Didn’t we franchise him like 3 years in a row? Lynch is a real football player, dare I say like Ricky Waters. A tough bastard who doesn’t care about anything except for punishing the guy who’s tackling him. Say what you will about his agressive style but I think you’re more likely sto stay healthy if you are the one doing the hitting rather than the one being hit.
by Billy Showbiz on Jan 13, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions
Mehh
Not a big fan of this idea. One thing Lynch brings to the team than not many do is his style of play that inspires others on the team. I’ve read countless times throughout the season of offensive linemen and FB Michael Robinson saying that they play harder because of how Lynch runs. And like Robinson said, some guys you just wouldn’t do that for. That’s what I love most about Lynch and see him as the spark for this offense for at least another 2-3 years. I say sign him for 4-5 years that’s top heavy in the contract. Who knows, he could be effective for all years. Like you said, he said he’s become more of a professional this year and a part of that, he said, is treating his body better by stretching more and putting more effort into recovery. Maybe he’s just getting started.
Then get a change-of-pace back this in this draft and another physical back this year or next year to sit behind Lynch and hope he can mirror that style of play for his career. It may be possible that Lynch slows down after he gets his contract, but I think the team will keep him motivated; another thing I’ve noticed about this team that I haven’t seen before is how accountable they hold each other for their play. It seems like every position group talks about how they push each other to be better and play hard for the guys they’re out there with (which I think is ultimately a result of Carroll’s coaching style).
Good point about the line playing harder for Lynch.
The line in years past has I think as much as admitted playing a bit softer with a weak backfield.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Interesting point, Aztec.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
You took the words right out of my head
and did a better job putting them down. Lynch inspires our offense. The guy is the heart of the offense. My feeling is that it took him some time to learn how to run in Cable’s scheme. Now that he has it down we finally have a tough running back for the next 3-5 years. The last 5 years have been brutal without a running game. I don’t subscribe to the notion that running backs are a dime a dozen. Some of them are really good and Lynch is one of them. If this team has proved anything over the last five years it is that we can not get by with an average rusher.
by Billy Showbiz on Jan 13, 2012 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting read
I really enjoyed it. I’ve had an “Ashley” before.
I am an advocate for signing Lynch, but to a 3 year deal with a 4th year option, but that’s just me. I would also love for the Hawks to draft someone in the near future to take over for Force.
by Neonjerseysplease on Jan 13, 2012 1:51 AM PST reply actions
I just saw Ashley
Turns out that after she dumped you, she moved on to a better man. She started working out and pumping iron. Now she can run the 40 in under 5 seconds while carrying a man (or two) on her back. She also got a great new job in an investment firm and makes 5 million a year when she hits her bonuses.
She wants me to tell you that she loved you at the time, but when you didn’t respect her or come up with the kaching, she had to move on to a better man.
by AlaskaHawk on Jan 13, 2012 10:18 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
The 3 years of little productivity scares me, and I watched enough of him last season to still be wary of him as a man that can carry team.
That said, he’s a young, experienced back with some success in the league. Long as the price isn’t too high, get him. Backload a longer deal and run him to the ground.
The thing that gives me hope is that he seems like a different player this year.
There was talk of him losing weight during the season and I’m inclined to believe that helped him. He looked slimmer and I think it helped him get quicker. He was much better in the second half of the season seeing and getting to cut back lanes. It’s possible he doesn’t keep himself in shape if he gets a big pay day, but you can’t fluke your way into being quicker.
Pay the man
The offense has talent at every position except QB. By not signing Lynch we singlehandedly added another need to delay getting a QB, or DE, or LB, and thus drafting Richardson is an unacceptable idea.
I like your analogies, though. Good effort!
Read my tweets or whatever - @SSReporters
by SSreporters on Jan 13, 2012 11:16 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
If it was another RB, no
But the way he plays warrants a real contract. He is the heart and soul of the offense, and the line loves to block for him because they know he will fight for every last inch. His style is not conducive to a long career, but at 25, he has at least 3 solid years left in him.
I definitely agree that RBs are largely replaceable these days, but Marshawn is the gold-toothed exception. He is the perfect embodiment of smashmouth football, and a guy who will put butts in the seats. Short of drafting a top-10 RB, I cant imagine another back who will have his level of success, which will be quite mandatory given our suspect passing offense.
Running backs are how important?
