"Holdout" news of Earl Thomas

[hawk45]

Don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't think it's even remotely the same thing.

Think about it this way, someone says "They think I'm worth 10 million a year and I think I'm worth 15 million a year, ..."

Then either branch out to:

#1: "...I want the 15 million a year because I think I'm worth that and at the end of the day me and my family come first."

#2: "...I want the 15 million a year because 10 million a year isn't enough for my children to be able to eat."


#1 is an incredibly logical end to that sentence. We can dislike it or like it, but it makes sense.

#2 is an incredibly stupid end to that sentence that is worthy of ridicule.

Seriously, they're not even remotely the same thing, and pretending that they are (or even worse, pretending that he said #2 when he said #1) is, IMO, really unfair to him.

"Me and my family come first" <> "I have to protect my family" IMO. The former is easily interpreted as a desire to maximize income for his family and is disconnected from any notion that his family is in jeopardy. The latter is quite firmly suggestive that there is some jeopardy to his family if his pile of gold isn't as large as it could be.

The implicit jeopardy is what people react to negatively. Both the "feed" formulation and the "protect" formulation center on jeopardy.

I think you framed the "protect" statement in a way more friendly to your argument, but IMO the court should uphold a ruling of semantics here

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Yes, Belichick might be one who would do it differently, but Belichick also has the ability to remake his team on both sides of the ball seemingly overnight to fit next week's opponent. He seems to have the ability with Brady to win with or without a dominant defense. I don't believe that Pete can win without a top-tier defense, and I don't believe Pete wants to win without a top-tier defense. So we'd have to believe that Pete either doesn't think Earl plays a pivotal role, or that Pete is completely swayed by Earl's injury history..

Maybe I'm in the minority now, but I still think Pete and John could build another championship defense like Belichick reloads year after year.

Pete's a defensive genius, and his system has worked for going on 30 years in college and the pros, no reason to think he couldn't reload given the right players and get back to dominating on defense.

IMO the downfall of the defense has been paying aging vets with massive new contracts INSTEAD of trading them at their max value and reloading through the draft.

This is the main reason I think we need to trade Earl if we can get a bundle of picks, so we don't continue down the same ineffective road to trying to rebuild. Maybe Earl would stay healthy, but his style of play vs injury history tells me he's not going to be able to stay healthy and be worthy of 15M+ a year for the next 4-5 years.

 

[hawk45]

Pete's a defensive genius, and his system has worked for going on 30 years in college and the pros, no reason to think he couldn't reload given the right players and get back to dominating on defense.

IMO the downfall of the defense has been paying aging vets with massive new contracts INSTEAD of trading them at their max value and reloading through the draft.

This is the main reason I think we need to trade Earl if we can get a bundle of picks, so we don't continue down the same ineffective road to trying to rebuild. Maybe Earl would stay healthy, but his style of play vs injury history tells me he's not going to be able to stay healthy and be worthy of 15M+ a year for the next 4-5 years.

Pete's a defensive genius, but of a much different flavor than Belichick.

Belichick is a schematic chameleon, and that type of genius lends itself towards players being fungible.

Pete has a very specific style of play he is after on both sides of the ball. He is much more inflexible. Pete relies on being able to find players to fit his style. We are on the leading edge here of putting to the test whether he can replace his cornerstone players. Earl is arguable the very best defensive player at a very important position, and he was acquired in the first place with a high first in a draft where an Earl Thomas happened to be available.

I think an aging defense has played a part in a declining defense, but I don't agree Earl can be lumped in with Kam, Bennett, and Avril. And I'm not certain Sherm can either. Those two players I think the calculus is much different in terms of being able to offset their loss with a couple of draft picks.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Yes, Belichick might be one who would do it differently, but Belichick also has the ability to remake his team on both sides of the ball seemingly overnight to fit next week's opponent. He seems to have the ability with Brady to win with or without a dominant defense. I don't believe that Pete can win without a top-tier defense, and I don't believe Pete wants to win without a top-tier defense. So we'd have to believe that Pete either doesn't think Earl plays a pivotal role, or that Pete is completely swayed by Earl's injury history..

Maybe I'm in the minority now, but I still think Pete and John could build another championship defense like Belichick reloads year after year.

Pete's a defensive genius, and his system has worked for going on 30 years in college and the pros, no reason to think he couldn't reload given the right players and get back to dominating on defense.

IMO the downfall of the defense has been paying aging vets with massive new contracts INSTEAD of trading them at their max value and reloading through the draft.

