What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Marshawn Lynch -- "I'm here so I won't get fined" (1 Viewer)

ItsOnlytheRiver said:
Black said:
He was in the last year of his contract; with replacements behind him.

Either he holds out now and gets an extension, or gets pounded for another 300 carries and gets a year closer to 30 with no contract at the end of the season.

Either way, Fantasy players should know what Christine Michael's value is when this is all done.
Click to expand...
Not in his last year but likely was going to be cut. I don't know how the Hawks don't pay him, though. Sucks for Michael owners.
Click to expand...
Because they are not under pressure to do so. He will not sit out, for long, and lose money and they know that. They value him as a top 5 RB and he is currently paid like a top 5 RB.

 
ptsteelers said:
ItsOnlytheRiver said:
Black said:
He was in the last year of his contract; with replacements behind him.

Either he holds out now and gets an extension, or gets pounded for another 300 carries and gets a year closer to 30 with no contract at the end of the season.

Either way, Fantasy players should know what Christine Michael's value is when this is all done.
Click to expand...
Not in his last year but likely was going to be cut. I don't know how the Hawks don't pay him, though. Sucks for Michael owners.
Click to expand...
Because they are not under pressure to do so. He will not sit out, for long, and lose money and they know that. They value him as a top 5 RB and he is currently paid like a top 5 RB.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right but he's an important cog in the offense. Maybe he just doesn't want to do training camp? Wouldn't be the first time a player did that.

 
ItsOnlytheRiver said:
ptsteelers said:
ItsOnlytheRiver said:
Black said:
He was in the last year of his contract; with replacements behind him.

Either he holds out now and gets an extension, or gets pounded for another 300 carries and gets a year closer to 30 with no contract at the end of the season.

Either way, Fantasy players should know what Christine Michael's value is when this is all done.
Click to expand...
Not in his last year but likely was going to be cut. I don't know how the Hawks don't pay him, though. Sucks for Michael owners.
Click to expand...
Because they are not under pressure to do so. He will not sit out, for long, and lose money and they know that. They value him as a top 5 RB and he is currently paid like a top 5 RB.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right but he's an important cog in the offense. Maybe he just doesn't want to do training camp? Wouldn't be the first time a player did that.
Click to expand...
That would be a hefty amount of fines.

 
Lynch just gave the Seahawks the perfect excuse to test out Michael to the max to see if he's the guy, if he tests out fine, see ya Lynch. If not, they still have Lynch.

 
Rotoworld:

Profootballtalk reports there's a "zero percent chance" Marshawn Lynch reports for the start of Seahawks camp without a new deal, and that the sides have been talking off and on for four months.
Per reporter Mike Florio, the Seahawks have resisted over concerns that they'd set a bad precedent by tearing up a player's contract with two years left. They're right, of course, but we doubt that's their only concern. Now 28, Lynch has racked up a ton of mileage, and has the uber-talented Christine Michael behind him on the depth chart. None of that is to mention that Lynch is already quite fairly compensated for 2014-15.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
Click to expand...
 
Faust said:
Rotoworld:

Profootballtalk reports there's a "zero percent chance" Marshawn Lynch reports for the start of Seahawks camp without a new deal, and that the sides have been talking off and on for four months.
Per reporter Mike Florio, the Seahawks have resisted over concerns that they'd set a bad precedent by tearing up a player's contract with two years left. They're right, of course, but we doubt that's their only concern. Now 28, Lynch has racked up a ton of mileage, and has the uber-talented Christine Michael behind him on the depth chart. None of that is to mention that Lynch is already quite fairly compensated for 2014-15.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
1. Seahawks are full of it, if they didnt plan on paying him they wouldnt talk contract at all.... AT ALL.

2. Rotoworld has mentioned they think Lynch is well paid and the Seahawks dont need to worry, they have Michael waiting.... They say the exact thing every time they talk about lynch, look it up. They helped propel this Michael nonsense.

3. Who was the player that helped the Seahawks win a Super Bowl? Lynch or Michael?

4. Charles has never won a Super Bowl and got paid, when Rotoworld mentioned his hold out, they didnt talk about how Charles was playing out his contract, was well paid and that they had Davis waiting in the wings. Rotoworld is garbage, pure bias garbage whose only intention is to support their projections.

