Would you give up a LOB OG for Dallas' OL?

[AROS]

It is telling with Sherm. I think it's because we are complacent (or Sherm is?) with how good he is as a corner. Meaning he gets bored out there with less opportunity and when they do throw his way it's almost like he has to wake up and go "CRAP the ball is coming my way!"

I am not sure that putting him on the best WR is the entire answer but you have to wonder if that is part of the collective consensus when it comes to a poll like this. Nobody here would want to see Sherm go, not one, but I understand why he is being singled out here.

 

[Cartire]

Because our Safeties make most corners look good. Im not saying they make Sherm look good. But I am saying that Sherm cant make a Safety look good. Which means that if we loose Kam or Earl, youll see the mark. We already have. If we lose Sherm, we've still got 2 Safeties that can confidently help the CB's. Sherm is the most expendable out of the 3. And 2 great O-lineman for him would be a steal.

It also brings up win-probability. Does losing Sherms, and the expect points the other team gains, fair better than the 2 O-lineman, and the more points that should come from a better offense. I dont know the answer, but i would think the EP is less for Sherm then it is for the improved offense.

 

[Hawkpower]

Because our Safeties make most corners look good. Im not saying they make Sherm look good. But I am saying that Sherm cant make a Safety look good. Which means that if we loose Kam or Earl, youll see the mark. We already have. If we lose Sherm, we've still got 2 Safeties that can confidently help the CB's. Sherm is the most expendable out of the 3. And 2 great O-lineman for him would be a steal.

I dont know that I agree.

Corners, especially lock down ones, are considered much more valuable than strong safeties....and for a reason.

Even before the Kam fiasco, I would have shipped him out way before Sherm any day of the week.

 

[raisethe3]

Nope. I would not give up the LOB.

Defense wins championship. I still believe in that.

 

[Hawkpower]

Nope. I would not give up the LOB.

Defense wins championship. I still believe in that.

Yep, as we have proven.

terrible o-line plus an epic defense= two straight super bowl appearances.

guess we will soon see if that holds up for year 3

 

[Throwdown]

Nope never

 

[rideaducati]

I've been waiting patiently for the day when Schneider makes an RG3 type trade and gets a bunch of top picks for one of the Seahawks starters. I don't see why he couldn't do something like fleecing a team out of multiple good players, but I would want Dez thrown in too.

 

[TorontoHawk]

Silly question but it's Hump Day so who cares? :lol:

Don't think I would trade them for anything as we have one of those defenses that is going to be talked about for generations to come. It is a great time to be a Hawks fan.

 

[Seanhawk]

LOB OG? Where's the Brandon Browner option? I'd do that in a heartbeat. The Saints would probably hate it though.

 

[LolaRox]

Because our Safeties make most corners look good. Im not saying they make Sherm look good. But I am saying that Sherm cant make a Safety look good. Which means that if we loose Kam or Earl, youll see the mark. We already have. If we lose Sherm, we've still got 2 Safeties that can confidently help the CB's. Sherm is the most expendable out of the 3. And 2 great O-lineman for him would be a steal.

It also brings up win-probability. Does losing Sherms, and the expect points the other team gains, fair better than the 2 O-lineman, and the more points that should come from a better offense. I dont know the answer, but i would think the EP is less for Sherm then it is for the improved offense.

I don't agree. We've seen how Sherm directly impacts the opposing offense's game plan - ex. 2014 opener against Packers. They game planned not to throw at Sherm and that meant the defense had to defend less field. The best QB in the game is still 'reluctant' to throw at him unless it's a free play.

I voted "NO" and I wouldn't give up any of them for Oline. However, if I ever had to give up a LOB for any reason Kam would definitely be the first to go, if only for durability/longevity reasons.

 

[LolaRox]

Because our Safeties make most corners look good. Im not saying they make Sherm look good. But I am saying that Sherm cant make a Safety look good. Which means that if we loose Kam or Earl, youll see the mark. We already have. If we lose Sherm, we've still got 2 Safeties that can confidently help the CB's. Sherm is the most expendable out of the 3. And 2 great O-lineman for him would be a steal.