This is the main reason I think we need to trade Earl if we can get a bundle of picks, so we don't continue down the same ineffective road to trying to rebuild. Maybe Earl would stay healthy, but his style of play vs injury history tells me he's not going to be able to stay healthy and be worthy of 15M+ a year for the next 4-5 years.

Agree with all of this, with one exception, I think high character vets who will add value beyond what they bring to the field and contribute to a winning culture should be kept (Teddy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison).

 

[semiahmoo]

Earl is not "in his prime."

He's pushing up on 30. For an NFL safety that's firmly middle-aged. Add to that he has some hard miles/hits on that frame of his and he's likely looking at a few more seasons at best if he can avoid serious injury - compounded by diminished ability.

They all know this. If an NFL player moves past 30 still able to produce at a high level that's a truly special breed of athlete for that sport. He's going to try and get some $$$ on a 3-year deal for a team that gives him a credible shot at a SB.

He doesn't feel that is the Seahawks.

Sadly, he's probably right.

 

[hawk45]

Yes, Belichick might be one who would do it differently, but Belichick also has the ability to remake his team on both sides of the ball seemingly overnight to fit next week's opponent. He seems to have the ability with Brady to win with or without a dominant defense. I don't believe that Pete can win without a top-tier defense, and I don't believe Pete wants to win without a top-tier defense. So we'd have to believe that Pete either doesn't think Earl plays a pivotal role, or that Pete is completely swayed by Earl's injury history..

Maybe I'm in the minority now, but I still think Pete and John could build another championship defense like Belichick reloads year after year.

Pete's a defensive genius, and his system has worked for going on 30 years in college and the pros, no reason to think he couldn't reload given the right players and get back to dominating on defense.

IMO the downfall of the defense has been paying aging vets with massive new contracts INSTEAD of trading them at their max value and reloading through the draft.

This is the main reason I think we need to trade Earl if we can get a bundle of picks, so we don't continue down the same ineffective road to trying to rebuild. Maybe Earl would stay healthy, but his style of play vs injury history tells me he's not going to be able to stay healthy and be worthy of 15M+ a year for the next 4-5 years.

Agree with all of this, with one exception, I think high character vets who will add value beyond what they bring to the field and contribute to a winning culture should be kept (Teddy Bruschi, Rodney Harrison).

Ooh, this I actually disagree with and would fully support jettisoning the player.

With respect to creating a culture and attitude on defense it's my opinion Pete matches Belichick in that he is able to do this regardless of players (at last when he drafts them and doesn't trade for a Cary Williams). Although I will agree that since we're still on the first wave of core players this hasn't been tested exhaustively.

Unless we count Red Bryant? Do we count Red?

 

[Sun Tzu]

Pete's a defensive genius, and his system has worked for going on 30 years in college and the pros, no reason to think he couldn't reload given the right players and get back to dominating on defense.

IMO the downfall of the defense has been paying aging vets with massive new contracts INSTEAD of trading them at their max value and reloading through the draft.

This is the main reason I think we need to trade Earl if we can get a bundle of picks, so we don't continue down the same ineffective road to trying to rebuild. Maybe Earl would stay healthy, but his style of play vs injury history tells me he's not going to be able to stay healthy and be worthy of 15M+ a year for the next 4-5 years.

Pete's a defensive genius, but of a much different flavor than Belichick.

Belichick is a schematic chameleon, and that type of genius lends itself towards players being fungible.

Pete has a very specific style of play he is after on both sides of the ball. He is much more inflexible. Pete relies on being able to find players to fit his style. We are on the leading edge here of putting to the test whether he can replace his cornerstone players. Earl is arguable the very best defensive player at a very important position, and he was acquired in the first place with a high first in a draft where an Earl Thomas happened to be available.

I think an aging defense has played a part in a declining defense, but I don't agree Earl can be lumped in with Kam, Bennett, and Avril. And I'm not certain Sherm can either. Those two players I think the calculus is much different in terms of being able to offset their loss with a couple of draft picks.

The notion that Pete is inflexible in his defensive scheme is a myth. He has continuously adapted to his personnel. He has found ways to adjust his scheme to take advantage of hybrid or tweener players. Belichick's changes have been less frequent and larger; therefore, the average fan is able to see the change. Pete's changes are continuous and much more subtle; therefore, the average fan doesn't realize the change has been made.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think an aging defense has played a part in a declining defense, but I don't agree Earl can be lumped in with Kam, Bennett, and Avril. And I'm not certain Sherm can either. Those two players I think the calculus is much different in terms of being able to offset their loss with a couple of draft picks.

