Cool read from Sherman

[Jikkle]

He is sounding like a jilted lover in all of this.

I can tell he really didn't want to leave the Seahawks but the Seahawks didn't really want him back.

The Hawks want a quieter locker room and they want to transition to fully making it Wilson's team and Sherman was one of the loudest and at times most defiant voices and I seriously doubt he and Wilson are on each other's Christmas cards list.

Unless his play is severely diminished I think he makes it at least 2 years with the 9ers. I believe a huge motivation for the 9ers to go after Sherman is they wanted him from a leadership standpoint because they just don't have a leader on defense right now and Sherman is an expert with the scheme and has the mindset they want on defense.

He'll be back in Seattle to sign that 1-day contract to retire a Seahawk but I don't see him taking another snap for them.

 

[Wolverine830872]

I think that is pretty unlikely, given how prideful he is and the message he's been conveying that clearly says he is a bit miffed about how the team left things. He also took shots at both Schneider and PC on his way out, so it's tough for me to see him coming back here with either of those 2 still around. Definitely cannot see him playing for PC again.

time heals all. Lets see how things shake out in SF. I think Sherman is a logical guy, and can separate his emotions from the business side of the game. Frankly, he should be mad at the NFLPA for allowing the current contract structure to be in place. The seahawks are simply playing within the rules in order to stay competitive. If anyone gets that aspect, it should be Sherman.

In the end, it sounds like he still loves the area, and has love for the 12s. If we reciprocate, then who knows.

 

[JMR]

time heals all. Lets see how things shake out in SF. I think Sherman is a logical guy, and can separate his emotions from the business side of the game. Frankly, he should be mad at the NFLPA for allowing the current contract structure to be in place. The seahawks are simply playing within the rules in order to stay competitive. If anyone gets that aspect, it should be Sherman.

In the end, it sounds like he still loves the area, and has love for the 12s. If we reciprocate, then who knows.

Yeah, I'm just not convinced by that argument. Time is a healer for sure, but we are only talking a year from now. If SF doesnt cut him after the first year, then they might as well stick it out for 3 because the cap hit doesnt jump from year 2 to 3 in his deal. So if they cut him this time next year AND PC is no longer the coach here, then maybe fences can be mended. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts he's not playing for PC again though.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

Kill the cap.....

I'm fine with that then Paul Allen can out spend every owner in FA

 

[Anointed One]

Maybe. We will never know. I think it's still possible it could be as simple as deciding it was time to move on from the old guard. They pretty much low-balled Sheldon Richardson as well, reportedly. I am not sure they offer $8-$9M to Sherm when they cut him at $11M. I dont think their issue was just $3M.

Agreed... I was ready to move on from him a well...

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I'm fine with that then Paul Allen can out spend every owner in FA

On what?

Sign up every good player?

I honestly don't see that happening.

Which QB would he lock up? Which receivers, etc.

No way could he guarantee winning even if he did outspend everybody.

Too many good players.

And chemistry is more important than green backs.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Seattle cut him because he's a) 30, b) going to ask for around $7-8M with incentives THIS year (which we can't afford), c) he's coming off a big injury and may not even play the first few games, d) we drafted and signed a TON of younger guys in the secondary who need to get a shot. Unless Sherman negotiated to $2.5M we can't afford him. We have like $15M left and need $3-5 for rookies... which means Sherman would absorb everything else... and that makes no sense.

Why waste the time negotiating that? If anything Seattle did him a favor by releasing him early and allowing him to go find another team. Sherman is probably posting this for the pleb community that doesn't follow cap/contracts, etc. Everyone for the most part that posts here and follows football to that detail doesn't care or need an explanation.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

On what?

Sign up every good player?

Every outstanding free agent, why not?


No way could he guarantee winning even if he did outspend everybody.

True but money talks and bullshit walks.

Too many good players.

Actually not enough of them.

And chemistry is more important than green backs.

Yeah but in a free for all, no cap situation, nobody would have chemistry. To much player movement for that.

 

[chf]

On what?

Sign up every good player?

I honestly don't see that happening.

Which QB would he lock up? Which receivers, etc.

No way could he guarantee winning even if he did outspend everybody.

Too many good players.

And chemistry is more important than green backs.

Holy fucking logic Hank. U want to kill the cap because it'd make YOUR owner more able to play with his toys, and yet you can't see that they owner with more money THAN THE REST COMBINED, couldn't do that too?

U sure you're in accounting? Your left brain needs some work.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Yeah but in a free for all, no cap situation, nobody would have chemistry. To much player movement for that.