It also brings up win-probability. Does losing Sherms, and the expect points the other team gains, fair better than the 2 O-lineman, and the more points that should come from a better offense. I dont know the answer, but i would think the EP is less for Sherm then it is for the improved offense.

I don't agree. We've seen how Sherm directly impacts the opposing offense's game plan - ex. 2014 opener against Packers. They game planned not to throw at Sherm and that meant the defense had to defend less field. The best QB in the game is still 'reluctant' to throw at him unless it's a free play.

I voted "NO" and I wouldn't give up any of them for Oline. However, if I ever had to give up a LOB for any reason Kam would definitely be the first to go, if only for durability/longevity reasons.

 

[lukerguy]

Sherm for Tyron Smith, Travis Frederick, Zach Martin and La'el Collins? yes i would do it

An O-line of T. Smith, L. Collins, T. Frederick, Z. Martin and G. Gilliam would completely change our team.

Yep, me too.

Don't you think Okung would swap over to RT in the event of Smith starting at LT though haha

Would I give up all three?... NO.

 

[The Outfield]

Our defense is the only reason we've won two games this year. Don't tamper with it. :141847_bnono:

 

[Seanhawk]

Let's be honest here. Any member of the LOB has waaaay more value in a trade than Dallas' back up defensive tackle.

 

[Cartire]

Because our Safeties make most corners look good. Im not saying they make Sherm look good. But I am saying that Sherm cant make a Safety look good. Which means that if we loose Kam or Earl, youll see the mark. We already have. If we lose Sherm, we've still got 2 Safeties that can confidently help the CB's. Sherm is the most expendable out of the 3. And 2 great O-lineman for him would be a steal.

I dont know that I agree.

Corners, especially lock down ones, are considered much more valuable than strong safeties....and for a reason.

Even before the Kam fiasco, I would have shipped him out way before Sherm any day of the week.

To be completely honest, i would normanly agree with you. But our speed + power combo of Kam and ET has proven to effective. Look how many corners come through here and look great, just to go to another team and suffer.

Now, look at what happens when Kam is off the field, (I would assume the same for ET, but he has yet to miss a game).

 

[QuahHawk]

I'd give up Sherm for 5 Starting OL from Dallas.

Yea, I said, come at me.

I feel ya. As much as I say keep the OG LOB together until they can no longer be (due to injury/finances) I would consider this. Absolutely.

Let 'em come at both of us.

Same here, Sherm is amazing but I always thought he was a bit of an overachiever.

 

[pmedic920]

This is a delicate topic and why I posted it. There's a feeling in 12 Nation that if you even suggest on a message board that you would trade one of our sacred players away for a dominate OL somehow your 12 Card would be revoked. This is why I think we won't find 100% honesty in this thread. The default response is NEVER but if you are being completely truthful, you would certainly consider - and presumptuously I presume - letting one of those greats go if it means a SEVERE increase in offensive production and the preservation and maximum performance of one Russell Wilson to do what he is capable of doing on all cylinders.

If I stated the ENTIRE LOB for Dallas' OL then I know it would be 100% NO. But that's not the question. Would you let one of them go for that entire beast of an OL? I think if I sat each of you down, in a dark corner, with a drink or two under your belt I think we know the answer.

Todd, IMHO you are talking about 2 totally different segments of our fan base.

1 segment are the fans of the current "team" and the other is, those that are SEAHAWK fans. I'm not saying that one is better than the other but I am saying they are different.

Personally I'm a fan of the Seahawks, I'm a fan of the Seahawks not matter who is on the roster or who is on the coaching staff. I don't even care who owns the team, at least so far.
Obviously as SEAHAWK fans, we are experiencing and have recently experienced an awesome chain of events. I think what started that was P.A. Becoming the owner.
Sure I'd rather see certain things happen more than others, I get just as pissed off as anybody when stupid crap happens. I'm not saying I Love everything "seahawk".
I want whatever gives us the best chance of winning.
If giving up part of the LOB means we give up 7-10 more points a game but having a better OL means we keep RW healthy, score 10-13 more points a game and win more games, I'd be ok with it.

 

[ludakrishna]

Before the trade happens, I would wanna know whether Cable likes their "technique" and whether they do "cool things" prior to pulling the trigger. If they don't, we're starting Sokoli over Tyron Smith.