Please keep Beast Mode

[ringless]

My opinion and beliefs at the beginning of the season weren't popular. However OP you can't compare Brady to Lynch. They are different positions with different levels of abuse.

Running backs have a history of declining sharply at the age of 29. The other cliffs I believe is about 1800 carries. It was evident last year despite his numbers his body was starting to break down. At one stage he couldn't even go into the locker room at the half and finished the game anyways. He was always nursing an injury that got compounded over time.

He will never again be the player you want him to be because he is not that player anymore. He will be 30, and next year he will only have more wear and tear than he did at the start of this year. He's done. He was done at the end of last season. I said at the beginning of the year that Father Time would show its face this year and he wouldn't get 1000 yards because he passed two cliffs that spell death for the RB position in combination with injuries starting to show.

The team can cut him, and likely get 2-3 good players for his salary and make an overall improvement to the team as opposed to a worn out rb, passed his prime.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

The major question is.....Do we keep him for one more year with him at 50% or do we discard him prior to the Draft or perhaps prior to TC? How much "love" will the FO show him?

 

[Cartire]

T-Jax was never making $9 million. Sorry, but thats a huge difference. My points still stands. $9 million vs $1.5 (TJax) is not irrelevant.

Ok so T Jack was 1.5 million dollars better than Wilson? Your comparing a veterans contract to a rookie. Anyone we sign at running back will probably make more money than Rawls. Is Fred Jackson better than Rawls? Your not being specific because you can't. You have know idea how much more Lynch should make or you would like him to make than Rawls. You want Lynch cut or your probably hoping he just quits.

I'll simplify my view. I don't think Lynch should be cut and I hope he comes back next year.

Are you being serious? Lynch will be one of the highest paid backs in 2016. TJax 1.5 to Wilsons .6 is a difference of .9. Lynch to Rawls is 8 Million. You cant be this obtuse about it. Lynch is a good back (we still hope). But he is not even near the Veteran minimum.

A difference of less then a million for a backup in TJax (btw, a QB, not a RB.).
is not the same as
8.4 million on an aging back.

How you are even comparing the two is laughable. Just because they are older then their current starter.

 

[seahawkfreak]

T-Jax was never making $9 million. Sorry, but thats a huge difference. My points still stands. $9 million vs $1.5 (TJax) is not irrelevant.

Ok so T Jack was 1.5 million dollars better than Wilson? Your comparing a veterans contract to a rookie. Anyone we sign at running back will probably make more money than Rawls. Is Fred Jackson better than Rawls? Your not being specific because you can't. You have know idea how much more Lynch should make or you would like him to make than Rawls. You want Lynch cut or your probably hoping he just quits.

I'll simplify my view. I don't think Lynch should be cut and I hope he comes back next year.

Are you being serious? Lynch will be one of the highest paid backs in 2016. TJax 1.5 to Wilsons .6 is a difference of .9. Lynch to Rawls is 8 Million. You cant be this obtuse about it. Lynch is a good back (we still hope). But he is not even near the Veteran minimum.

A difference of less then a million for a backup in TJax (btw, a QB, not a RB.).
is not the same as
8.4 million on an aging back.

How you are even comparing the two is laughable. Just because they are older then their current starter.

I think I've said my rational. Why won't you say yours? You want Lynch cut. Say it. Stop deflecting. Say what you want our offensive backfield to look like.

 

[Cartire]

T-Jax was never making $9 million. Sorry, but thats a huge difference. My points still stands. $9 million vs $1.5 (TJax) is not irrelevant.

Ok so T Jack was 1.5 million dollars better than Wilson? Your comparing a veterans contract to a rookie. Anyone we sign at running back will probably make more money than Rawls. Is Fred Jackson better than Rawls? Your not being specific because you can't. You have know idea how much more Lynch should make or you would like him to make than Rawls. You want Lynch cut or your probably hoping he just quits.

I'll simplify my view. I don't think Lynch should be cut and I hope he comes back next year.

Are you being serious? Lynch will be one of the highest paid backs in 2016. TJax 1.5 to Wilsons .6 is a difference of .9. Lynch to Rawls is 8 Million. You cant be this obtuse about it. Lynch is a good back (we still hope). But he is not even near the Veteran minimum.

A difference of less then a million for a backup in TJax (btw, a QB, not a RB.).
is not the same as
8.4 million on an aging back.

How you are even comparing the two is laughable. Just because they are older then their current starter.

I think I've said my rational. Why won't you say yours? You want Lynch cut. Say it. Stop deflecting. Say what you want our offensive backfield to look like.

What are you talking about? Deflecting?

