0-3 Without Thomas

[Uncle Si]

I think you two are both right to be honest.

ET was a major reason why the team won against Dallas. He was also not the only reason. The play of the defense (and the turnovers) allowed for the offense to grind it out on the ground, get RW playing more efficiently and getting some points.

The play of the offense thus gave the defense more rest, better field position, etc.

The two played hand in hand.

It was nice.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Well we were 0-2 with him before yesterday

we were 0-2 but still in the game. I doubt we're even in them without Thomas, and I doubt we win games against contenders this year without Thomas.

As long as he shows up on Sunday, let him play out the year and walk in free agency. We do not have a viable replacement on the roster. We might next year.

Seymour wrote 0-3 without Thomas.........and I was reminding him that we were 0-2 with Earl, so whatever point he's trying to make doesn't hold a lot of water.

Earl's a great player, and obviously we're a better defense with him, than without him. But the reason we won Sunday was not because of Earl, it's because our offense finally played well, ran the ball and didn't turn the ball over.

Isn't my point obvious? I'll spell it out. Earl is worth a couple of W's per season and IMO we just saw one of them because turnovers are game changers. There better?

I could say the same thing about Russell, or McDougal, or Bobby, or Carson, or Duane Brown, or Lockett.

Yes, when you best players play well you usually win.

I guess I don't understand your point of the thread Seymour. Are you saying we should give Earl what he wants because that's worth a couple games a year? I sure don't.......not during a rebuild when giving Earl 40M guaranteed would severely hamstring our cap and prevent us from addressing glaring needs all over the roster.

Or was this just a general observation that Earl is good. Thanks for that earth shattering revelation.

 

[zetes]

Seymour wrote 0-3 without Thomas.........and I was reminding him that we were 0-2 with Earl, so whatever point he's trying to make doesn't hold a lot of water.

Earl's a great player, and obviously we're a better defense with him, than without him. But the reason we won Sunday was not because of Earl, it's because our offense finally played well, ran the ball and didn't turn the ball over.

I disagree. We won the game because the Defense shut down Dallas and won the turn over battle. We ran the ball because the offense was continually given the ball by the Defense. Russell made some key throws and Carson ran the ball well BUT we don't win if the Defense didn't play as well as they did on Sunday.

Z.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

Is Earl asking for $13 million a year on a 3 year contract?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Is Earl asking for $13 million a year on a 3 year contract?

Earl wants an Eric Berry type contract, which was for six years at 13M a year with 40M guaranteed.

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/6/25/17 ... 2018-terms

Not happening.

 

[DomeHawk]

He displayed some deft hands but he did nothing to causer those INT's.

If it were me i would just keep playing him until someone with a real need offered something worth trading for.

He's an all-pro, the chances that a 1st round trade would also be an all-pro are less than 50%.

 

[Seymour]

we were 0-2 but still in the game. I doubt we're even in them without Thomas, and I doubt we win games against contenders this year without Thomas.

As long as he shows up on Sunday, let him play out the year and walk in free agency. We do not have a viable replacement on the roster. We might next year.

Seymour wrote 0-3 without Thomas.........and I was reminding him that we were 0-2 with Earl, so whatever point he's trying to make doesn't hold a lot of water.

Earl's a great player, and obviously we're a better defense with him, than without him. But the reason we won Sunday was not because of Earl, it's because our offense finally played well, ran the ball and didn't turn the ball over.

Isn't my point obvious? I'll spell it out. Earl is worth a couple of W's per season and IMO we just saw one of them because turnovers are game changers. There better?

I could say the same thing about Russell, or McDougal, or Bobby, or Carson, or Duane Brown, or Lockett.

Yes, when you best players play well you usually win.

I guess I don't understand your point of the thread Seymour. Are you saying we should give Earl what he wants because that's worth a couple games a year? I sure don't.......not during a rebuild when giving Earl 40M guaranteed would severely hamstring our cap and prevent us from addressing glaring needs all over the roster.

Or was this just a general observation that Earl is good. Thanks for that earth shattering revelation.

Yes you could....but you'd be wrong because none of them was responsible for creating 2 turnovers.