5. Lynch is not just a replaceable player, you also dont replace him with a guy who didnt dress most the season.

 
Rotoworld continues to prop themselves up as a news service. They've blurred the lines of news/editorial for quite a while. Similar to the way CNN and FOX do on a daily basis. Edward R. Murrow's retirement speech still speaks volumes. Its not information. Its infotainment.

I could see many different scenarios playing out here. They might opt to pay Lynch a bit more. They might opt to let him walk. That said, I don't think Michael plays as big a part as fantasy owners would like to think he does.

Don't forget this: Seattle has really hit hone runs with the free agents that they decided to pay over the past few years. Lynch was one of them. How many RBs get the big money and then perform through the contract? Not many IMO. You could even argue that Lynch got paid and then played even better. Seattle fans remember well the Shaun Alexander travishamockery. I don't believe Lynch is the sort of person that will get paid and then have a performance drop off due to being lazy. Perhaps due to age/wear/tear, but not because the money made him lethargic and/or sluggish.

 
False Start said:
Faust said:
Rotoworld:

Profootballtalk reports there's a "zero percent chance" Marshawn Lynch reports for the start of Seahawks camp without a new deal, and that the sides have been talking off and on for four months.
Per reporter Mike Florio, the Seahawks have resisted over concerns that they'd set a bad precedent by tearing up a player's contract with two years left. They're right, of course, but we doubt that's their only concern. Now 28, Lynch has racked up a ton of mileage, and has the uber-talented Christine Michael behind him on the depth chart. None of that is to mention that Lynch is already quite fairly compensated for 2014-15.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
1. Seahawks are full of it, if they didnt plan on paying him they wouldnt talk contract at all.... AT ALL.

2. Rotoworld has mentioned they think Lynch is well paid and the Seahawks dont need to worry, they have Michael waiting.... They say the exact thing every time they talk about lynch, look it up. They helped propel this Michael nonsense.

3. Who was the player that helped the Seahawks win a Super Bowl? Lynch or Michael?

4. Charles has never won a Super Bowl and got paid, when Rotoworld mentioned his hold out, they didnt talk about how Charles was playing out his contract, was well paid and that they had Davis waiting in the wings. Rotoworld is garbage, pure bias garbage whose only intention is to support their projections.

5. Lynch is not just a replaceable player, you also dont replace him with a guy who didnt dress most the season.
Click to expand...
1) That is not true ... at all. And perhaps, just perhaps, Seattle is trying to take the smart way around this and work out a one year pay raise for Lynch. I only say that because it is, from my point of view, not in their best interest to give him another long term contract or increase his pay for the remainder of the current contract. A one year "Thanks for all you've done" pay raise (bonus) would be a great way to calm Lynch down. I would hope. (Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse. "Sorry guys. I didn't perform like I was paid to, so please take some money from me as I "underperformed my contract". And can you imagine if that crap worked in the real world? You sign a contract for this painter to paint your house and when he is done painting the living room, he comes to you and says "Well, I know I agreed to the current contract, but I actually painted that room better than both you and I thought I would. I need more money to finish the rest of the rooms because I outperformed the current contract"

2) That is true. Noticed that with other players as well

3) Well, Lynch did well, but let's not get crazy here. He was also the one on the sidelines most of the game as well (yes because the game got out of hand, I get that). And last year is last year is last year. Who will be the starter for Seattle in two years? Maybe not Michael, maybe, but Lynch? Bet you he won't be.

4) You kinda went all over the place here (though I do the same as you can see in my response to number 1) But again, I wouldn't have paid Charles, and most sites do try and support their projections.

5) Nope. He is a great player, but he is also a player that is getting at that age where production could just suddenly take a major decline. You have to admit that history has shown that. And I am not touching that "didn't dress" crap again. That has been discussed to death and I will not go into why it was different for Michael ... again.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ptsteelers said:
(Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse.
Click to expand...
This is consistently one of the weakest arguments related to holdouts. See it over and over again, but it's completely untrue: teams cut players and fail to see out future years of a contract out all the time.

Teams cut, players holdout -- non-guaranteed contracts build that dynamic into the system.

