So, Marshawn is still here.

[endzorn]

I feel like this whole thing is much ado about nothing. Marshawn is a different cat and that's old news to us. I think the national media is running with stories that are just a misinterpretation of who he is and what he's about. Now fans are starting to interpret dropped passes as an attempt to undermine the team effort. All I see is a guy running like an angry boar.

I might be completely wrong, but the media saw a snowball at the top of a hill in the Harvin story and now they're trying to roll it downhill. Lynch wouldn't board the bus after Harvin was traded...turned out to be BS. Lynch likely not to be back next year...local sports radio has been saying this since early offseason. Lynch not happy with his contract...what other reason have you ever seen a player hold out for?

He's the same player today as he was this time last year, even if he's a lame duck right now.

 

[ivotuk]

There is no way the FO spent our first pick in last year's draft on an RB if they planned on Marshawn still being with the team 3 years later.

Again, Michael was not brought in to replace Turbin, he was brought in to be a feature back and to replace Lynch. Lynch is only with us this year because Michael sucked last year.

How the hell do you know that? You just scolded the OP for making his opinion a fact, then turn around and do the same thing!

Maybe they took Michael because he was the Best Player Available AND because Marshawn has had back spasms for years now.

Do you know why they drafted Turbin? Because we lost to Cleveland when Lynch was out with back issues and we couldn't run the ball. But Turbin is a 4th round back and imho, plays above that level. But he's not a feature back, something Pete Carroll loves to have.

So maybe, just maybe, they drafted Christine because he was BPA and they wanted a feature back besides just Turbin in case Marshawn's back flared up again.

If they don't draft another feature back, and Turbin were to get hurt at the same time that Lynch's back flares up, we would have no running backs. So by drafting BPA, they have depth at RB and are looking towards the future. It is a possibility...

 

[DavidSeven]

Pete did not categorically deny that the Lynch trade wasn't completely out of the question. When asked about it, he said something to the effect that "I think you're pretty strong on that (that Lynch was staying)".

Did you watch that press conference or read the quote elsewhere? Pete practically laughed in the reporter's face at the suggestion that Lynch would be moved and made that comment sarcastically afterward.

 

[RiverDog]

Pete did not categorically deny that the Lynch trade wasn't completely out of the question. When asked about it, he said something to the effect that "I think you're pretty strong on that (that Lynch was staying)".

Did you watch that press conference or read the quote elsewhere? Pete practically laughed in the reporter's face at the suggestion that Lynch would be moved and made that comment sarcastically afterward.

You're right, I didn't watch the presser.

Nevertheless, no one in the situation Marshawn Lynch is, ie a 28 year old running back, is going to be considered untouchable. It's a business, and the fact is that there's a wall that exists for nearly every running back that's around 30 years old.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Frank Gore is on pace to have another 1k season being at 31. I do want Lynch to retire as a Seahawks.

 

[chris98251]

Lynch has back spasms that need to be watched, other then that he has had a very clean medical history in the NFL. many backs when they reach his age and years in the NFL have a injury bug that has or starts to bite them that attributes to their production issues. Lynch has so far avoided those. If no other options are available that are better I could see us keeping him. He may have a John Riggens type career where he is prooductive, also just about as unique in other ways.







Now days not a big deal, but remember the era.

 

[dunceface]

I heard we couldn't find any trade partners because they found out that Lynch is really a ZOMBIE

 

[RiverDog]

Lynch has back spasms that need to be watched, other then that he has had a very clean medical history in the NFL. many backs when they reach his age and years in the NFL have a injury bug that has or starts to bite them that attributes to their production issues. Lynch has so far avoided those. If no other options are available that are better I could see us keeping him. He may have a John Riggens type career where he is prooductive, also just about as unique in other ways.

I remember a very similar argument regarding the re-signing of Shaun Alexander back in 2006. The argument then was that his running style would make him an exception to the 30 year old rule for running backs, although the example given at that time was Emmitt Smith. I don't want to make the same mistake again.

One of the things that has changed is the new CBA. It simply doesn't make sense to wrap your arms around an aging running back and throw him a boat load of money when you can find very suitable replacements for a fraction of the cost in the draft. Even without the new CBA, sunning backs are considered a low value position in a game that continues to trend towards the quarterback.

 

[LawlessHawk]

Lynch has back spasms that need to be watched, other then that he has had a very clean medical history in the NFL. many backs when they reach his age and years in the NFL have a injury bug that has or starts to bite them that attributes to their production issues. Lynch has so far avoided those. If no other options are available that are better I could see us keeping him. He may have a John Riggens type career where he is prooductive, also just about as unique in other ways.