Look...I said it was debatable because there are other factors. Either way it would be accurate to say that without Earls 2 turnovers and league leading play, that game was a push at best.

Point of the thread is after seeing his OBVIOUS impact, are people changing their mind on what they'd like to see happen to Thomas?? I asked that also.

.....What do others think now that he's ballin' again?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Point of the thread is after seeing his OBVIOUS impact, are people changing their mind on what they'd like to see happen to Thomas?? I asked that also.]

And I asked your opinion, does Earl's play change your mind about giving in to his extension demands?

 

[Seymour]

Point of the thread is after seeing his OBVIOUS impact, are people changing their mind on what they'd like to see happen to Thomas?? I asked that also.]

And I asked your opinion, does Earl's play change your mind about giving in to his extension demands?

Why ask that when I answered it in my very first post?? I'm asking if others are standing pat or changing their minds? OK...you haven't....next.

I'm still all for moving on from Thomas because his asking price and attitude....but IMO we lose that game without him (he accounted for 3 turnovers)

What do others think now that he's ballin' again?

BTW, I did also notice 2 different plays that he could have stuck his nose into but he elected to "step aside" on instead.

Decisions decisions...... :3-1:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Point of the thread is after seeing his OBVIOUS impact, are people changing their mind on what they'd like to see happen to Thomas?? I asked that also.]

And I asked your opinion, does Earl's play change your mind about giving in to his extension demands?

Why ask that when I answered it in my very first post?? I'm asking if others are standing pat or changing their minds? OK...you haven't....next.

I'm still all for moving on from Thomas because his asking price and attitude....but IMO we lose that game without him (he accounted for 3 turnovers)

What do others think now that he's ballin' again?

BTW, I did also notice 2 different plays that he could have stuck his nose into but he elected to "step aside" on instead.

Decisions decisions...... :3-1:

I agree on the moving on part, unless he lowers his extension demands to a reasonable 2-3 years at 10-11M a year type deal.

I disagree that we'd be 0-3 without Earl. He's played great, but both picks Sunday were reflexive after the play interceptions, he wasn't the player that jumped in front of the pass and prevented a big play.

I again credit the offense more than the defense, and to single out Earl as the reason we won and if he wasn't playing we would have lost? Nope.

 

[Uncle Si]

I highly doubt ET is asking for 6 years.

He may be asking for 3 years at 12/13 with a chunk guaranteed.

 

[Seymour]

Game stats are very close in everything except turnovers (3-0). Pretty clear turnovers is the KEY difference to me, but no way to prove that so OK. :2thumbs:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I highly doubt ET is asking for 6 years.

He may be asking for 3 years at 12/13 with a chunk guaranteed.

Maybe, but the only time Earl has publicly commented on the numbers is last year when multiple times he referenced Eric Berry's new contract, which was for six years with 40M guaranteed.

So until I hear otherwise, that's what everything thus far has pointed to. Earl thinks he's still the best safety in football, so why would he want less money or years?

I mean, he SHOULD lower his years to 2-3, that might entice more teams into the mix..................... but he's done nothing but double and triple down on the tantrums and talk.

 

[Seymour]

I highly doubt ET is asking for 6 years.

He may be asking for 3 years at 12/13 with a chunk guaranteed.

Earl started this last year and there are reports we've made no offers (which makes sense). That may well be why, but whatever the reason, it seems Pete has decided to move on.

With the strained relationship it's tough to believe franchising him could be an option, so what not take what we can get?? My only guess is Pete believes this team "can compete" in the playoffs.

But no....nobody is paying him 6 years unless the Mariners need him?

 

[Sgt Largent]

If we can get a GOOD trade deal, you move him. He has mentally checked out as a Seattle Seahawk. He is producing on the field because of his talent and that's his only way to present a resume to potential suitors. It has nothing to do with wanting to help this team. It's all about him and Lord knows, he needs to feed his family. :roll:

Interesting discussion point....has he??

Not so sure myself. By most accounts he looks and sounds like he has, but once Earl hit's the field it's pretty much game on and he knows just one speed. Point being....On Sundays he's not looking "checked out".