Ive already stated numerous times that Lynch should restructure or be cut next year. Dude. Are you seriously thinking that in this day and age, that Lynch is a 9 million dollar back. Be honest and not nostalgic or sentimental. I love Lynch. We all love Lynch. But we love the Seahawks franchise more. And holding on to aging veterans who are not worth their current salaries is what kills teams. It does. Im sorry.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Ive already stated numerous times that Lynch should restructure or be cut next year. Dude. Are you seriously thinking that in this day and age, that Lynch is a 9 million dollar back. Be honest and not nostalgic or sentimental. I love Lynch. We all love Lynch. But we love the Seahawks franchise more. And holding on to aging veterans who are not worth their current salaries is what kills teams. It does. Im sorry.

When,,,,when have you said, in this post or after the season started, that Lynch should restructure his contract or be cut? I find it hard to believe that you love Lynch so much when you would like to put our money towards a POS Left tackle that would not help this team. Lynch is different, you cannot equate him to other players. There will be a time when he's gone, I'm saying, don't push him out.

Lynch still helps the franchise if he's here next year.

 

[King Dog]

I love Lynch as well, but if Rawls continues to play at a high level, I see no reason why we would bring back Lynch at that number. We can definitely use that money for other needs.

Luckily (or however you want to look at it) we get an extended opportunity to watch Rawls over the coming weeks to see if he's going to be able to continue to handle the load.

 

[bigskydoc]

Honestly we should cut him and Graham, 20 million in cap space can literally get the best playmaker in football or 2 of the top 10

I se what you did there, even if (apparently) no one else did.


-bsd

 

[bigskydoc]

The cost of keeping Lynch next year isn't 9 million, it is 6.5 million

Cap hit if kept 12.5 million
Cap hit if cut (dead money) 5 million

12.5 minus 5 equals 6.5 million.


-bsd

 

[Seahawkfan80]

The cost of keeping Lynch next year isn't 9 million, it is 6.5 million

Cap hit if kept 12.5 million
Cap hit if cut (dead money) 5 million

12.5 minus 5 equals 6.5 million.


-bsd

Was that also with the restructure that happened last year? I dont know how some of that stuff works.


That being said...I would probably let him either restructure or let him go. I could see him out for most of next season the way things are going. But as in life, you never know unless it happens.

 

[justafan]

Everyone loves ML.It will be a horrible day for the team and fans when he is released or retires.

If you look at it in a money ball way, he isnt worth the salary for the amount of production he will give the team.The yards are replaceable but its not all about the fantasy points a player brings to the table.

ML is a huge part of the heart and soul of the team.You cant put a price tag on what he adds in leadership or to the chemistry of the team.We have even seen how the D feeds off ML when they are on the sideline watching him.

The turning point of the season just might be when he went off on the O for the way they were playing the game.
I know some people will say DB suddenly learned how to call plays but it has always been down to execution and the players stepping up and becoming accountable which ML and Baldwin called the team out on.

In my mind this is still MLs team even if he isnt playing.You hope you have other players that will step up and call BS when the team wasnt performing but so far no one on D has really taken that role and Wilson might have to become that type of leader on O.

The only way you cut him is if you have other players who you think can fill the leadership role.

 

[bigskydoc]

Putting it all together, it's just too early to tell what will/ should happen with Lynch.


Lynch has only played 7 games this year. In two of those games he has less than 10 carries and in only 2 does he have more than 20.

He is scheduled to be off 4-5 weeks to recover from surgery.

Assuming it is four weeks and he comes back for the Cardinal's game, he will have played in 8 to 12 games this season and some of those will be with a limited snap count.


You can either see this as proof that he is breaking down and costing too much for his production, or take the viewpoint that this has been a good year for Lynch to rest, and recuperate from the huge workload he has had for the last few years of long seasons and short off seasons.

I am of the latter viewpoint.


With Rawls, we have yet to see how he will perform as the work horse and how he will perform when opposing defenses have enough tape to develop a game plan around him. We will have a better answer by the time Beast Mode comes back from surgery, but may not really know unless we make the playoffs and Rawls has a chance to be the workhorse against playoff caliber defenses.

If we miss the playoffs or lose out early, and Rawls' production falls off, I think it's a no-brainer to bring back a rested Lynch for one more year. Short of a miracle draft, we won't replace his production for less than the 6.5 million it will cost,

If we win the Superb Owl, I think there is no way Beast Mode doesn't hang up the cleats for good, especially if he has a monster game and/or gets the winning TD on a 1 yard, or a classic Beast Quake style run.


The real tricky area is if Rawls continues to produce at the same level until Lynch returns, then we make a deep run in the playoffs with a productive Lynch getting the bulk of the carries, but we miss out on or lose the big game.

Lynch would have a full season's worth of games to go with another shortened off season, and we still wouldn't have our answer about Rawls. At that point, I think we sit down with Lynch and see what his desire is. He is worth keeping at 6.5 million, if his heart is in it for one more run.