Here are the last 10 Super Bowl winners and their running backs: 2001- Pats (Antowain Smith); 2002- Bucs (Michael Pittman); 2003- Pats (Kevin Faulk); 2004- Pats (Corey Dillon); 2005- Steelers (Willie Parker); 2006- Colts (Joseph Addai); 2007- Giants (Brandon Jacobs); 2008- Steelers (Willie Parker); 2009- Saints (Pierre Thomas); 2010- Packers (Brandon Jackson). Do any of those guys strike fear into your heart?"
Email on Simmons mail bag pointed this out, I think it succinctly illustrates the value of a single RB.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Take "Fast" Willie Parker's breakthrough run and we win that Super Bowl.
However, let’s not forget that only the Bucs didn’t have an elite QB, all the other teams did. If you don’t have an elite QB, neglecting RB because SB champs don’t have great running backs seems faulty logic. Best to use the back, hope we can develop the D and get the QB.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 13, 2012 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
The 2005 Steelers rode their run game all the way to the big game
They were 1st in rushing attempts and 32nd in passing attempts (but #2 in NY/A) that year.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 13, 2012 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
The argument isn't whether to be pass oriented or run oriented.
…I didn’t think I needed to add that clarification here.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
First of all, I'd like to hear of a defender who doesn't fear 6'4 260lb Brandon Jacobs running at them with a full head of steam
And for that matter, Corey Dillon had a career year with the Pats in 04 and had he not been with the lowly Bengals most of his career I think he would’ve been more “feared”. I think you’re looking at everything very narrowly though. Just because those teams didn’t have the best RB in the league doesn’t mean it would help if they had one. And for that matter, most of the teams they beat IN the Super Bowl didn’t have as good of a rushing attack as the teams that won it. This may be a passing league, but balance is still a necessity. The greatest offense I’ve ever watched in my life were the “Greatest Show on Turf” Rams. Not only did they have a stellar passing attack but the most electrifying RB in the league in Marshall Faulk.
And until the Seahawks get a QB as capable as those that have won the past SBs (except maybe the Bucs) it would probably be a good idea to sign your best offensive player. In other words, until the Seahawks get a great QB (which I don’t think people understand how difficult that really is, especially with every situation we’ve been in) you’ve got to find another way to score points. Why not do that with the most violent RB in the league that makes everyone around him play better?
by SeattleAztec on Jan 13, 2012 7:24 PM PST up reply actions
You mean the electrifying RB that was also the best WR in the league that year?
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 8:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The NFL has a hard cap.
You don’t get to pay everybody. RB’s are one of the fungible positions.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 8:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Best WR in the LEAGUE? He wasn't even the best on his team TEAM with Bruce and Holt.
The Hawks are $20 million under the cap and there’ a cap FLOOR being implemented for the first time this season. The money needs to go somewhere and it’s not going to any of the young stars who are under rookie contracts. Who would you want to pay instead? TJack?
by SeattleAztec on Jan 14, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
Well Smith (2001) and Pittman (2002)...
…arguably could have won MVP in each of their respective Super Bowls, Smith (18-92) was the cog that allowed the Pats to run clock against the Rams and Pittman (29-124) gashed the Raiders all day behind what was widely considered a joke of an offensive line.
Players are more than yearly statistics, or are we already too far removed from THIS?
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
The fact they played well is irrelevant.
The point is how much were their respective teams investing in them financially and using them in the offense all year long.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 8:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
New England felt Smith's loss...
Until he was replaced by Dillon.
I’m not going to go through every guy (Thomas Jones was missed in Chi-town until they drafted Forte) – some teams miss their guys more than others and it has more to do with that team’s individual depth, I think – but I also think there’s evidence on both sides that very good RBs are not like store brand cereal that can replace the good stuff without a noticeable loss of production that needs to be made up one way or another.
Buffalo – for all their failures – could afford the loss of Lynch because they had Jackson. The Seahawks have no such luxury.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
The cog that ran the clock so well the Rams came back and the Pats needed a last second field goal drive to win the game?
Antowain Smith. You are defending Antowain Smith.
Antowain Smith. Listen to yourself.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 13, 2012 9:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
you want to send a message to the team that good work will be rewarded .
Not that you’re a bunch of money grubbin’ weasels that really only care about the bottom line.
...thought the Jets...
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 13, 2012 3:33 PM PST up reply actions
Sanchez is a good QB, thought the Jets.