Not yet he isn't, but he's on his way with his injury history.

I guess my point is, if we're rebuilding/reloading? Then lets do it right................enough already of hanging out in this go for broke trading draft picks hanging onto aging vets hoping they stay healthy and regain their form AND paying them a ridiculous salary eating up vital cap space.

Which is what we've been doing the past 3 years. If it takes a year or two to get the right young talent? I'm OK with that, but Earl is worth 2-3 draft picks I'd imagine. Keeping him greatly hamstrings our drafts what with already giving away top picks for Richardson and Brown.

So as hard as it is for me to say, Earl is the one player that allows us to get those picks back and go young and nasty on the defense once again.

 

[hawk45]

Not yet he isn't, but he's on his way with his injury history.

I guess my point is, if we're rebuilding/reloading? Then lets do it right................enough already of hanging out in this go for broke trading draft picks hanging onto aging vets hoping they stay healthy and regain their form AND paying them a ridiculous salary eating up vital cap space.

Which is what we've been doing the past 3 years. If it takes a year or two to get the right young talent? I'm OK with that, but Earl is worth 2-3 draft picks I'd imagine. Keeping him greatly hamstrings our drafts what with already giving away top picks for Richardson and Brown.

So as hard as it is for me to say, Earl is the one player that allows us to get those picks back and go young and nasty on the defense once again.

Do you think that with 2 draft picks, say, the odds are on our side to hit on at least one game-changer and thus offset the loss of Earl?

Or are you thinking that even if we only ended up with 2 starters that is better than what we are getting from Earl given his injury history?

Not rhetorical questions, just trying to understand where you sit.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not yet he isn't, but he's on his way with his injury history.

I guess my point is, if we're rebuilding/reloading? Then lets do it right................enough already of hanging out in this go for broke trading draft picks hanging onto aging vets hoping they stay healthy and regain their form AND paying them a ridiculous salary eating up vital cap space.

Which is what we've been doing the past 3 years. If it takes a year or two to get the right young talent? I'm OK with that, but Earl is worth 2-3 draft picks I'd imagine. Keeping him greatly hamstrings our drafts what with already giving away top picks for Richardson and Brown.

So as hard as it is for me to say, Earl is the one player that allows us to get those picks back and go young and nasty on the defense once again.

Do you think that with 2 draft picks, say, the odds are on our side to hit on at least one game-changer and thus offset the loss of Earl?

Or are you thinking that even if we only ended up with 2 starters that is better than what we are getting from Earl given his injury history?

Not rhetorical questions, just trying to understand where you sit.

Like I said, I still trust John and Pete. They loaded up our defense with what, one first rounder pick with Earl? The rest were later draft picks.

No reason for me to think they can't do it again...........and yeah of course it's a gamble. But it's one I'm willing to give our FO the benefit of the doubt.

Rather than cling onto Earl as he ages and maybe plays at 70-80% of his prime soaking up 15M a year. Because that doesn't guarantee anything either, other than make it REALLY hard to reload all over the rest of the defense AND the offense with very limited draft picks the next two years.

 

[hawk45]

Like I said, I still trust John and Pete. They loaded up our defense with what, one first rounder pick with Earl? The rest were later draft picks.

No reason for me to think they can't do it again...........and yeah of course it's a gamble. But it's one I'm willing to give our FO the benefit of the doubt.

Rather than cling onto Earl as he ages and maybe plays at 70-80% of his prime soaking up 15M a year. Because that doesn't guarantee anything either, other than make it REALLY hard to reload all over the rest of the defense AND the offense with very limited draft picks the next two years.

Okay.

I don't rate the odds of Earl being diminished quite as highly, and I also believe that certain players transcend to where more than just acumen is required to get them, luck and timing are required as well.

Now as you said, Pete and John originally built the team with lower round draft picks. In that case, I look at the two safeties chosen in the last draft, and it doesn't do much for my serenity around the idea that they can replace Earl's production quickly enough to be within Russell's window.

They did identify McDougald in FA though, and IMO McDougald's very adequate replacement of Kam is a huge reason folks are entertaining this notion with Earl.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Not yet he isn't, but he's on his way with his injury history.

I guess my point is, if we're rebuilding/reloading? Then lets do it right................enough already of hanging out in this go for broke trading draft picks hanging onto aging vets hoping they stay healthy and regain their form AND paying them a ridiculous salary eating up vital cap space.