- bsd

 

[Scottemojo]

Lynch is perhaps my 2nd favorite Hawk player ever.

Perhaps this says as much about my lack of sentimentality as anything, but if he is gone next year, I won't mind. It feels like time for a new era.

 

[crosfam]

I think he retires. I think had he run in the game wining touchdown at SB49, and therefore been the SB MVP, I think he would have retired then. But that did not happen...

If he takes a pay cut to split time with Rawls, be a mentor another year, chase another championship and maybe the HOF, he might be back another year. IMH (uneducated) O

 

[bigskydoc]

I dont know how some of that stuff works.

That being said...I would probably let him either restructure or let him go. I could see him out for most of next season the way things are going. But as in life, you never know unless it happens.

Pretty simple really. When a player signs a contract, he almost always gets one or more of the several types of pro-rated bonuses. These are collectively referred to as the "signing bonus." It is money paid up front but accounted for over the life of the contract. There are also bonuses that are payable for performance metrics (yards per season, number of games played, TDs scored, etc)

Let's say you have a player who signs a 4-year contract with a signing bonus that is accounted for in equal portions over the life of the contract. He has a base salary of 5 million per year plus 20 million in pro-rated signing bonuses. The total contract is worth 40 million.

The first year, he receives 25 million in payments (5 million base plus 20 million signing bonus) but only counts 10 million against the cap (5 million base salary plus 1/4th of the 20 million bonus), The second through fourth years, he is paid 5 million per year, but still counts 10 million against the cap every year (5 million base salary plus 1/4th of the 20 million bonus).

If you cut him before the contract is over, you still have to account for the remaining portion of the pro-rated bonus in your cap calculations.

Say you cut him after the first year. You save the 5 million salary per year, but still have 15 million of the pro-rated bonus that has to be accounted for at 5 million per year.

So, keeping him costs 10 million per year, but cutting him still "costs" 5 million per year (in terms of salary cap numbers)


In reality, the bonuses are rarely divided equally over the life of the contract, and when we hear about a contract being restructured, it is mostly just changing the way the bonuses are accounted for and changing the metrics for performance based bonuses.

Although the player may not see a significant change in the contract total value, the restructuring can significantly alter the likelihood that the he will actually be paid that amount. By altering the cap hits and dead cap hits over the remaining life of the contract, the restructure changes the likelihood that he will remain on the team and continue to collect salary and performance-based bonus money.

-bsd

 

[bigskydoc]

In the Lynch restructure, they moved the 2 million roster bonus for 2015 and 500k of his 2015 base salary into a pro-rated signing bonus. Ultimately, he didn't make any more or less money from this because he wasn't cut. However, looking at it from the perspective of pre-2014 season, the old contract was almost certain to see him get cut after the 2014 season but the new contract made it almost certain he wouldn't be cut.

The new contract changed the cap cost of keeping him this year (2015). Under the old contract, we saved 7 million if we cut him. Under the new contract, his dead cap money is higher than his cap hit for 2015 so there was no savings in cutting him. The only possible drawback to keeping him was the roster spot.

They also extended him for 2 additional years and gave him 5 million in pro-rated signing bonus for this, but we could make him pay that 5 million back if we cut him this year (not that we would, but we could).

There is no sense in restructuring next year. Simply not enough in it for either side. However, the way the contract is structured, unless Lynch returns to 2013-2014 form and we win another Superb Owl on his back, he will be cut 2016 barring a restructure. The 10 million cap savings will be too big to keep him on the roster unless he is a top 5 back in the league (probably needs to be top 2 actually).

- bsd

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Those 2 posts cleared a lot of fuzzy up. Thanks a LOT sir. That is why we still have money on the books for he who shall not be named this year on our books. Got it clear as a spring day now.

 

[RiverDog]

We all love Lynch but he has multiple different injuries this year. It appears his body is breaking down the same way Alexander's did in 2006. He is getting top dollar and will have to either take a pay cut or be cut. This would be a harder choice if not for his overly tough past salary negotiations which I feel will work against him.

Lynched has played hurt for years. Alexander broke his foot and was never the same. Nothing against SA but he's not in Lynch's toughness world.

Shaun Alexander's demise can be traced to the demise of our offensive line. From 2000-2005, we had the best OL in franchise history up until Hutch left. Then Tobeck and Mack Strong retire. IMO SA was over rated, he was a soft runner, the complete opposite of Beast. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm willing to bet that Beast has about 10 times the YAC average that SA had.

 

[Rocket]

Does anyone else think this thread has a Twilight-Zonish feel to it?

I would choose the movie "Clueless".

 

[Sports Hernia]

Does anyone else think this thread has a Twilight-Zonish feel to it?

I would choose the movie "Clueless".

I used to love Alicia Silverstone...... But she's nuts. 8)