That was the real issue.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 7:57 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
not as far as I can tell from the reports coming out of NY
locker room is a shitfest, and that translates on to the field
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 13, 2012 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
Really it's not if you're trying to build a dynasty
If you’re trying to build something special, it starts at the top with decisions made by the front office. If you have a front office that pays its top players what they’re due, your good players will naturally want to stick around and play for you. You sorta need that if you want sustained success.
by SeattleAztec on Jan 13, 2012 7:06 PM PST up reply actions
Good read
I didn’t want to read this piece, because I thought there is no way we’d move backward and HAVE to look for a RB again… I still think resigning Lynch is the ‘best’ option hands down no doubt about it.. I mean the man causes earthquakes and makes it rain Skittles!
This does give some insite though and a direction if Lynch decides to go elsewhere on his own. If that is the case and he does go… isn’t Matt Forte a FA?
Lynch needs a ‘good’ change of pace back and Forsett is not it (although he’s best buddies with Lynch so that might have some influance), Washington’s own Chris Polk in 2nd round is my hope.
How would Polk be a change of pace?
Even if he was, we aren’t going to resign Lynch and draft a RB that high. Are you guys not watching the passing records falling left and right?
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 7:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
What do passing records falling have to do with the Seahawks?
We can’t do that and we won’t be doing that in the next year or so because we don’t have a QB capable.
We should be working towards a D that can stop it, both by putting those QBs on their butts and defending the pass.
We can build a effective run game until then and still be able to compete with those teams.
We might not be a dynasty until we get a better QB, but in a league shifting to primarily defend the pass, you can run and win.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
by stufr on Jan 14, 2012 4:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
As we speak, 3 of the 4 remaining teams are "Defense first" type teams.
Admittedly though, the Giants have quite a potent offense, an upper tier QB and a top tier WR combo. But still, their biggest strength as a whole unit is that defensive line, which might be the best group in the league.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 17, 2012 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
The Giants defense has been pretty bad this year.
A lot of that is because of injury, but they were the 20th ranked defense by DVOA and 25th in points/game. They’re an offense first team.
They're reasonably healthy now.
This is an example of stats not just lying, by lying their asses off. Any team that has a “nascar” package that can line up 5 starter quality DEs to get after the QB is a defense first oriented team. They started off the season getting their secondary wiped out and then went through a rash of injuries to their front 5.
The offense may have carried them while the D got by but that doesn’t change the mindset of the whole organization. If you look at their payroll and their draft picks they are clearly a D oriented team.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
The stats aren't lying.
The Giants defense was bad. They were bad because of injuries, as I said, but they were ultimately bad.
Are they bad now? That's hazbro's point and mine.
I've put away the whiskey and the chainsaw and gone responsible. I'd like to say "Danny Kelly made me do it!" but that would be a lie. I chose to shave, put on a suit and tie and pretend I'm more important than I really am...
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 18, 2012 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
No.
But when you say that 3 of 4 teams in the playoffs are defense first you’re not painting a very complete picture. 2 of the 4 teams left got to where they are based on offense.
How they managed to get where they are,
over the course of the season doesn’t change their identity. Their offense played very good, and Eli looks like he is elite now so they might be more balanced on paper. But they are defensive oriented team.
Since 2005 11 out 14 of their first two picks in the draft have been defensive players. Hakeem Nicks, Steve Smith, and Sinorice Moss are the only offensive players they’ve taken in the first two rounds in that time.
And they won the game vs. the Packers by shutting down the Packers (with a little help from the Packers).
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
That's great, but the 2011 Giants made the playoffs on the back of their offense.
Their overarching team identity is defense, but the 2011 Giants’ defense sucked while their quarterback threw for 5,000 yards.
And if they win the Super Bowl it will be because of their D getting healthy at the right time.
We’ve just pointed out that one season full of of injuries doesn’t change who they are, while you said they were an offense first team.
We’re just splitting hairs at this point tho.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
The Rams had the Nascar package too
In fact, Spags invented it. Doesn’t tell you much.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 24, 2012 5:31 AM PST up reply actions
Tells me they hired a D coordinator to be their head coach.
That makes them D oriented in my book. That, and there’s a difference between having a package and having the personnel to pull it off (that’s a big investment). Hence the “5 starter quality DEs” part. Or pro bowl caliber across all 5.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Actually, to add to your point
There have been plenty of bottom third offenses to make the superbowl, but no defense as bad as the Patriots has ever been to the superbowl. I’m digging to find the ref, but might just have to dig it all up myself. When you get into it you see that the top offensive teams are very rarely the superbowl winner, but the top D teams are.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Are YOU not watching what PC has said about this team?
