Twitter blowing up about Richard Sherman

[AgentDib]

Slow news day guys?

I'm not searching that anymore, so is what it is. He said on that video interview he was up for a couple of weeks. If that doesn't do it for you, so be it.

Just FYI I think you're missing his point, which is that nobody on the outside knew about it. They spent two weeks shopping him and the first anybody heard of it was when the deal was done, which is why everybody was so shocked. The argument follows that news didn't get out that we were shopping Harvin and so news also wouldn't get out if we were actively shopping Sherman.

 

[RiverDog]

Some people seem to be forgetting one thing. This is not just about trading Sherm for say 1 top 15 pick. It gains us $12M plus in cap to go buy some real olinemen who take too long to train, and cost us more seasons of futility. It is possible we are 1 superstar over the line to have a shot at a balanced team. If you net 1 excellent young DB, one good olineman, and some extra $$ left over to put in on other talent or extensions, this becomes much more than this guy for that guy. Patriots been doing this for years, and when done right CAN be a winning formula. If they want to go that direction, this is the year to do it at age 28 with 2 years left on contract.

Just a FYI, Sherman turns 29 in two weeks.

Not having read all of the comments, I didn't see anyone suggest another possible motivation, if we assume that this rumor is true (admittedly a big 'if'): Has Pete had enough of Richard Sherman? Has Sherman crossed that line in the sand that every employer has? Sherman has gotten into a mini war with not just members of the press, but members of our own beat writers, people that have developed a good working relationship with our coaches and may even be considered close friends. And he's had several sideline outbursts, including an in game rant to Carroll himself.

We all remember how shocked everyone was when Percy Harvin was suddenly shipped off and were astounded at the behind the scenes stuff that caused him to fall out of favor, so we know that our coaching staff is very good at hiding their true feelings about players and what goes on behind closed doors. Is Sherman skating on thin ice with Coach Carroll?

I'm not necessarily buying what I just wrote, just saying that it's possible.

 

[Uncle Si]

We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

 

[Uncle Si]

It may not be the best year for Seattle because of lack of depth, but it is the better year for getting max value back. Trading him with just 1 year left drops his market value considerably since he could be 1 and done with new team.

It's a good point. If you were to make a trade you would have to know his replacement was available.

The issue with relying on the draft is that anything can happen. And while I like the idea of trading for Joe Thomas, that does not fill the Seahawks needs immediately.

It's too much of a risk, unless a qualified DB plus draft picks are coming back.

 

[Seymour]

Slow news day guys?

I'm not searching that anymore, so is what it is. He said on that video interview he was up for a couple of weeks. If that doesn't do it for you, so be it.

Just FYI I think you're missing his point, which is that nobody on the outside knew about it. They spent two weeks shopping him and the first anybody heard of it was when the deal was done, which is why everybody was so shocked. The argument follows that news didn't get out that we were shopping Harvin and so news also wouldn't get out if we were actively shopping Sherman.

No I did not miss that. Shopping is shopping, the only difference is a leak in info for one and not the other. There are 31 other teams this leak could come from, limiting our ability to keep it under raps.

 

[AgentDib]

You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

What I'd like is for Sherman to stop being an ass to his own teammates, coaches and the local press and get back to being the nasty ball hawking CB we knew and loved from 2-3 years ago.

But if his skills are going to continue to diminish and his mouth get louder and louder, then I'm all for trading him.

There is no place for loyalty and sentiment in pro sports. Either perform up to the ridiculous contract we gave you, or you're gone so we can spend the money elsewhere.

 

[Seymour]

You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

Yes, and that was stated to debate this is not a valid rumor because word got out this time. I disagreed because the word was out, just not leaked to the public which is completely out of the Hawks control once 31 other teams know about it. That is the debate. Does the word getting out dismiss the validity of the rumor just standing on it's own? I say no, and what I explained is why.

 

[RiverDog]

What I'd like is for Sherman to stop being an ass to his own teammates, coaches and the local press and get back to being the nasty ball hawking CB we knew and loved from 2-3 years ago.

But if his skills are going to continue to diminish and his mouth get louder and louder, then I'm all for trading him.

There is no place for loyalty and sentiment in pro sports. Either perform up to the ridiculous contract we gave you, or you're gone so we can spend the money elsewhere.

Me, too. I am finding it harder and harder to defend Richard Sherman. He really made an ass out of himself when he threatened Jim Moore and compounded it by trying to revise history and pretend that he didn't say it. And as far as his talent goes, he's still very good, but no longer the best in the business. He looks pretty ordinary back there without Earl in the secondary.

 

[Uncle Si]

The "rumor" was speculation based from the conversation regarding Butler. There was nothing to link the Seahawks except the correlation between a player like Butler and Sherman.

 

[Rocket]

{bunch of silly crap about trading}

:34853_doh:
Thanks for reminding me how much I HATE fantasy football and Madden.