One observation I had during the game. It looked suspiciously like ET repeatedly looked right past Pete even as he was standing right in front of him. He would talk and acknowledge his teammate, but treated Pete like he was invisible.

Now maybe, he gets his money and it's all hugs and giggles again. While I'm not frothing at the mouth for him to stay or go, he's playing the hired gun/mercenary card too strongly for me to feel too much empathy towards him.

 

[Seymour]

Ya, I noticed he would not acknowledge Pete on the sidelines too.

Again, it's just weird that Pete keeps putting up with the behavior and not taking whatever they can get. I have a feeling that time will come soon, and he won't make it through the season here.

 

[Coug_Hawk08]

Are we not giving Mcdougald enough credit? He has been outstanding. Not super sure Earl has even been the best safety on the team, especially if you consider sanders bust, and the would be zeke TD — but he wants to be paid like the best defensive player in the league.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Ya, I noticed he would not acknowledge Pete on the sidelines too.

Again, it's just weird that Pete keeps putting up with the behavior and not taking whatever they can get. I have a feeling that time will come soon, and he won't make it through the season here.

Because Earl's balling out and helping us win games, as you created this thread to point out.

So I'm just fine with what our FO is doing, holding firm on their 1st round price tag and continuing to let Earl help us win if no one gives us that 1st rounder.

If we've learned anything about Pete, he obviously doesn't care about distractions, in fact it seems like he relishes them to prove to everyone what a great manager of personalities he is.

Just giving him away for less than he's worth would get rid of Earl, but it'd also send a message that if a player is unhappy and wants out, all he has to do is be a royal pain in the ass and we'll trade him for peanuts.

This message is "you can throw all the tantrums you want Earl (and others who are watching), but we're not budging on your demands, or lowering our asking price. So have at it, it won't work with us."

 

[Seymour]

Ya, I noticed he would not acknowledge Pete on the sidelines too.

Again, it's just weird that Pete keeps putting up with the behavior and not taking whatever they can get. I have a feeling that time will come soon, and he won't make it through the season here.

Because Earl's balling out and helping us win games, as you created this thread to point out.

So I'm just fine with what our FO is doing, holding firm on their 1st round price tag and continuing to let Earl help us win if no one gives us that 1st rounder.

If we've learned anything about Pete, he obviously doesn't care about distractions, in fact it seems like he relishes them to prove to everyone what a great manager of personalities he is.

Just giving him away for less than he's worth would get rid of Earl, but it'd also send a message that if a player is unhappy and wants out, all he has to do is be a royal pain in the ass and we'll trade him for peanuts.

This message is "you can throw all the tantrums you want Earl (and others who are watching), but we're not budging on your demands, or lowering our asking price. So have at it, it won't work with us."

We already sent that message with Lynch and Harvin anyway so that would not be new territory here.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Ya, I noticed he would not acknowledge Pete on the sidelines too.

Again, it's just weird that Pete keeps putting up with the behavior and not taking whatever they can get. I have a feeling that time will come soon, and he won't make it through the season here.

Because Earl's balling out and helping us win games, as you created this thread to point out.

So I'm just fine with what our FO is doing, holding firm on their 1st round price tag and continuing to let Earl help us win if no one gives us that 1st rounder.

If we've learned anything about Pete, he obviously doesn't care about distractions, in fact it seems like he relishes them to prove to everyone what a great manager of personalities he is.

Just giving him away for less than he's worth would get rid of Earl, but it'd also send a message that if a player is unhappy and wants out, all he has to do is be a royal pain in the ass and we'll trade him for peanuts.

This message is "you can throw all the tantrums you want Earl (and others who are watching), but we're not budging on your demands, or lowering our asking price. So have at it, it won't work with us."

We already sent that message with Lynch and Harvin anyway so that would not be new territory here.

We did?

We gave up a first for Harvin, and only got a mid round pick from the Jets when we traded him..........and Lynch got another contract when we shouldn't have given him one.

That's what I'm saying, we're done giving in...................and I'm fine with it.