First, you need to get off the notion that the Seahawks are a pass-first team or will be soon. PC has said he wants the offense to have balance. That means we need a great running game to go along with a passing game (when we finally get one). To go out there and try to just put together a stellar passing attack quickly just isn’t feasible until the right QB comes our way. And until we do get one, our running game IS the offense.
by SeattleAztec on Jan 14, 2012 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
What was really nice about this piece...
…is that it presented a controversial idea backed up by a decent argument, something sure to provide (provoke) and excellent discussion (and it did).
For my 2 cents, I’d say that given PC’s emphasis on establishing a running game, the last thing he wants to do is allow a key piece to walk. Supporting this point was his calling out the need to take care of their players first.
Secondly, while it may take longer than the rest of us are comfortable with, I doubt JS overpays. Lynch will get what he has earned, I predict, but not a lot more. Witness Mebane.
And he has earned it, and that is a major factor. He has worked hard, been effective, and most of us believe he can continue his effectiveness for some time.
Finally, Lynch isn’t going to want to go anywhere – he has found a home and a team and a fanbase that appreciates him. With some skittles and a new contract, what’s not to love?
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
You could also add Hasslebeck and Marshall to the list of players that JS didn't overpay for, when many fans might have.
One last thing: as much as I believe Lynch a key factor in successfully running the ball, I would love to see Washington featured more. As recently witnessed, he has the ability to break really long runs, and not by going through every member of the defense (a la Lynch) but by virtue of his speed.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
It is an absolute neccessity that Seattle resigns Lynch this offseason, and not because of his individual talent
That is not to say that he isn’t an talented RB, but, in this unusual case, it doesn’t even matter. By saying that, I mean that I don’t think we’ve seen enough out of Lynch to say that he’ll be successful for the next 3-5 years. When you look at the effect that he had on this team through the last 8-12 games of the season and you combine that with the facts – 1) Seattle has the cap space, 2) his price stands to go up if we franchise him and he has success next year (very likely imo), and 3) Seattle has nothing at RB without Lynch – it is unreasonable to suggest not resigning Lynch to a 3-5 year deal.
A 5 year, $40 million dollar deal that is front-loaded really would not handicap this team at any point, even if Lynch started to regress sooner rather than later.
by GasolineSnuggie on Jan 13, 2012 5:34 PM PST reply actions
Front loaded?
So 10 million for Lynch year one. Your paying him like he’s the best at his position in an era where the run and pass are equally valuable.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 7:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
But this team, arguably, for the next two ish years is going to lean towards 'balance' and 'run first' because of the QB situation
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 13, 2012 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
That's a valid point, BUT
For all intents and purposes, the salary cap for the Seahawks gets much more important starting in 2013 (the floor kicks in in 2013, and I believe there is a higher floor that kicks in another year, so you need to be spending more efficiently from 2013 onward – more efficiently than spending without a floor anyway). With the cap space available now, Seattle should take advantage of it.
Realistically, I see Seattle and Lynch agreeing to something along the lines of a 4 year, $36 million deal with 10-15 guaranteed. If said contract included a guarantee for the first year (let’s say $10 million) and a guarantee of $5 million for the second, in a 10-8-8-8 deal, then the team would not take a meaningful hit if Lynch completely flopped.
by GasolineSnuggie on Jan 14, 2012 1:13 AM PST up reply actions
Speaking of Thomas Jones-
A lot of jets players were really upset when Jones left for KC. He was an established leader in the locker room. The Jets are a mess right now, and a lot of that is being attributed to a loss of veteran leadership.
The Hawks are in a really good place right now, lots of positive energy. I really do not know what Lynch brings to the locker room in terms of leadership, but he is definitely a central part of making the team a fun and positive place to go to work. He’s creating a little sideshow gig in a positive way without acting like a buffoon, a la TO or Ocho-whacko. He’s keeping the game exciting, and that sells tickets.
Now, I do not believe that this in itself is ever reason to keep a guy, but it is a something to consider in your overall management of the team. I just think the team chemistry is really good right now, and if you are going to mess with that, the guy you bring in to replace someone like Lynch had better be dang good.
I'm sorry but this intangible stuff is just bullshit.
The jets are a mess because they have a shitty QB. If Sanchez wasn’t a horrible QB they’d be winning, and everything would be fine.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 13, 2012 7:47 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Could not disagree more.
