Does anyone think there's a chance we don't re-sign Sherm?

[Tical21]

Earl Thomas is probably my favorite Seahawk. But I think Sherman is perhaps more valuable. Corner is a more valuable position than free safety. When you look at the list of Super Bowl Champion teams over the past 25 years or so, the caliber of player at CB is higher than at Safety. That may not be true of our system, but unfortunately the only way to find out would be to lose one or both of them. Typically, you can substitute your safety with Player X, and not see a huge dropoff. Could they find another cover safety with range and not see a big dropoff? You usually can't replace a shutdown corner with Player Y. Great corners are a lot harder to find than great safeties, and I still believe have a greater impact on the outcome. A great corner either shuts down the opposition's top weapon, or takes away 1/3 of the field, depending on the coverage.

At the same token, the Byron Maxwell experiment is interesting. If he comes in and continues to play really well, can't you make the case that as long as we have Earl, and/or a good pass rush, we can plug in Physical Corner Z and be just fine?

We have to pay Wilson. I believe we have to pay Okung. We are already paying Harvin. Usually, you can't lock up many more guys than that at big money. I just have a hard time seeing us being able to keep both Earl and Sherm, but will do my best to remain optimistic about it, and keep kicking the negative thoughts down the road.

This year we have an unbelievable collection of talent, in big part to Sherm and Wilson being so inexpensive. Let's enjoy it, root this team to a ring, and then they can fire 'em all, for all I care.

 

[dontbelikethat]

I love how Jason Spitz became part of this discussion.

I swear...if we lose Jason Spitz...

 

[RiverDog]

Seems dumb to leave an awesome team and the fans love you to go to a crappy team just for more money. Thats my logic

Don't underestimate the power of the almighty dollar.

 

[Mindsink]

Winning franchises are comprised of two key people - Head Coach and Quarterback. As long as Pete's the coach, and Russell Wilson is the QB, I'm not worried about other players who may come or go.

Look at examples around the league. Look at teams that have been consistently good over the last decade and you see the same theme - Coach and QB.

The best example is Brady & Belichick. Look at all the different players that have come and gone over the years, and they seem to always be Super Bowl contenders, every year.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I predict that if Sherman doesn't resign with us, his performance will drop off with another team. He's got the best CB coaching and development in the NFL right here....

 

[Subzero717]

I don't think we resign him. I think he signs somewhere else for ridiculously stupid money. I will miss him very much.

 

[seahawk 17]

I predict that if Sherman doesn't resign with us, his performance will drop off with another team. He's got the best CB coaching and development in the NFL right here....

On top of that, having Earl Thomas and Kam behind you allows you to play aggressive and take chances.

 

[NorCalSeahawk]

I would love for the team to keep Thomas, Kam, Sherm and WT3 in the back end (along with some of these other young guys), but I would guess when you have guys needing new contracts (Thomas, Wilson, Okung, Wright, Wagner, Bennett, Baldwin, Tate, etc) it would leave most teams in a bind.

The next two years of free agents will be interesting to watch. If I were to guess, the team keeps Thomas and gives Sherman a fair market value offer but I would guess a team will give him a ridiculous offer and he will leave (I can't fault Sherm if he does, it's still a business). It would be great to get that Superbowl this year, it'll only be tougher once you lose a few solid starters. But there is always the draft and that's seemed to work so far with this regime.

 

[lukerguy]

Anyone who says they would rather have Sherman than ET is somewhat unclear about our defensive scheme. If you take Sherman out of the line up you can keep our scheme and put a strong tall corner in to replace him, and do adequately well. If you take ET out of center field, our entire team changes dramatically. All of a sudden you don't feel quite as comfortable playing press-man.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Anyone who says they would rather have Sherman than ET is somewhat unclear about our defensive scheme. If you take Sherman out of the line up you can keep our scheme and put a strong tall corner in to replace him, and do adequately well. If you take ET out of center field, our entire team changes dramatically. All of a sudden you don't feel quite as comfortable playing press-man.

Gruden explained this when we played the Saints. He basically said without ET our defense doesn't work. Having the ability to have a one high safety that can cover the ENTIRE field, which allows Kam to drop down into the box and lower the boom on some foo's is invaluable.

 

[HawkMeat]

I believe he will be gone. He will want big money - as he should. You only get to cash in so many times in the NFL, so you need to make them count.

Sherman is great, but a large part of his success is the system and the players surrounding him. Also, if you want to build a perennial top tier team, you do not do it by throwing huge money at the CB position. JS and PC know this.

