Who would you let go, Chancellor, Sherman or Thomas

[DavidSeven]

Neither of those players were traded, Talon. Don't make up facts. Anyway, Deion subsequently won Super Bowls everywhere he went in his prime. It's incomprehensible that you would consider his leaving a good thing for the Falcons. You're really going to justify it with Super Bowl appearance FIVE YEARS later where they were blown out by the Broncos? Come on, dude.

 

[Throwdown]

Lot's of people living in fantasy land here.

Sir, there's no need to be a condescending jerk. If you don't agree with peoples opinions there's other ways to go about refuting them or simply ignoring.

 

[Lady Talon]

Or skew them like 25 and under like it was some landmark inconceivability? Okay, I was wrong.

1. Traded, not re-signed what difference does it make? They were let go for one reason, the money they'd command.

2. Deion Sanders joined teams that were already contenders, and the highest contender/bidders at that, the 49ers rented a championship with him, then the Cowboys made him the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. The lowly Falcons never had that luxury nor hall of famers backed up by hall of famers in the early cap/FA period.

3. I said it didn't destroy their whole team. Letting Sanders go allowed them to build a winning team while SF declined, he wasn't enough to get them anywhere. Who cares if the Falcons were blown out? John Elway had lost 3 in similar fashion. Last month, our football team was about as irrelevant to others as the Falcons still are, and the Broncos used to be.

 

[Anthony!]

Assuming we can't afford all three, would you let Chancellor, Sherman or Thomas go?

well for one Cam is already signed for a few more years so this whole thing is irrelevant.

 

[themunn]

First, he's not making that much.

Revis's cap hit is $16 million/year. You're telling me, after 2 years of being obsessed with being better, he isn't going to ask for more?

Revis' contract is completely unguaranteed though. ie. one injury and he's cut with NO money

Sherman's contract will undoubtably have a smaller number but be more valuable

 

[themunn]

Anyway, we'll dump Okung before we dump Sherman

Hear me out - the offense showed that it could win 7 out of 8 games without Okung (plus a half against SF). Yes, it was UGLY, but in part because we were also missing Giacomini, and in part because McQuistan is the worst backup LT in the league. He is scheduled to make 11m next year, and has missed 19 games in 4 seasons. He's a Pro Bowl corner when he's healthy, but he's only managed one "full" season (he missed 1 game last year). Simply put, you don't pay players that much if you can't rely on them. Sherman hasn't missed a game in three years as a player - and he's the BEST at his position without doubt.

Players like Clemons, Miller and Rice will be gone before Thomas and Sherman (and with the three of them gone you've got enough cap space to re-sign both of those guys). Okung is the next big hit. His current contract doesn't have much in the way of guarantees (outside of the top 20 LT contracts), but has some pretty big overall numbers. He's a guy who it makes sense to offer a larger guarantee and smaller overall number

 

[Penman96]

In believe this team will routinely drop high priced veterans in favor of young, unproven kids who fit our scheme. I wouldn't choose between Sherman, Chancellor and Thomas. I really like all three players, but they will naturally want to be paid amongst the highest in the league at their respective positions. We don't want to turn into the Stealers, a team that used to be good but now sucks because the paid huge money to a few high profile talents. We start dropping $10 - $18 million / year on Wilson, Sherman, Chancellor and Thomas then before long we will suck too.

It's just not a way to achieve long term success, it's be proven by numerous teams as they fail over and over again. Maybe the Pat's have managed it best, they won three SuperBowls but I believe Carroll wants even more than that. He want's a long term successful "programme" like at USC where they lose top players every year but they keep winning. They said the collegiate model wouldn't work in the NFL - wow were "they" wrong.

Pete / John will build sustainable success not by following the boring old model of failure, which is based on paying a kings ransom to a handful of players. They will keep Seattle at the top just like how they got Seattle to the top, buy continuality bringing in new guys with something to prove, and moving out the high priced veterans.

 

[TJH]

Lot's of people living in fantasy land here.

Sir, there's no need to be a condescending jerk. If you don't agree with peoples opinions there's other ways to go about refuting them or simply ignoring.

If you think that's being a jerk you really need to toughen up.

 

[Throwdown]

Lot's of people living in fantasy land here.

Sir, there's no need to be a condescending jerk. If you don't agree with peoples opinions there's other ways to go about refuting them or simply ignoring.

If you think that's being a jerk you really need to toughen up.

It's not about being "tough", it's about not playing down others opinions as "fantasy" cuz you're not trying to hear what's being said.

 

[TJH]

Lot's of people living in fantasy land here.

Sir, there's no need to be a condescending jerk. If you don't agree with peoples opinions there's other ways to go about refuting them or simply ignoring.

If you think that's being a jerk you really need to toughen up.

It's not about being "tough", it's about not playing down others opinions as "fantasy" cuz you're not trying to hear what's being said.

I've posted 5-10 times in this thread clearly detailing my thoughts on the matter. I've heard everything that has been said. People that think Pete and JS are stupid enough to tie up a 1/4 of our cap on 3 secondary players are, in fact, living in a fantasy land. Deal with it.

 

[seedhawk]

TJH, if you had better explained the "fantasy" comment this thread would have worked out better. Not a criticism, just a comment.

 

[HawkWow]

Alexander was an aging RB that half of Seattle thought was overrated when he got his extension. He doesn't fit my definition of a "special" player. We have a good LT now and I'd love to see them take a monster LG/RG in the late first round. No need to give up an elite player to get that done IMO.

I share that feeling about SA. Why was he brought back?...because we couldn't live without him..or because he was a fan favorite and doing the right thing in releasing him would have been a PR nightmare. I know this as fact.

One of the reasons we've not seen more of the types of trades you reference is because 99% of the time neither team has an abundance at that position. It takes two to tango. If one team is loaded with superstars at one unit and can find a trade partner hurting at that position, but rich at another...such trades would be more common.

I do not wish to argue this subject. I was speculating and asking a question regarding Sherm's trade value. I don't think that is out of line and likely won't compromise the FO's operations. I love Sherm and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere that really doesn't. If the Niners got him tomorrow they would speak of him like Jesus.

I am simply trying to think of a way to get a sure fire stud that can both roadgrade and protect RW. I sincerely believe Greg Robinson is that man, but I know there is no way we will get him. Not without doing something most would consider drastic. Our elite secondary will not protect RW and 40+ teams have won the title without a secondary even remotely close to ours. More than 1 way to skin a cat.

Considering the above, I am of the camp that believes Sherm wil seek max dollar. I don't think we will pay that (with Pete's history with DBs). So we can use him next year, F-tag him in 15...then he's gone. So I ask myself...what would be more prudent...keeping Sherm for 2 years...or seeking a deal that gets us protection for RW for the next decade. Again, just thinking out loud and not meaning to offend anyone's contrarian beliefs.