If you worked with a bunch of prima donna, me first ass holes, and no level headed people to balance it out… Would you be a happy and productive employee?
by Aaron Crowley on Jan 13, 2012 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
Remind me never to hire you as my GM.
I’d only have to fire you three years later.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
No, it's not, look at SF
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 13, 2012 8:01 PM PST up reply actions
SF got a better coach, they improved their scheme immensely with Harbaugh.
Singletary was was the intangibles guy.
It's not bullshit. It's just not quantifiable.
HUGE difference.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 17, 2012 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Lynch might be less critical if we had anything close to him backing him up.
But we don’t. So RB is a need even if we sign Lynch.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Jan 13, 2012 7:59 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
This thread has so much green in it I wouldn't be surprised if the cops stopped by.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Sounds like you were hunting for your own green.
Am I right? (Meet me at the deli-mart in an hour.)
by brugg on Jan 14, 2012 9:24 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Sign then trade up for QB
Not sure about the contractual mechanics of this but is it possible to sign Lynch before the draft with a view of him being the makeweight in a trade up up for Luck or Griffin scenario?
I like Lynch and he has played srtong this season behind an evolving line but my thinking is that with a stud QB and a versitile O Line we could open up the game and guys like Washington could thrive.
I dont buy the Game Manager talk from PC, I think that is designed to take the heat away from TJac but I think that this options is worth considering.
If not I am happy to welcome Lynch back with open arms.
RBs are not that valuable
Teams don’t use first round picks on them much anymore. Nearly every year someone finds Lynch level of production second round or later and for a really cheap contract. They ride them for a couple of years and do it over again.
He is valuable to us because he committed himself to learning our system. He isn’t valuable enough to matter, especially if his contract is more than 2 mil a year or so.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Teams don't use EARLY 1st round picks on them very often.
Only Ingrahm went in the 1st round last year (1.28, 2011), but it wasn’t a great year for running backs.
2010 (3) – 1.9, CJ Spiller, 1.12 Ryan Matthews, 1.30 Jahvid Best.
2009 (3) – 1.12 Knowshon Moreno, 1.27 Donald Brown, 1.31 Beanie Wells.
2008 (5) – 1.4 Darren McFadden, 1.13 Jonathon Stewart, 1.22 Felix Jones, 1.23 Rashard Mendenhall, 1.24 Chris Johnson.
I don’t think “teams don’t use first round draft picks on them anymore” so much as "there haven’t been many ‘great backs’ recently that deserved high 1st round draft status. You can see as many misses as hits in the RB’s drafted in the first round the past 4 years, but people are still drafting people they find to be difference makers at RB. They just don’t happen to be correct as often as they would like.
However, my guess is if you did the same simple research I just did on 4 years of running backs say 10 or 20 years ago, you would find similar assessments and numbers of 1st round RB’s.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 17, 2012 7:31 PM PST up reply actions
i think NFL FOs are as bad at identifying RB talent as QB talent
in retrospect, is there any doubt that DeMarco Murray should’ve been drafted before Ingram?
He is faster, more elusive, and runs with just as much power. In the open field Murray is elite in the NFL (and was the best in college in 2010), and Ingram was only a middling open field runner in college. Put Murray on the Saints instead of Ingram and it would be scary…
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Well done DeepHeat, interesting take.
Also – your article got linked by ProFootballTalk, so that’s sweet, I think.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/14/saturday-morrning-one-liners/
by Danny Kelly on Jan 14, 2012 12:38 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Cool, they've been linking to us a few times recently
Nice
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 14, 2012 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
Good read on Marshawn DH, not sure I like the analogy though
Sounded a bit like you live your life through a well-thumbed copy of “The Game”, which is rather unfortunate. To say the least.
I beliebe Trent Richardson is special.
by B0w1-of-R1ce on Jan 15, 2012 12:10 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Ah, the mobile
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 15, 2012 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
RBOTF
Agreed we should franchise Lynch for one year. Next year go for Montee Ball from Winconsin. He is a tough up the middle rusher, will be a very effective rusher at pro level. Ball has more upside than Polk in my opinion. Not likely Lynch will be any good in 2+years, that the nature if the business.
by Derian Johnston on Jan 20, 2012 9:43 PM PST reply actions

by 



