I remember a very similar argument regarding the re-signing of Shaun Alexander back in 2006. The argument then was that his running style would make him an exception to the 30 year old rule for running backs, although the example given at that time was Emmitt Smith. I don't want to make the same mistake again.

One of the things that has changed is the new CBA. It simply doesn't make sense to wrap your arms around an aging running back and throw him a boat load of money when you can find very suitable replacements for a fraction of the cost in the draft. Even without the new CBA, sunning backs are considered a low value position in a game that continues to trend towards the quarterback.

I'm not disagreeing or otherwise, but in 2006 SA had just finished off a season where he accomplished:
Rushing Title (1880)
3rd Pro Bowl
1st Team All Pro
NFC Offensive Player of the Year
NFL MVP
Rushing Touchdown Record (27)
Super Bowl Appearance
Madden Cover Boy

And the dramatic devaluing of the position hadn't really taken hold yet... No one was predicting the cliff that SA fell off of after a season like '05. And really that contract seemed to be as much or more about rewarding the past as it was about the future...

 

[volsunghawk]

Lynch has back spasms that need to be watched, other then that he has had a very clean medical history in the NFL. many backs when they reach his age and years in the NFL have a injury bug that has or starts to bite them that attributes to their production issues. Lynch has so far avoided those. If no other options are available that are better I could see us keeping him. He may have a John Riggens type career where he is prooductive, also just about as unique in other ways.

I remember a very similar argument regarding the re-signing of Shaun Alexander back in 2006. The argument then was that his running style would make him an exception to the 30 year old rule for running backs, although the example given at that time was Emmitt Smith. I don't want to make the same mistake again.

One of the things that has changed is the new CBA. It simply doesn't make sense to wrap your arms around an aging running back and throw him a boat load of money when you can find very suitable replacements for a fraction of the cost in the draft. Even without the new CBA, sunning backs are considered a low value position in a game that continues to trend towards the quarterback.

I'm not disagreeing or otherwise, but in 2006 SA had just finished off a season where he accomplished:
Rushing Title (1880)
3rd Pro Bowl
1st Team All Pro
NFC Offensive Player of the Year
NFL MVP
Rushing Touchdown Record (27)
Super Bowl Appearance
Madden Cover Boy

And the dramatic devaluing of the position hadn't really taken hold yet... No one was predicting the cliff that SA fell off of after a season like '05. And really that contract seemed to be as much or more about rewarding the past as it was about the future...

And that's why it was a bad idea. Contracts should be based on expected future production, not on any past performance. Now, the past performance will always tend to factor in to what a front office should expect from a player in the future, but giving out a rich, long-term contract to a guy nearing a point where most players at his position begin to break down is a terrible idea. The players that excel deep into their thirties are the exception rather than the rule at most positions.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Frank Gore is on pace to have another 1k season being at 31. I do want Lynch to retire as a Seahawks.

I think everybody does, but the combo of him wanting a new long term deal and the FO tired of Marshawn being Marshawn is more than likely going to prevent this from happening.

I absolutely think Pete and John would try to work out another 2-3 year deal with Lynch if he wasn't such a pain in the ass to manage. The cap situation next year with having to give guys like Wagner, Wright, Russell and Avril new deals is just fuel for the see ya Marshawn fire.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Lynch has back spasms that need to be watched, other then that he has had a very clean medical history in the NFL. many backs when they reach his age and years in the NFL have a injury bug that has or starts to bite them that attributes to their production issues. Lynch has so far avoided those. If no other options are available that are better I could see us keeping him. He may have a John Riggens type career where he is prooductive, also just about as unique in other ways.

I remember a very similar argument regarding the re-signing of Shaun Alexander back in 2006. The argument then was that his running style would make him an exception to the 30 year old rule for running backs, although the example given at that time was Emmitt Smith. I don't want to make the same mistake again.

One of the things that has changed is the new CBA. It simply doesn't make sense to wrap your arms around an aging running back and throw him a boat load of money when you can find very suitable replacements for a fraction of the cost in the draft. Even without the new CBA, sunning backs are considered a low value position in a game that continues to trend towards the quarterback.