 
I hope Lynch is getting good advice here. He's a different sort of dude and I can see this getting really ugly if he believes he's got leverage. Has the rare potential to be something other than your typical holdout IMO.

AJ Smith managed to screw up the Vincent Jackson thing (and help tank the Chargers' season that year) through stubborness and overestimating his leverage, and I can see Lynch botching this one for the same reasons.

 
ptsteelers said:
A one year "Thanks for all you've done" pay raise (bonus) would be a great way to calm Lynch down. I would hope. (Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse. "Sorry guys. I didn't perform like I was paid to, so please take some money from me as I "underperformed my contract". And can you imagine if that crap worked in the real world? You sign a contract for this painter to paint your house and when he is done painting the living room, he comes to you and says "Well, I know I agreed to the current contract, but I actually painted that room better than both you and I thought I would. I need more money to finish the rest of the rooms because I outperformed the current contract"
Click to expand...
This is very unfair. NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Teams can cut a player at any moment for any reason. This is the system that both players and teams have adopted and have to work with. Calling this "crap" displays a lack of perspective.

 
My gut tells me this holdout is going to be a long one. Meaning, I think this doesn't get resolved until just before the season starts. Lynch has earned the title beast mode the past few seasons and has been a great RB and probably deserves as much money as he can get. The problem is he is an older RB with a lot of punishing carries on a team that may have a new best waiting for his chance. Things get even stickier because the Seahawks have a lot of other young key pieces that will be needing new contracts in the near future so they can't extend Lynch with a high contract and then be able to try to keep a lot of other key guys.

 
False Start said:
Faust said:
Rotoworld:

Profootballtalk reports there's a "zero percent chance" Marshawn Lynch reports for the start of Seahawks camp without a new deal, and that the sides have been talking off and on for four months.
Per reporter Mike Florio, the Seahawks have resisted over concerns that they'd set a bad precedent by tearing up a player's contract with two years left. They're right, of course, but we doubt that's their only concern. Now 28, Lynch has racked up a ton of mileage, and has the uber-talented Christine Michael behind him on the depth chart. None of that is to mention that Lynch is already quite fairly compensated for 2014-15.

Source: Profootballtalk on NBCSports.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
1. Seahawks are full of it, if they didnt plan on paying him they wouldnt talk contract at all.... AT ALL.

2. Rotoworld has mentioned they think Lynch is well paid and the Seahawks dont need to worry, they have Michael waiting.... They say the exact thing every time they talk about lynch, look it up. They helped propel this Michael nonsense.

3. Who was the player that helped the Seahawks win a Super Bowl? Lynch or Michael?

4. Charles has never won a Super Bowl and got paid, when Rotoworld mentioned his hold out, they didnt talk about how Charles was playing out his contract, was well paid and that they had Davis waiting in the wings. Rotoworld is garbage, pure bias garbage whose only intention is to support their projections.

5. Lynch is not just a replaceable player, you also dont replace him with a guy who didnt dress most the season.
Click to expand...
1) Don't know about that. We don't know what Seattle and Lynch's camp are talking about. Are they really going to chase the agent out of the office if he wants to talk to them?

2) Lynch IS well paid by current RB standards, exceptionally well paid in fact. Roto does seem to talk about Micahel a lot, but I think the point is that the team has viable potential replacements.

3) Lynch did, along with a BUNCH of other dudes. If every one of them decided to hold out with two years left on the deals while being paid in the top five at their positions, the team would be in trouble.

4) Charles was getting paid considerably less than Lynch before the new deal, and quite frankly was a more vital player to the organization IMO. I grant that this is a matter for debate, but he lead the team in rushing and receiving and is pushing 4K total yards over two years.

5) Lots of guys aren't replaceable until they are replaced. Would the team take a hit? Probably. But is avoiding that possible hit worth breaking the bank for a vet back with other possible options and setting a precedent they don't want to set? That's the question the Seahawks have to answer, and I know how I would answer it.

By the way, I'm a Lynch owner.

 
wdcrob said:
ptsteelers said:
(Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse.
Click to expand...
This is consistently one of the weakest arguments related to holdouts. See it over and over again, but it's completely untrue: teams cut players and fail to see out future years of a contract out all the time.