Which is what we've been doing the past 3 years. If it takes a year or two to get the right young talent? I'm OK with that, but Earl is worth 2-3 draft picks I'd imagine. Keeping him greatly hamstrings our drafts what with already giving away top picks for Richardson and Brown.

So as hard as it is for me to say, Earl is the one player that allows us to get those picks back and go young and nasty on the defense once again.

Do you think that with 2 draft picks, say, the odds are on our side to hit on at least one game-changer and thus offset the loss of Earl?

Or are you thinking that even if we only ended up with 2 starters that is better than what we are getting from Earl given his injury history?

Not rhetorical questions, just trying to understand where you sit.

Are you taking the player(s) who could be signed using the freed cap space into account? In addition to draft picks we would get cap space.
Not a rhetorical questions, trying to understand how much of the picture is being considered.

 

[hawk45]

Are you taking the player(s) who could be signed using the freed cap space into account? You do realize that in addition to draft picks we would get cap space right?
Not a rhetorical questions, trying to understand how much of the picture you are considering.

I...was not, no, and thanks for the snark-free correction.

Now, a like-for-like replacement for Earl who is as young as Earl and approaches his greatness is out of the question unless we're talking about shelling out Earl money of course. BUT...I agree with what I think you are implying which is that adding the money for Pete and John to survey the FA landscape and try to add defensive talent *somewhere* - even if not at FS - makes things look better for offsetting losing Earl.

I would still be on the side that even with that I stay with the all-pro in his prime vs. the pu-pu surprise platter that is draft and FA, but I can't ignore your point that we'd be talking 3-5 players here. That's...a haul.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Except the guy making the FA decisions with that newly freed cap space is the same guy that gives Joekel a giant contract and Lacey a giant contract.

It doesn't help to free up cap space if your FO is horrific at evaluating FA talent or negotiating deals to bring them in.

So of the 3-5 players we would supposedly get, most of them would be average to terrible and we will have overpaid for them. In the meantime losing one of our key players that literally wins games for us.

We would be gambling that our HOF player that *might* get injured so we trade him is still less value than 3+ players that based on all the track record would not end up producing much anyway. Because a best case scenario is someone like Graham, and we couldn't even integrate him until several years later.

Our FA track record is abysmal. The low cost, high ceiling ones are tolerable but to expect to get new players in FA that can make a difference in year 1? Laughable.

 

[hawk45]

Except the guy making the FA decisions with that newly freed cap space is the same guy that gives Joekel a giant contract and Lacey a giant contract.

It doesn't help to free up cap space if your FO is horrific at evaluating FA talent or negotiating deals to bring them in.

So of the 3-5 players we would supposedly get, most of them would be average to terrible and we will have overpaid for them. In the meantime losing one of our key players that literally wins games for us.

We would be gambling that our HOF player that *might* get injured so we trade him is still less value than 3+ players that based on all the track record would not end up producing much anyway. Because a best case scenario is someone like Graham, and we couldn't even integrate him until several years later.

Our FA track record is abysmal. The low cost, high ceiling ones are tolerable but to expect to get new players in FA that can make a difference in year 1? Laughable.

Being honest, the McDougald signing plays a big part in how I evaluate their ability to replenish the safety position in FA. I come down on your side, but I don't count the FO out necessarily. If this were offense I'd be singing a much different tune, I have much less faith on the offensive side, and OL in particular.

 

[hawk45]

The notion that Pete is inflexible in his defensive scheme is a myth. He has continuously adapted to his personnel. He has found ways to adjust his scheme to take advantage of hybrid or tweener players. Belichick's changes have been less frequent and larger; therefore, the average fan is able to see the change. Pete's changes are continuous and much more subtle; therefore, the average fan doesn't realize the change has been made.

You could be right. Certainly with Browner and a youthful Sherm we played much more press, and have evolved as the situation changed.

I wouldn't say Pete is as flexible game to game as Belichick, but since we're talking about him adapting to roster turnover in the offseason and that is the thrust of your post, hat tip to you for a well-made point.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Are you taking the player(s) who could be signed using the freed cap space into account? You do realize that in addition to draft picks we would get cap space right?
Not a rhetorical questions, trying to understand how much of the picture you are considering.

I...was not, no, and thanks for the snark-free correction.