Depends on lengths of contracts.

And I think you currently have owners who try to do it on the cheap. And you will then.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Holy fucking logic Hank. U want to kill the cap because it'd make YOUR owner more able to play with his toys, and yet you can't see that they owner with more money THAN THE REST COMBINED, couldn't do that too?

U sure you're in accounting? Your left brain needs some work.

You misunderstand me. I don't much care how Jones spends his shekels. He makes his own bed either way.

But I don't like it when teams have to get broken up because of some artificial thing. I like dynasties.

But I don't care how much money Allen has, he can't have every QB and why would he? Who would his team play if he had everybody. Would he have Rodgers starting over Wilson?

Lots of good players out there.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

You misunderstand me. I don't much care how Jones spends his shekels. He makes his own bed either way.

But I don't like it when teams have to get broken up because of some artificial thing. I like dynasties.

But I don't care how much money Allen has, he can't have every QB and why would he? Who would his team play if he had everybody. Would he have Rodgers starting over Wilson?

Lots of good players out there.

Come on Hank, surely you understand it’s not about doubling up on a position, but honing in on the best of as many positions as possible.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Come on Hank, surely you understand it’s not about doubling up on a position, but honing in on the best of as many positions as possible.

Injuries happen, and who is to say who will be the best next year? Or now for that matter? For every lead pipe cinch lineup, there could be another very close. Would an owner lock up everybody? Really? These guys didn't get rich by being spend thrifts.



Shit happens all the time.

And second best if healthy can be just as good.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

On what?

Sign up every good player?

I honestly don't see that happening.

Which QB would he lock up? Which receivers, etc.

No way could he guarantee winning even if he did outspend everybody.

Too many good players.

And chemistry is more important than green backs.

On what? buy the best o-linemen and every top FA available. I agree it doesn't mean winning a SB but the chances of making it surly does increase by a lot.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

He is sounding like a jilted lover in all of this.

I can tell he really didn't want to leave the Seahawks but the Seahawks didn't really want him back.

The Hawks want a quieter locker room and they want to transition to fully making it Wilson's team and Sherman was one of the loudest and at times most defiant voices and I seriously doubt he and Wilson are on each other's Christmas cards list.

Unless his play is severely diminished I think he makes it at least 2 years with the 9ers. I believe a huge motivation for the 9ers to go after Sherman is they wanted him from a leadership standpoint because they just don't have a leader on defense right now and Sherman is an expert with the scheme and has the mindset they want on defense.

He'll be back in Seattle to sign that 1-day contract to retire a Seahawk but I don't see him taking another snap for them.

If he comes back from that injury playing like his usual self, you're gonna be a very happy 49rs fan ... He will lock it down...

 

[Hank Kingsley]

On what? buy the best o-linemen and every top FA available. I agree it doesn't mean winning a SB but the chances of making it surly does increase by a lot.

Even the best lineman are hard to nail down, it seems more seasonal. Nagging injuries happen to everybody. The unexpected concussion, a roll up on the leg, etc. You can only have so many players. And would a really good player simply want to be a pine riding back up and not play, just for money?

My actual position is, if you are lucky enough to draft well, you should not have to rip your team apart to keep players you drafted. You should be able to pay your players what they should be earning.

But if you go out and spend like a drunken sailor on free agents (something I've always disliked), there maybe should be limits on that. Some sort of ceiling.

But penalizing a team who was smart/lucky enough to draft a bunch of studs they are willing and able to pay is not something I approve of. They should be able to keep those players if they want to pay them market value.

 

[chf]

Even the best lineman are hard to nail down, it seems more seasonal. Nagging injuries happen to everybody. The unexpected concussion, a roll up on the leg, etc. You can only have so many players. And would a really good player simply want to be a pine riding back up and not play, just for money?

My actual position is, if you are lucky enough to draft well, you should not have to rip your team apart to keep players you drafted. You should be able to pay your players what they should be earning.

But if you go out and spend like a drunken sailor on free agents (something I've always disliked), there maybe should be limits on that. Some sort of ceiling.

But penalizing a team who was smart/lucky enough to draft a bunch of studs they are willing and able to pay is not something I approve of. They should be able to keep those players if they want to pay them market value.

Heh, as I said your logic needs work.

I dislike artificial rules, except when I like them.

ooookay.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

Heh, as I said your logic needs work.

I dislike artificial rules, except when I like them.

ooookay.

No it doesn't.

It would apply to Seattle too.

You draft well and build a good team, you should be able to keep your parts.