Teams cut, players holdout -- non-guaranteed contracts build that dynamic into the system.
Click to expand...
And I could fire my Painter or he could just hold out. Yes contracts are not "guaranteed", but stop using "I outplayed my contract" as the excuse. That is what I was talking about. How do you "OUT PERFORM" a contract?

 
Hooper31 said:
ptsteelers said:
A one year "Thanks for all you've done" pay raise (bonus) would be a great way to calm Lynch down. I would hope. (Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse. "Sorry guys. I didn't perform like I was paid to, so please take some money from me as I "underperformed my contract". And can you imagine if that crap worked in the real world? You sign a contract for this painter to paint your house and when he is done painting the living room, he comes to you and says "Well, I know I agreed to the current contract, but I actually painted that room better than both you and I thought I would. I need more money to finish the rest of the rooms because I outperformed the current contract"
Click to expand...
This is very unfair. NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Teams can cut a player at any moment for any reason. This is the system that both players and teams have adopted and have to work with. Calling this "crap" displays a lack of perspective.
Click to expand...
*Sigh* see above.

EDIT - Sorry, didn't mean to seem ... D***ish, just get exasperated at the ludicrous idea of outplaying a contract

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy Schneikes said:
2) Lynch IS well paid by current RB standards, exceptionally well paid in fact. Roto does seem to talk about Micahel a lot, but I think the point is that the team has viable potential replacements.
Click to expand...
This can be argued in more than one way.

If you're just talking salary he's #5 on the list for the upcoming season. If you're talking about average salary over the life of the current contract he's #9 on the list.

 
Warhogs said:
My gut tells me this holdout is going to be a long one. Meaning, I think this doesn't get resolved until just before the season starts. Lynch has earned the title beast mode the past few seasons and has been a great RB and probably deserves as much money as he can get. The problem is he is an older RB with a lot of punishing carries on a team that may have a new best waiting for his chance. Things get even stickier because the Seahawks have a lot of other young key pieces that will be needing new contracts in the near future so they can't extend Lynch with a high contract and then be able to try to keep a lot of other key guys.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Lynch is putting the organization in a tough spot because they have to be able to afford other guys that are much younger. These young players have contracts that are very short of fair compensation.

Is the fine for missing camp an optional one for the Seahawks?

 
Hooper31 said:
Holy Schneikes said:
2) Lynch IS well paid by current RB standards, exceptionally well paid in fact. Roto does seem to talk about Micahel a lot, but I think the point is that the team has viable potential replacements.
Click to expand...
This can be argued in more than one way.

If you're just talking salary he's #5 on the list for the upcoming season. If you're talking about average salary over the life of the current contract he's #9 on the list.
Click to expand...
But I think, again , think :lol: that is all Seattle is really concerned with. This current year coming up. He will either walk or they will release Lynch after this year. "I think"

 
The only thing you can assume is lynch is not going to sit out the season or retire.... so the only options left are they agree to a deal or he reluctantly reports right before the season starts and then who knows what you get out of lynch this year

... Are the seahawks really going to buy their own christine michael hype? The guy has very little game experience... doesnt seem like a smart move for a team with title aspirations

as someone who can roster michael for $1 i'm intrigued but I'm expecting lynch to be there week 1 as the starter

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lynch is a great back but he isn't in the same league as Charles, who deserved to get paid. If I'm Seattle I call this bluff.

 
I don't see this being worked out nearly as smoothly or quickly as the Jamaal Charles situation though I do think Seattle may find a way to get him a little more guaranteed money

But Ive been sliding Lynch a little down my redraft board. The mileage over the last 3 years along with contract/holdout/retirement talk is just not giving me a good vibe on him this year.

