Stop.

Lynch is the kind if back that even when he's old and slow and had a back up role could still beast his way to 800 yards in clean up duty.

I want him as a hawk for life.

this is crazy talk

Seattle is signing people left and right for a super bowl run. Why trade away a top five back this season for the future, when the future is now?

We draft a RB, and all the sudden we are talking about trading our proven elite back for one future 1st rounder? Wow.

Heresy! BURN THE HERETIC!

Ahem. I'd think about it. Then I'd say no.

I'd trade Lynch for a marriage pact. From him. To me. (I love Lynch).

I'd rather eat my own vomit than trade Lynch.

NO

Only if we get Clowney

Trade Lynch?







Oh, you were serious? Sorry.

boarderline want this topic removed.
no trade for lynch.

No. Dump this thread

How many RB's were drafted in the 1st round this year ? Exactly.

There was a marked difference in our offense when Lynch was in there and when Turbin was in there. I love Turbin and I think he's going to be a GREAT back, but he doesn't have the fight and the beast in him that Lynch does. Lynch is just more effective, period.

Michaels hasn't even seen a down yet in the NFL. I'm reserving judgement on any rookie until they perform in a real NFL game.

FargoHawk wrote:This is stupid. What a dumb topic. Sorry, but it's true.

...and who are you?

What would be "stupid" or "dumb" would be NOT trading Lynch if we were fortunate enough to be offered a first for him. Sorry, but it's true.

If I had the option of using crayons to ask this question, some posters may have had an easier time with the question. And maybe not.

seatt1eslew wrote:No. Dump this thread

LMAO. Well, would you take 2 1sts for Lynch?

As I mentioned earlier, this is what I wanted to see...how many put player over team. Now you know who you are.

HawkWow wrote:

seatt1eslew wrote:No. Dump this thread

LMAO. Well, would you take 2 1sts for Lynch?

As I mentioned earlier, this is what I wanted to see...how many put player over team. Now you know who you are.

The thing is, many of us aren't putting a player over our team, we're using logic. Lynch, as it stands, is easily a top-5 back, in a year that we're poised to make a run at the Super Bowl. Why would we trade a huge part of our offense away for a future pick, when THIS season is one of the best opportunities I've ever seen us have at a Super Bowl? It doesn't make sense.

Trying to bone yourself out of a Super Bowl this year for an (ARGUABLY) better chance at one next year just isn't logical.

HawkWow wrote:

seatt1eslew wrote:No. Dump this thread

LMAO. Well, would you take 2 1sts for Lynch?

As I mentioned earlier, this is what I wanted to see...how many put player over team. Now you know who you are.

Except that the team is better when Lynch in on the field. We just signed him to a major deal. He re-paid the team with a pretty good 2012.

Sorry, still a bad idea to trade away proven talent-in his prime-for potential.

Next proposal.

Lynch is such a beast that it's the equivalent of having a 6 man OL. He's too much of a factor right now to consider such a thing.

sheesh...throw this thread out now please

Has anyone taken this question from the point of view of the team wanting Lynch? No offense to Lynch's skill-set, but I have a hard time believing a back who was obtained with a 4th and 6th RD nearly three years ago, could suddenly warrant a 1st RD pick.

I'm hoping this is a thread killer. IMHO even if the Hawks dangled him for 1st RD value, no way any other team would consider. Hawks won't do it; rest of the league won't do it; nothing to see here.

HawkWow wrote:

seatt1eslew wrote:No. Dump this thread

LMAO. Well, would you take 2 1sts for Lynch?

As I mentioned earlier, this is what I wanted to see...how many put player over team. Now you know who you are.

Oh shut up. You know nothing. We're poised to make a run at a championship and you'd rather do it with an extra 1st round pick than a proven high-end running back? Let's not be silly.

seatt1eslew wrote:Has anyone taken this question from the point of view of the team wanting Lynch? No offense to Lynch's skill-set, but I have a hard time believing a back who was obtained with a 4th and 6th RD nearly three years ago, could suddenly warrant a 1st RD pick.

I'm hoping this is a thread killer. IMHO even if the Hawks dangled him for 1st RD value, no way any other team would consider. Hawks won't do it; rest of the league won't do it; nothing to see here.

Denver Broncos have a need for a power back. Just sayin.

I can see it after this year. Might be the mind set of this FO to trade our stars just on the cusp of their downside.

Floridahawk79 wrote:I can see it after this year. Might be the mind set of this FO to trade our stars just on the cusp of their downside.

As long as they're able to keep finding top tier talent in the draft then this is probably the best & most cost effective way to go.

HawkWow wrote:

seatt1eslew wrote:No. Dump this thread

LMAO. Well, would you take 2 1sts for Lynch?

As I mentioned earlier, this is what I wanted to see...how many put player over team. Now you know who you are.

ohhhhh, I see. This was just a test to see who values players over the team. Ah-ha, suuuuuuuure!

I'll play along for a moment.

Part of what is "stupid" and "dumb" is not only that I wouldn't trade Lynch for a 1st but that no team is going to offer a 1st for a RB with over 4 years in the league, a suspension, and the fact that no RB was taken in the 1st round, AND Lynch was available 3 years ago (with less mileage) and he only netted the Bills a WHOPPING 4th rounder.