Now, a like-for-like replacement for Earl who is as young as Earl and approaches his greatness is out of the question unless we're talking about shelling out Earl money of course. BUT...I agree with what I think you are implying which is that adding the money for Pete and John to survey the FA landscape and try to add defensive talent *somewhere* - even if not at FS - makes things look better for offsetting losing Earl.

I would still be on the side that even with that I stay with the all-pro in his prime vs. the pu-pu surprise platter that is draft and FA, but I can't ignore your point that we'd be talking 3-5 players here. That's...a haul.

I think this gets us to the place where this whole conversation about Earl should be.
Earlier in this thread, some posters were arguing over whether or not Earl is a great player. In one corner we have those with rose colored glasses incapable of acknowledging that it is actually possible for the defense to return to dominance without Earl; in the other corner we have those with foggy glasses who contend that Earl is no longer a great player (it's possible that some may have allowed their anger over his actions off the field to impact their assessment of his performance on the field). I think both sides are allowing emotion to override logic.
Three options, let Earl play-out the contract (he says he will holdout if the Hawks go this route), trade him, or sign Earl to an extension. Which of the 3 is most likely to contribute to wins over 1, 3, and 5 year periods? Does it depend on what Earl is demanding in an extension, $$ and years? How much cap can you have tied up in one defensive player and still have top end talent elsewhere on the defense, and a competent OL (surprising to me that the same posters who complain about spending too little on the OL, and the disparity between offense and defense spending are some of the ones saying pay him)? Is he even willing to sign an extension? If an extension is either too expensive or refused outright by Earl, do you let him play-out the contract (I am assuming he is true to his word and holds out) or do you trade him?
From my perspective letting Earl play-out the contract is not an option. The other two options are more of a toss up. For me a logical tipping point is the cap figure. If the extension reduces Earl's 2018 cap hit then it makes sense to keep him, otherwise I don't think it does.
Of course, all that said, I am for trading Earl regardless, because I strongly believe in the value of a teams culture.

 

[massari]

Where is this Jaylon Smith thing coming from?

Me. I read about his foot getting better and said he's "feeling elite again" after his strong finish to the season, so threw out a Jaylon for Earl to see what people thought.

Pretending it's real, where would Jaylon Smith play?

After the Hawks trade ET3 for Jaylon Smith are they gonna get rid of KJ Wright or Bobby Wagner, because Smith definitely doesn't play SAM.

Do you guys even Seahawk?

Jaylon is said to be best suited for WILL but as Sun Tzu said can play SAM and provide much needed LB depth and be the eventual replacement for KJ.

 

[massari]

KJ has and can play SAM, and, as he slows down, moving him to SAM and reducing his snap count is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if it allows you to get your best 11 football players on the field.

Interesting

 

[adeltaY]

Except the guy making the FA decisions with that newly freed cap space is the same guy that gives Joekel a giant contract and Lacey a giant contract.

It doesn't help to free up cap space if your FO is horrific at evaluating FA talent or negotiating deals to bring them in.

So of the 3-5 players we would supposedly get, most of them would be average to terrible and we will have overpaid for them. In the meantime losing one of our key players that literally wins games for us.

We would be gambling that our HOF player that *might* get injured so we trade him is still less value than 3+ players that based on all the track record would not end up producing much anyway. Because a best case scenario is someone like Graham, and we couldn't even integrate him until several years later.

Our FA track record is abysmal. The low cost, high ceiling ones are tolerable but to expect to get new players in FA that can make a difference in year 1? Laughable.

Being honest, the McDougald signing plays a big part in how I evaluate their ability to replenish the safety position in FA. I come down on your side, but I don't count the FO out necessarily. If this were offense I'd be singing a much different tune, I have much less faith on the offensive side, and OL in particular.

FA/Trades weren't all that bad. We got Duane Brown on offense, which is one hell of an upgrade over what we had out there. He's still a good player, hopefully it was just the Cable effect making him look worse down the stretch as well as the ankle sprain. The other offensive moves were busts: Lacy and Joeckel. Tobin is a question mark I guess but he looked pretty awful when he had to come in at LT during the Cardinals game in AZ.

Defensive ones were solid. Sheldon was pretty good, though definitely not as good as hoped/advertised. Coleman was a steal, McDougald was a fantastic value, and Dion Jordan and Marcus Smith were nice pieces. Even Freeney contributed a bit with us, although it ended up being for naught. Maxie was a solid pickup too. I really don't think the LBs we brought in worked well. I think Wilhoite was okay, but Garvin and Alexander were not good.

Overall pretty dang good on the defensive side and pretty awful on the offensive side.