 
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.

 
ptsteelers said:
Hooper31 said:
ptsteelers said:
A one year "Thanks for all you've done" pay raise (bonus) would be a great way to calm Lynch down. I would hope. (Even though I am totally against the "outplayed his contract" crap. They always use that, but never have you seen a player do the reverse. "Sorry guys. I didn't perform like I was paid to, so please take some money from me as I "underperformed my contract". And can you imagine if that crap worked in the real world? You sign a contract for this painter to paint your house and when he is done painting the living room, he comes to you and says "Well, I know I agreed to the current contract, but I actually painted that room better than both you and I thought I would. I need more money to finish the rest of the rooms because I outperformed the current contract"
Click to expand...
This is very unfair. NFL contracts aren't guaranteed. Teams can cut a player at any moment for any reason. This is the system that both players and teams have adopted and have to work with. Calling this "crap" displays a lack of perspective.
Click to expand...
*Sigh* see above.

EDIT - Sorry, didn't mean to seem ... D***ish, just get exasperated at the ludicrous idea of outplaying a contract
Click to expand...
The painter comparison is what is ludicrous as it's a completely different situation. The painter in your scenario is an independent contractor and can sign contracts with as many homeowners or other clients as he wants. Not analogous at all to an NFL contract.

I don't get all of the misplaced indignation people have when it comes to NFL players attempts to use their leverage for greater compensation. They have extremely short windows of maximum earning potential, are at constant risk of suffering career ending injuries, have contracts that are not fully guaranteed, and can be cut at just about any time.

This doesnt mean I agree with every player that holds out, or that teams should meet every contract demand but I don't understand the huge problem so many people have with players looking out for their best interests. Just like I have no problems with everyday working people requesting raises and promotions or seeking new employment opportunities at their respective jobs within the dynamics of their given professional field.

At the end of the day it all comes down to leverage. I find it interesting and somewhat troubling that many have such a problem when some people try to exercise their leverage but no problem at all when others do it.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
Exactly

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
I wrote above that I'm sliding Lynch down my redraft board but I agree with this 100%.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question (and a great post) - whether everything you just said is how the team staff feels about him. Do THEY believe that they couldn't have won a superbowl without him, or can't win another one this year without him. Without trying to be TOO snarky here, Seattle just might believe they could have still beaten Denver without Lynch's 39 yards on 15 carries in the big game.

I don't doubt for a second that Lynch was/is in the upper echelon of overall RBs in the league, and I don't doubt that he helped them tremendously in achieving their goals. But is he truly irreplaceable? Or is there a trade-off there that might be worth denying him what he is asking for (whatever that is)? Those are much harder questions. I said in previous threads I thought he had SOME leverage, just not a LOT of leverage. I don't think the team will be AS good without Lynch, but they would still be a very good team. Of course, they also have to weigh the odds that he would actually follow through and sit out the season and lose the money he is on the books for.

 
Holy Schneikes said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question (and a great post) - whether everything you just said is how the team staff feels about him. Do THEY believe that they couldn't have won a superbowl without him, or can't win another one this year without him. Without trying to be TOO snarky here, Seattle just might believe they could have still beaten Denver without Lynch's 39 yards on 15 carries in the big game.I don't doubt for a second that Lynch was/is in the upper echelon of overall RBs in the league, and I don't doubt that he helped them tremendously in achieving their goals. But is he truly irreplaceable? Or is there a trade-off there that might be worth denying him what he is asking for (whatever that is)? Those are much harder questions. I said in previous threads I thought he had SOME leverage, just not a LOT of leverage. I don't think the team will be AS good without Lynch, but they would still be a very good team. Of course, they also have to weigh the odds that he would actually follow through and sit out the season and lose the money he is on the books for.
Click to expand...
Agree with this as well. It certainly doesn't make any sense at all for Seattle to break the bank and give Lynch a huge cap-crippling guaranteed extension. But just telling him to go pound sand doesn't make a ton of sense either given how razor thin the margins can be between the elite teams in the NFL. My guess is that they find some middle ground where he gets a little more security / money and saves face without compromising the team's ability to re-up other players moving forward.

My main point was that you just can't plug and play when replacing a Marshawn Lynch. He's a really freaking good all around football player IMO.

 
I think this is less about Lynch thinking he is underpaid and moreso Lynch knowing he is on his way out in Seattle and wants to squeeze them for a few more bucks when they need him.

Lynch is not underpaid. He got a huge contract a couple years ago and received a higher % of guaranteed money than RBs like Adrian Peterson, Lesean McCoy, Matt Forte, etc. He is currently 8th highest paid RB for 2014, but time value of money for his signing bonus and past two years salary needs to be taken into account with that.