Look at all these CB signings over the years. Look at the huge contracts....how many of them are for top teams?

http://overthecap.com/top-player-salari ... osition=CB

:13:
I want sherman to be signed, but only so much cap room. the team's practice is to keep the team young, and good for years and this means you have to let some quality and fan favorites go. JS said the next year some fans will be upset because they can't keep and sign everyone and that means we will lose out on retaining some players. Sherman will get paid, just won't know who until the end of next season.

I have kept telling myself to enjoy the ride and not worry about it.

 

[hawk45]

Anyone who says they would rather have Sherman than ET is somewhat unclear about our defensive scheme. If you take Sherman out of the line up you can keep our scheme and put a strong tall corner in to replace him, and do adequately well. If you take ET out of center field, our entire team changes dramatically. All of a sudden you don't feel quite as comfortable playing press-man.

This might be true, but I think anyone that values Sherman as replaceable, or much lower than ET, is somewhat unclear about Sherman's impact within our defensive scheme.

When Browner/Thurmond have been out we've done pretty well. Do we believe we'd be doing just as well without Sherman over there locking down his 1/3 of the field, allowing coverages to roll to the side of the field where the replacement corner is playing?

I think we have crazy depth and a great scheme, and can afford to plug and play more than many other teams, up to a threshold. I think it's legit that we can still be a good passing defense without Browner on the other side, and that's pretty cool and amazing. I think we're past that threshold of reality when we start to reach guys like Richard Sherman.

JMO.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Without Sherman we are nowhere near as effective.

We might be forced to continue on without him, though I think he knows that in our system with ET as a teammate he is better too. But even though ET is a linchpin to our system, the reason he is so effective is because he allows our corners to shine and specifically his style of play matches Sherman's well.

The NFL has changed a lot of the rules to favor the QB and the passing game over almost every other aspect of the game. So anything that can assist in limiting the effectiveness of QBs is going to have an immediate impact on the W/L. After the NFL tilts the field in favor of the QBs, Sherman tilts one side right back. We lose him, we lose that ability to counter the better QBs, and we need that.

 

[Seahwkgal]

Must sign ET and Russ for future franchise success....Anybody who thinks Sherm is more valuable than ET doesn't know our team defensively very well. Don't get me wrong, I love Sherm but I also think some other team with overpay him for a different scheme that lacks Earl Thomas. JMO

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Anyone who says they would rather have Sherman than ET is somewhat unclear about our defensive scheme. If you take Sherman out of the line up you can keep our scheme and put a strong tall corner in to replace him, and do adequately well. If you take ET out of center field, our entire team changes dramatically. All of a sudden you don't feel quite as comfortable playing press-man.

This might be true, but I think anyone that values Sherman as replaceable, or much lower than ET, is somewhat unclear about Sherman's impact within our defensive scheme.

I don't think anyone's saying "much lower." But definitely lower on the priority list for re-signing.

We all love us some Shermy Sherm, but if he's going to demand 16 million like Revis, then I fear he's gone. We can't be strapped with paying one DB that much money when we have to give Russell AT LEAST that much the next year.

 

[plyka]

I think there is a big chance he is gone. CB is our deepest positon and they seem to be able to draft good ones at will. So the question is do you pay 15 million a year for a postion that you can have someone maybe 85% as good play for 500,000 - 1 million a year

Right on the money. I love Sherm, he is my personal favorite on the team behind perhaps Wilson. But he is not going to be worth the money which is required to save him. Not to mention, he isn't the 1 player this defense depends on. That player is Earl Thomas. Every time I watch Earl throw himself in there I get scared he will get hurt. Just ask yourself, if Earl gets hurt, who is his backup? Some special team scrub. He has no real backup. Not to mention Earl plays at a position which pays less. I think Earl will get 9-10 m per year which is the level of a premier safety. Earl will be an ESSENTIAL keep. Our entire defense depends on Earl.

And to your point, this team has always been able to find players like Sherm for 1m or less. I say you gotta keep your #1 defensive player, in Earl, then use the 16m you would pay for Sherm to sign other players.

 

[plyka]

Although it's well-accepted in Seahawk fandom that Earl Thomas is the most critical defensive piece on the team, it's not universally understood that Sherman is very nearly as critical. I think most people get it, but there are some holdouts. Although oft-repeated, it's not actually true that just being tall is enough for our system. Sherman is something special, it just took Carroll's unconventionality to give him a chance in this league, same as Russell Wilson[1]. In the year and a half before Sherman was starting, our defensive passer rating averaged ~90 per game. As soon as Sherman began starting it dropped to ~70 and has remained there ever since. Passing defense wins championships. That's why the best corners get paid the way they do.