I'm not disagreeing or otherwise, but in 2006 SA had just finished off a season where he accomplished:
Rushing Title (1880)
3rd Pro Bowl
1st Team All Pro
NFC Offensive Player of the Year
NFL MVP
Rushing Touchdown Record (27)
Super Bowl Appearance
Madden Cover Boy

And the dramatic devaluing of the position hadn't really taken hold yet... No one was predicting the cliff that SA fell off of after a season like '05. And really that contract seemed to be as much or more about rewarding the past as it was about the future...

And that's why it was a bad idea. Contracts should be based on expected future production, not on any past performance. Now, the past performance will always tend to factor in to what a front office should expect from a player in the future, but giving out a rich, long-term contract to a guy nearing a point where most players at his position begin to break down is a terrible idea. The players that excel deep into their thirties are the exception rather than the rule at most positions.

Where, exactly, did anyone suggest giving Lynch a long term deal? He is still under contract for next year, by the way...so playing him next year wouldn't exactly cripple us.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Where, exactly, did anyone suggest giving Lynch a long term deal? He is still under contract for next year, by the way...so playing him next year wouldn't exactly cripple us.

You think Lynch is going to play next year on his current deal? No way in hell, there's a reason we bumped his salary this year.

Both sides knew there was no extension offered, so the concession was we'll pay you more this year and either give you a new deal or cut you and let you be a FA.

 

[NFSeahawks]

Trading Marshawn would have been so not what P&J are about I don't think it was ever anything more than a stupid bleacher report type rumour.

You want to see locker room discontent, trade the lynchpin to your philosophical core identity as an offense that has always shown up in shape, done what is asked of him, given a franchise an identity of toughness and provided someone to target other than Russell because he's unique and yes, strange, that would be the recipe.

RW would never sign off on trading Marshawn.
he's black enough for both of them.

And yes, it was pun intended 8)

Well done, Sir. This post is of the five start quality.

As for my personal opinions, I love who Lynch is as a football player and person, ignore the noise. The rumors are BS.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

Pete did not categorically deny that the Lynch trade wasn't completely out of the question. When asked about it, he said something to the effect that "I think you're pretty strong on that (that Lynch was staying)".

Did you watch that press conference or read the quote elsewhere? Pete practically laughed in the reporter's face at the suggestion that Lynch would be moved and made that comment sarcastically afterward.

PC said the trade deadline rumor was "media generated", which a diplomatic way of saying some reporter made it up.

 

[Seafan]

He could play next year on his current deal if they don't find a suitable replacement. Trading him now would have been throwing the season away. Pete and John don't do that.

 

[AgentDib]

You have to look closely at why a back is successful in your system. If it is mostly because you have a great run blocking OL and a good scheme, then you can stick any mid-round rookie behind it and get production for cheap then replace them when they want more money or get hurt.

On the other hand, I think the reason why this coaching staff puts up with Lynch's antics is because his YAC is a large part of our running game. He isn't irreplaceable but at the same time I don't think we could just draft a big back like TJ Yeldon in the second round next year and expect the production to maintain.

Again, Michael was not brought in to replace Turbin, he was brought in to be a feature back and to replace Lynch. Lynch is only with us this year because Michael sucked last year. If Michael was the next Lynch, as we were led to believe, and up to speed, why would they keep Lynch and pay him 10 times more than Michael? This is business yes, rocket science, no.

This is a reasonable take for how 31 other teams in the NFL would operate, but do you think it fits this team? I'm sure I don't need to tell you that they bring people in to provide competition and actually mean it just like that. Their main selling point to UDFAs is that once a player is on the team they ignore how he got there.

Obviously there is a lot to the CMike story that we don't know, and may never learn, but the fact remains that he has been having trouble making our active roster, in his 2nd season, even with Lynch's back issues. Knowing that I don't see how you can be possibly be 100% confident that he'll take Lynch's job next year.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Where, exactly, did anyone suggest giving Lynch a long term deal? He is still under contract for next year, by the way...so playing him next year wouldn't exactly cripple us.

You think Lynch is going to play next year on his current deal? No way in hell, there's a reason we bumped his salary this year.

Both sides knew there was no extension offered, so the concession was we'll pay you more this year and either give you a new deal or cut you and let you be a FA.

What is he going to do, quit? I don't think so. The Seahawks hold the cards, if he wants to get paid he will play.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

If the Seahawks were planning to trade Lynch, it would have happened out of the blue, like Harvin.

 

[NFSeahawks]

If the Seahawks were planning to trade Lynch, it would have happened out of the blue, like Harvin.

They plan on trading him week 11.