If I was to guess, the Seahawks will throw him a bone of an extra million and release him after this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fridayfrenzy said:
I think this is less about Lynch thinking he is underpaid and moreso Lynch knowing he is on his way out in Seattle and wants to squeeze them for a few more bucks when they need him.

Lynch is not underpaid. He got a huge contract a couple years ago and received a higher % of guaranteed money than RBs like Adrian Peterson, Lesean McCoy, Matt Forte, etc. He is currently 8th highest paid RB for 2014, but time value of money for his signing bonus and past two years salary needs to be taken into account with that.

If I was to guess, the Seahawks will throw him a bone of an extra million and release him after this year.
Click to expand...
I am of the same thought.

I also think his carries will go down, slightly, this year and have put my money where my mouth is with a bet in my league that Lynch will not average 17 carries a game during our year (13 weeks, not counting the bye). I believe this will be, whether I am wrong or correct, a very good gauge in determining his short term future with Seattle. We should know by week four or five what Seattle will do with Lynch.

 
fridayfrenzy said:
I think this is less about Lynch thinking he is underpaid and moreso Lynch knowing he is on his way out in Seattle and wants to squeeze them for a few more bucks when they need him.

Lynch is not underpaid. He got a huge contract a couple years ago and received a higher % of guaranteed money than RBs like Adrian Peterson, Lesean McCoy, Matt Forte, etc. He is currently 8th highest paid RB for 2014, but time value of money for his signing bonus and past two years salary needs to be taken into account with that.

If I was to guess, the Seahawks will throw him a bone of an extra million and release him after this year.
Click to expand...
And he earned every penny of it.

What Lynch is looking for is a way to not get cut next year. I think if he could get next year guaranteed he'd be happy.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Holy Schneikes said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question (and a great post) - whether everything you just said is how the team staff feels about him. Do THEY believe that they couldn't have won a superbowl without him, or can't win another one this year without him. Without trying to be TOO snarky here, Seattle just might believe they could have still beaten Denver without Lynch's 39 yards on 15 carries in the big game.I don't doubt for a second that Lynch was/is in the upper echelon of overall RBs in the league, and I don't doubt that he helped them tremendously in achieving their goals. But is he truly irreplaceable? Or is there a trade-off there that might be worth denying him what he is asking for (whatever that is)? Those are much harder questions. I said in previous threads I thought he had SOME leverage, just not a LOT of leverage. I don't think the team will be AS good without Lynch, but they would still be a very good team. Of course, they also have to weigh the odds that he would actually follow through and sit out the season and lose the money he is on the books for.
Click to expand...
Agree with this as well. It certainly doesn't make any sense at all for Seattle to break the bank and give Lynch a huge cap-crippling guaranteed extension. But just telling him to go pound sand doesn't make a ton of sense either given how razor thin the margins can be between the elite teams in the NFL. My guess is that they find some middle ground where he gets a little more security / money and saves face without compromising the team's ability to re-up other players moving forward.

My main point was that you just can't plug and play when replacing a Marshawn Lynch. He's a really freaking good all around football player IMO.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, the Seahawks wouldnt need Peterson, McCoy, Lacy or Charles. Heck they wouldnt need Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith in their prime...

They have Christine Michael, thats all they need according to a lot of people on this board and Rotoworld.

 
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
  • Lynch is not a locker room leader like Frank Gore
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Touchdown There said:
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.
Click to expand...
Seems like you have been watching ESPN or NFL Network and reading Rotoworld and regurgitating what they say.

They already solidified other position and are 7 million under the cap and Lynch already counts for 7 mill.

Lynch is being paid well is according to you and other media members who do not take the hits he does, he clearly does not think he is being paid well.

I agree, it sets a bad example to pay one of your important pieces more money because he is worth it.

If you are willing to let a guy like Lynch (A total of over 1400 yards and 12 TDs each of the last three years) go for Michael and Turbin, you do not deserve to have Marshawn on your team.

Just because he is 28 does not mean he is going to slow down. He is not just any other back, the people who think that clearly do not know what they are talking about. Charles will be 28 this year and had a torn ACL a few years back and people still love him and were saying he should get paid. Hype and popular opinion is not always the right decision.