Winning teams keep their All-Pros. Sherman wants to be here. Seattle wants him here. The chances we don't re-sign him are small and if he's the highest paid corner, it will be nominally only and not the most expensive contract by risk.

We'll lose a lot of players. By and large, most fans understand this and I don't expect there to be nearly the wailing and gnashing of teeth that some foresee. Not unless it's one of our All-Pro caliber players. Of course, fans have their favorites, so there will always be a demographic with complaints, but that doesn't mean most of us don't understand how the salary cap works.

[1] Do you realize, Russell Wilson could have easily never happened? Anywhere. What if he went to be Cam Newton's back-up? Maybe Cam gets hurt for 3 or 4 games and Wilson has a shaky few stats like the beginning of his rookie season, maybe even worse because the team is built to enable to a tall QB? Short QBs don't get the leash that tall ones do. Does he ever get another chance to start?

Some great posts in this forum, this is an exceedingly good one. I've always contended that perhaps the MOST important factor in success for NFL players is opportunity. It must sound funny, but I think it's true. Most especially with QBs and RBs. Remember, the only reason Sherman and Browner even got a shot was because of injuries. Remember Arian Foster was an undrafted free agent that got a shot. Remember that Wilson was a 3rd rounder, who got a shot. Remember Curt Warner was bagging groceries a year or two before he won a superbowl. Remember that beastmode was a bust in buffalo before he got to Seattle. The list goes on and on. The talent level in the NFL is so incredible, that opportunity is in my mind the main factor in success. You gotta get the opportunity at the right time in the right plac.e

 

[RiverDog]

Were on a Super Bowl run lets just win the damn thing this year. Who knows where we will be next year as far as record goes. They have everything lined up now .

That's why I keep saying that "the future is now." This opportunity that we have this season may not come around again for another decade.

 

[themunn]

Earl Thomas is probably my favorite Seahawk. But I think Sherman is perhaps more valuable. Corner is a more valuable position than free safety. When you look at the list of Super Bowl Champion teams over the past 25 years or so, the caliber of player at CB is higher than at Safety. That may not be true of our system, but unfortunately the only way to find out would be to lose one or both of them. Typically, you can substitute your safety with Player X, and not see a huge dropoff. Could they find another cover safety with range and not see a big dropoff? You usually can't replace a shutdown corner with Player Y. Great corners are a lot harder to find than great safeties, and I still believe have a greater impact on the outcome. A great corner either shuts down the opposition's top weapon, or takes away 1/3 of the field, depending on the coverage.

But you think of the list of best safeties over the past 25 years

Ronnie Lott (albeit at the tail end of those 25 years)
Rod Woodson
Ed Reed
Troy Polomalu
Brian Dawkins
John Lynch
Darren Sharper
Steve Atwater
Darren Woodson

All but Dawkins have at least one superbowl ring, but most of them had relative scrubs at corner. I can't actually think of a recent superbowl winning team that DIDN'T have a good player at safety - with the exception of the Giants. Even the Pats had Lawyer Milloy and Rodney Harrison who were pretty good.

 

[lukerguy]

Anyone who says they would rather have Sherman than ET is somewhat unclear about our defensive scheme. If you take Sherman out of the line up you can keep our scheme and put a strong tall corner in to replace him, and do adequately well. If you take ET out of center field, our entire team changes dramatically. All of a sudden you don't feel quite as comfortable playing press-man.

This might be true, but I think anyone that values Sherman as replaceable, or much lower than ET, is somewhat unclear about Sherman's impact within our defensive scheme.

I don't think anyone's saying "much lower." But definitely lower on the priority list for re-signing.

We all love us some Shermy Sherm, but if he's going to demand 16 million like Revis, then I fear he's gone. We can't be strapped with paying one DB that much money when we have to give Russell AT LEAST that much the next year.

I agree. Would I love to keep Sherman? Of course, even to the tune of 10MM a year, yeah. However, the question was posed in light of all of our upcoming free agents. If we pay Sherm 13-15 that means what for others? I don't think we can afford to pay Wilson 14MM, ET 11MM and Sherman at 15MM and still have a healthy rest of the team. Fortunately for us, safeties are paid less than CBs. We certainly may be able to set a precedent with ET as the captain of our D at 11MM and say that no one else makes more than him.