Well put, Broski. :2thumbs:

 

[Tusc2000]

It's March. People need something to talk about ...

http://www.armchairallamericans.com/sea ... d-sherman/

 

[WmHBonney]

Nope, the OC with the same initials.

Ya, figured that out after the post. Well on that, I agree and disagree. I agree he is a problem and holds the team back. But disagree he is a cancer. A cancer is an infectious "sore" on the team that spreads throughout the locker room. IMO Bevell doesn't qualify for that, he is just an idiot, which in many ways means Pete is the real problem since he stands by him.

I hate to turn this into another one of "those" threads but agree. Every player on the team that was here for that loss knows what really happened. And they know that the person responsible hasn't been held accountable. That is why this team seems so dysfunctional.

 

[Siouxhawk]

If that's the case -- and I highly doubt it is -- those with that type of attitude would have such a loser's mentality that they wouldn't even belong on the team.

 

[SpokaneHawks]

Just from my 39 years of existence I would say generally if there's smoke, there's probably fire. Sherman is a great player, maybe the best corner in the league and for sure the best we've ever had. Sherman though, is a mouth. Usually with age comes maturity, not for Sherman though. At his age, he was entirely too old to be threatening to take reporters credentials, or screaming like a high schooler on the sideline. How about "we've already seen what happens when we throw from the one"? Although Pete and company sing his praises in the media, it may just be a front to get the most from him that they can. IMO, Sherman is being shopped. Is he replaceable, probably not but the team can probably function best missing Sherm than any other LOB members.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Rob gives his perspective

http://seahawksdraftblog.com/michael-lombardi-seahawks-willing-to-deal-sherman

All I got from what Lombardi was saying was all speculation. Not to mention he believes our cap space is in a "mess" and that we really weren't interested in signing Sherman but had to because of the SB win. To me, if both these statements were true it would make our FO incompetent and are trying to dig themselves out of a hole. Never really liked this guy to begin with. Seems like a weasel.

 

[Subzero717]

You replied to his assertion that nobody on the outside knew about it with an argument that we had been shopping him for two weeks. That strengthens his point rather than refuting it so I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't read his point very carefully. Of course keeping things close historically doesn't preclude leaks in the future.

We can probably move the conversation from "is this is going to happen" to a more general discussion on if fans would be ok with it happening and how it may benefit the team.

The right price for Sherman is probably a second tier CB and a high pick; Bradley Roby from the Broncos and their #20 overall selection or so. The only reason something like that could make sense for both teams is if we feel Sherman is a problem here and needs a change of scenery, which is why the debate over whether we are shopping him is loaded. It carries the implicit assumption that we think Sherman is a problem who needs to be moved.

Yes, and that was stated to debate this is not a valid rumor because word got out this time. I disagreed because the word was out, just not leaked to the public which is completely out of the Hawks control once 31 other teams know about it. That is the debate. Does the word getting out dismiss the validity of the rumor just standing on it's own? I say no, and what I explained is why.

It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

 

[Seymour]

It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...ahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

 

[seahawkfreak]

It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...ahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

And yet he doesn't come forth with any of this information (he could be more specific without outing anyone). He also claims that, “Their cap is kind of a mess and they need to fix it,” and “The corner is not really the most important player in their scheme, it’s the front seven,”. Suspect argument considering the corner is an individual position while the front seven are numerous positions.

The Times article is still solely based on what Lombardi said. Lombardi, at this point in time, it seems he was just stirring a turd to see how much he could make it stink.

 

[Seymour]

It's not a rumor. It was a hypothetical proposed by Lombardi. You really should listen to it before jumping to any conclusions. Clayton played it several times this morning.

You should tell the Seattle Times then....
http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/...ahawks-being-open-to-trading-richard-sherman/

I would say it's not just a hypothetical when he states “I truly believe, based on what I hear around the National Football League, that the Seahawks would, in fact, for the right deal, trade Richard Sherman.’’ either. A hypothetical would be more based on "anyone is open to trade in the NFL", but he is claiming to have more information pointing that direction.

And yet he doesn't come forth with any of this information (he could be more specific without outing anyone). He also claims that, “Their cap is kind of a mess and they need to fix it,” and “The corner is not really the most important player in their scheme, it’s the front seven,”. Suspect argument considering the corner is an individual position while the front seven are numerous positions.

The Times article is still solely based on what Lombardi said. Lombardi, at this point in time, it seems he was just stirring a turd to see how much he could make it stink.

Why should he be, people will still doubt the credibility. The guy is a former GM, and knows where to draw the line on ratting out his source. You can either can believe the possibility, or dismiss it. I doubt he cares which way you swing.

Seems you completely missed my point that they call it a rumor, as I was told that in fact it wasn't. Silly discussion really.

ru·mor
ˈro͞omər/
noun
noun: rumour; plural noun: rumours; noun: rumor; plural noun: rumors

1.
a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.
"they were investigating rumors of a massacre"
synonyms: gossip, hearsay, talk, tittle-tattle, speculation, word; More