 
False Start said:
Touchdown There said:
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.
Click to expand...
They already solidified other position
Click to expand...
Not QB. How much do you think that will cost the team? How much is Russell Wilson worth? When will he get paid? No other young guys deserve a raise? You are only looking at it through "my dynasty team has Lynch" eyes.

 
Touchdown There said:
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
  • Lynch is not a locker room leader like Frank Gore
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.
Click to expand...
You know this how?

 
cstu said:
Touchdown There said:
Russell Wilson's paycheck seems to be ignored by those who think Seattle should pay Lynch:

  • 2014: $662,434
  • 2015: $798,651
Click to expand...
They can guarantee Lynch for 2015 and extend Wilson next year. I don't see a problem.
Click to expand...
You don't see a problem so Russell Wilson should be OK with his paycheck? Lynch is replaceable, Russell Wilson is not. I can assure you there is a lack of understanding by Lynch owners.

 
cstu said:
Touchdown There said:
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
  • Lynch is not a locker room leader like Frank Gore
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.
Click to expand...
You know this how?
Click to expand...
Google.com for all your research needs.

 
False Start said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Holy Schneikes said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question (and a great post) - whether everything you just said is how the team staff feels about him. Do THEY believe that they couldn't have won a superbowl without him, or can't win another one this year without him. Without trying to be TOO snarky here, Seattle just might believe they could have still beaten Denver without Lynch's 39 yards on 15 carries in the big game.I don't doubt for a second that Lynch was/is in the upper echelon of overall RBs in the league, and I don't doubt that he helped them tremendously in achieving their goals. But is he truly irreplaceable? Or is there a trade-off there that might be worth denying him what he is asking for (whatever that is)? Those are much harder questions. I said in previous threads I thought he had SOME leverage, just not a LOT of leverage. I don't think the team will be AS good without Lynch, but they would still be a very good team. Of course, they also have to weigh the odds that he would actually follow through and sit out the season and lose the money he is on the books for.
Click to expand...
Agree with this as well. It certainly doesn't make any sense at all for Seattle to break the bank and give Lynch a huge cap-crippling guaranteed extension. But just telling him to go pound sand doesn't make a ton of sense either given how razor thin the margins can be between the elite teams in the NFL. My guess is that they find some middle ground where he gets a little more security / money and saves face without compromising the team's ability to re-up other players moving forward.

My main point was that you just can't plug and play when replacing a Marshawn Lynch. He's a really freaking good all around football player IMO.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, the Seahawks wouldnt need Peterson, McCoy, Lacy or Charles. Heck they wouldnt need Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith in their prime...

They have Christine Michael, thats all they need according to a lot of people on this board and Rotoworld.
Click to expand...
Think someone needs to change their name to FALSE CLAIMS. Please do be so kind to point out which "LOT OF PEOPLE" have said anything like that.

 
Touchdown There said:
False Start said:
Touchdown There said:
I personally believe this situation is much stickier than Lynch owners/fans believe. This is about money (respect) to Lynch and he is taking it personally. The Seahawks cannot give him a new contract for these reasons:

  • The money spent at RB would affect their ability to solidify other positions
  • Lynch is already being paid well
  • It sets a bad example to the rest of the team
  • The Seahawks believe the position will be solid with Turbin + Michael
In other words, Lynch has no leverage. I believe the Seahawks will not hand him a new contract and both sides are trenched in. I also believe that Lynch would rather retire on top than lose the money battle.
Click to expand...
They already solidified other position
Click to expand...
Not QB. How much do you think that will cost the team? How much is Russell Wilson worth? When will he get paid? No other young guys deserve a raise? You are only looking at it through "my dynasty team has Lynch" eyes.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't Russell play out his contract? I like Russell, but he isnt the main reason they won a title. The Defense and the Ground game is what drives this team, last I checked the ground game was Lynch, not Turbin and not Michael. Yes, Wilson adds a running dimension, but without Lynch making defenses crowd the box, Wilson could be contained and thats what will happen with Michael. You may love him in fantasy, but that does not mean NFL defenses fear a young RB like Michael right now. Ask Patrick Willis in San Francisco if he rather play Lynch or Michael.

