Marshawn Lynch

Post Reply  
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 18685
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008
Sand$: 70,910.58
Seahawks re-signed RB Marshawn Lynch to a four-year, $32 million contract with $18 million guaranteed.
Lynch has become a Seattle hero for his "Beast Mode" playoff run against the Saints and breakout season in a contract year, but he comes with several buyer beware warnings. A huge underachiever before 2011, Lynch's career yards-per-carry average stands at 3.98 and he has a long, documented history of offseason weight gains. With 1,137 career carries going on age 26, Lynch also has plenty of wear on his tires. We suspect the Seahawks built annual "out" clauses into the deal to protect against Lynch going back in the tank. For 2012, he should be targeted as a low-risk second-round fantasy pick because he's ticketed for another massive workload. There's a strong possibility that Lynch's 2011 season (285/1,204/4.2/12) will go down as the best of his career, however.



I know pinksheets that you dont think seattle passes on richardson, i still do if he is there. The main issue now is Im not sure Tampa is going to pass on him at 5. I live 50 minutes south of tampa and Im hearing its between richardson and claiborn. If tampa takes richardson it would be a waste.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24934
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002
Sand$: 12,546.50
Image
Great White Shark
Posts: 8344
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004
Sand$: 40,490.18
Paying that type of money to a RB who has more wear on tires than age indicates, is pure dumb. That was $$ that could have been spent on a premium position. But then you remember who is in charge there and it is more of the same.
_______________________________________

Image
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Sep 1, 2010
Sand$: 9,505.92
hankrip wrote:Paying that type of money to a RB who has more wear on tires than age indicates, is pure dumb. That was $$ that could have been spent on a premium position. But then you remember who is in charge there and it is more of the same.

I don't think it's really that bad at all. I'd have preferred the franchise tag simply to make him prove it for another year, but we're only talking about $10 million more in guaranteed money for 4 years, if we so choose, then we would have had to put up for 1 year under the franchise tag. Not to mention he's got about 1100 career carries in the NFL, 500 in college, while Ray Rice has 950 in the NFL and another 900 in college. He's got relatively low wear on his tires for his age, really. Not to mention the Seahawks are well under the cap.

If 'more of the same' from 'who is in charge' includes putting together a defense that performed in the top 10 towards the end of the year, comprised of hits on late round picks and a CFL signed CB, I'll keep taking it. :lol: I can't explain a wholesale negative view of a FO and coach that have put together a promising rebuild.

btw, rugger, I still think the Hawks take Richardson if he is there. Lynch got paid, but this offense is still going to be all about the run, and Richardson will just be too good to pass up to throw into the offense immediately and ultimately be Lynch's successor. I know the FO wants to improve the pass rush, but the guys that could be available to them: Upshaw, Ingram, or Coples aren't elite prospects like Richardson. They'll run to the podium with the pick if he's on the board, but I don't think we'll be able to test my hypothesis, as I agree, I don't expect him to be on the board + I think he's going to TB, also. Seattle will get an RB early if the right guy is available. If it's not TRich, I think they'll take Doug Martin in the 2nd, if he isn't, maybe Chris Polk in the 3rd. It'll depend on value.
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 35075
Joined: Sun Aug 2, 2009
Sand$: 4,549.37
TRich would have made sense had they franchised Lynch.

I'm honestly shocked they didn't just franchise him to keep him hungry. Now he'll get fat. Sorry.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Sep 1, 2010
Sand$: 9,505.92
endzoneview wrote:TRich would have made sense had they franchised Lynch.

I'm honestly shocked they didn't just franchise him to keep him hungry. Now he'll get fat. Sorry.

Haha, I'm worried about that, honestly. I don't think the deal is terrible, because from what I'm hearing, most of the guaranteed money is early in the contract so we can move on if need be, but I'm not so foolish to see that Marshawn Lynch's career year and Marshawn Lynch's contract year just happened to be the exact same year.

I still think we'd take TRich either way. The rookie wage scale would keep him relatively inexpensive, and from what I'm hearing, he's the lone guy that Carroll and Schneider would take in lieu of addressing the pass rush. I hope TRich is there at 12 so I can either bask in the glory of my correctitude or have rugger rub my face in it.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 14886
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004
Sand$: 31,148.60
wth ATL?
User avatar
Moderator
Posts: 50326
Joined: Fri Jul 7, 2006
Sand$: 104,241.68
pinksheets wrote:[most of the guaranteed money is early in the contract so we can move on if need be.

This is why it's not a bad deal for Seattle, Marshawn strikes me as the type to lose the motivation once he gets paid so a cliff dive wouldn't shock me. Still, from Seattle's p.o.v. it isn't a disaster, unlike the Sean Alexander contract.
_______________________________________

Follow me @mchamberlin32
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 17772
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008
Sand$: 20,022.16
all the money in the world still wont get Lynch any action. Money makes the man but his looks check the money.
_______________________________________

Image
Leopard Shark
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008
Sand$: 1,351.00
I do not like the idea of guaranteeing that much money to a guy who's can look so good his rookie year, then look so bad since. Yeah, he did well last year, but this situation kind of reminds me of Albert Haynesworth. He won't be hungry now.

I think Lynch is a knucklehead & I will be letting others overpay for his 2011 performance this year.
User avatar
Megalodon
Posts: 24934
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2002
Sand$: 12,546.50
SonOfDad wrote:wth ATL?


He loves Skittles, and I just had to post that GIF :lol:
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Sep 1, 2010
Sand$: 9,505.92
pac_eddy wrote:I think Lynch is a knucklehead & I will be letting others overpay for his 2011 performance this year.

I guess the word is that he's valued as a locker room presence and a team leader for the young guys now. I don't know when that happened. I think being with his buddy Justin Forsett, a much cooler headed kid, helped calm him down.

Worried about what happens when we inevitably cut Forsett this season.
User avatar
Great White Shark
Posts: 7485
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007
Sand$: 8,986.62
ATL Souljah Boy wrote:
SonOfDad wrote:wth ATL?


He loves Skittles, and I just had to post that GIF :lol:


gotta admit...that GIF is awesome.

Fat Albert part 2? I hope not. I like the way Lynch runs. He was in beast mode last year.
_______________________________________

2014 Kicker / Def Challenge Winner

Stankweasels 3000 wrote:Also, if any woman complains about the size of your package, there's one sure way to make her think it's too big....put it in the metered mail slot.
User avatar
Supreme Megalodon
Posts: 27867
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007
Sand$: 56,760.40
So...there's this.

_______________________________________

I advise you foe me so you don't have to read this crap.
Great White Shark
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Jul 4, 2007
Sand$: 18,018.78
good signing for the seahawks,i think lynch is well worth that kind of money and will be a top 7 rb in f/f this yr too

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 3 guests