The Seahawks have a chance to repeat, they will not repeat without Lynch, end of story. Michael does not help them win a title, Lynch does and did.

 
Touchdown There said:
<p>

Russell Wilson's paycheck seems to be ignored by those who think Seattle should pay Lynch:

  • 2014: $662,434
  • 2015: $798,651
Click to expand...
Per the CBA, they can't renegotiate Wilson's deal until next offseason even if they wanted to. Throwing Lynch a bone in 2014 has exactly zero ramifications on a deal with Wilson. Obviously if it comes down to either Wilson or Lynch exclusively in 2015, then Lynch is gone, but it's really not that simple. I'm guessing John Schneider is probably smart enough to figure out a way to get Lynch back in the fold this year without compromising his ability to lock up Wilson for 2015 and beyond.

 
Touchdown There said:
cstu said:
Touchdown There said:
Russell Wilson's paycheck seems to be ignored by those who think Seattle should pay Lynch:

  • 2014: $662,434
  • 2015: $798,651
Click to expand...
They can guarantee Lynch for 2015 and extend Wilson next year. I don't see a problem.
Click to expand...
You don't see a problem so Russell Wilson should be OK with his paycheck? Lynch is replaceable, Russell Wilson is not. I can assure you there is a lack of understanding by Lynch owners.
Click to expand...
COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE!

 
ptsteelers said:
False Start said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Holy Schneikes said:
Coeur de Lion said:
Lot of people underestimating how good Marshawn Lynch is and how much he means to Seattle in here. Lynch is one of the few RBs who is a major (+) in all aspects of the game (running, receiving, blocking, durability/reliability) and also a veteran presence who sets the "we're physically kicking your ###" tone with the way he runs. He's the foundation of Seattle's offense and every bit as important to them overall as any RB in the NFL is to any other team. He's not a guy you can just replace and not miss a beat, regardless of how well the next guy up did on combine tests.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the question (and a great post) - whether everything you just said is how the team staff feels about him. Do THEY believe that they couldn't have won a superbowl without him, or can't win another one this year without him. Without trying to be TOO snarky here, Seattle just might believe they could have still beaten Denver without Lynch's 39 yards on 15 carries in the big game.I don't doubt for a second that Lynch was/is in the upper echelon of overall RBs in the league, and I don't doubt that he helped them tremendously in achieving their goals. But is he truly irreplaceable? Or is there a trade-off there that might be worth denying him what he is asking for (whatever that is)? Those are much harder questions. I said in previous threads I thought he had SOME leverage, just not a LOT of leverage. I don't think the team will be AS good without Lynch, but they would still be a very good team. Of course, they also have to weigh the odds that he would actually follow through and sit out the season and lose the money he is on the books for.
Click to expand...
Agree with this as well. It certainly doesn't make any sense at all for Seattle to break the bank and give Lynch a huge cap-crippling guaranteed extension. But just telling him to go pound sand doesn't make a ton of sense either given how razor thin the margins can be between the elite teams in the NFL. My guess is that they find some middle ground where he gets a little more security / money and saves face without compromising the team's ability to re-up other players moving forward.My main point was that you just can't plug and play when replacing a Marshawn Lynch. He's a really freaking good all around football player IMO.
Click to expand...
What do you mean, the Seahawks wouldnt need Peterson, McCoy, Lacy or Charles. Heck they wouldnt need Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith in their prime...

They have Christine Michael, thats all they need according to a lot of people on this board and Rotoworld.
Click to expand...
Think someone needs to change their name to FALSE CLAIMS. Please do be so kind to point out which "LOT OF PEOPLE" have said anything like that.
Click to expand...
A simple search will reveal a ton of Michael > Lynch talk. About a month ago in another thread there were people claiming Lynch = Peterson.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Seahawks Expected to Activate Jaxon Smith-Njigba (Wrist) for NFL Season Opener - GridironPulse.com
Replies
1
Views
378
FBG Moderator
F
T
Travdogg's 3 round mock draft
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Bankerguy
Bankerguy
T
Travdogg's draft grades
2
Replies
72
Views
3K
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top