Packers vs Seattle Week 2

[Voltron]

This is just an idea. Ok I was watching espn and I think they were talking about E. Smith holding out two games bc of a contract issue, which the team ended up losing and they then decided to meet his contract terms. Ok im wondering if Kam Chacelor is thinking of doing the same thing. Missing game two and hoping for a Seattle loss, in order to give him leverage.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The SeaTurkeys scare me a lot less outside of Seattle, 4 out their 5 losses last year came on the road. Sunday night primetime game, revenge for so many reasons on the Packers mind. Aaron is going to be focused and sharp...I'm going to be bold and predict a double digit Packer win 38-23.

As for Chancellor.....hope Seattle sticks to their guns and he has to come back with his ego tucked between his legs. Give me a break.....sign a 4 year contract and then expect more a year later? Would Chancellor be in the front office with a check for the SeaHags had he not played well last year?

 

[TJV]

I agree Wilson is a very athletic QB and that he's mentally tough. And while we may “hate” Carroll and Seahawks, they deserve our respect. But as captainWIMM posted, Wilson's been the beneficiary of a great defense and I'll add: Since he joined the Seahawks they have been first, first, and second in highest run/pass ratio in the league. IMO those facts should go into evaluating him as a QB and that’s why posting this:

Wilson is a very good QB. The record doesn't lie. He's led his team to more SBs than Rodgers has and also won as many in a narrower time frame. He may not be as gifted a QB as Rodgers but he's been a winner, nonetheless.

is a little misleading, even with the caveats. The Packers emphasize offense and the passing game so IMO it makes more sense to say Rodgers led his team to the Super Bowl although obviously it takes the entire team. I think it makes less sense to say that of a QB of a team that relies on great D and the running game.

 

[RRyder]

Give me a break.....sign a 4 year contract and then expect more a year later? Would Chancellor be in the front office with a check for the SeaHags had he not played well last year?

I've ALWAYS hated this line of thinking among NFL fans. If you want to say it's just too early in the deal to renegotiate fine. I have zero problem with that. But the last sentence you ask would he give money back if he didn't play well? No but the Seahawks would be bringing him in to pay him less or he'd be cut so the situation would really just be reversed. It happens all the freaking time but people always want to act like the player is wrong for wanting more money. Contracts aren't guaranteed and his career can be over in a single play.

How so many people always seem to take ownerships side in these situations when even if they do give him more money they still have the right to cut him or renegotiate back down so they wont be on the hook for the lions share anyway if he doesn't play well isn't just annoying. It's asinine

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Contracts aren't guaranteed and his career can be over in a single play.

His contract actually did have $7,825,000 guaranteed money ($5 mil. signing bonus and $2.825 M for his 2013 adjusted salary).

I never have bought into the theory of "his career can be over in a single play" as a factor in a professional athletes salary. First of all, its part of the risk of playing the game. Second, its an insurable risk (see Jermichael Finley). Finally, someone who has already been paid $7.825 M and has to go find employment outside the NFL....I'm not feeling sorry for.

How so many people always seem to take ownerships side in these situations when even if they do give him more money they still have the right to cut him or renegotiate back down so they wont be on the hook for the lions share anyway if he doesn't play well isn't just annoying. It's asinine

You can't renegotiate money that has already been paid out for a season. You didn't read what I wrote, "Would Chancellor be in the front office with a check for the SeaHags had he not played well last year?"

 

[RRyder]

His contract actually did have $7,825,000 guaranteed money ($5 mil. signing bonus and $2.825 M for his 2013 adjusted salary).

I never have bought into the theory of "his career can be over in a single play" as a factor in a professional athletes salary. First of all, its part of the risk of playing the game. Second, its an insurable risk (see Jermichael Finley). Finally, someone who has already been paid $7.825 M and has to go find employment outside the NFL....I'm not feeling sorry for.



You can't renegotiate money that has already been paid out for a season. You didn't read what I wrote, "Would Chancellor be in the front office with a check for the SeaHags had he not played well last year?"

Yeah and how is what he's doing any different then what they would be doing by either renegotiating or cutting him if he sucked? Nobodies asking for retroactive pay and nobodies being asked to feel sorry for them. But i refuse to blame a guy for trying to make as much as he can when his career earning power is st its peak and this is the time when he'll make 95% of his lifetime income.

Teams cut players that don't perform up to their contracts. It's a way of life in the NFL. Why freak out when the reverse happens and a guy outperforms the contract and wants to be paid accordingly? 2 way street bruh. 2 way street

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why freak out when the reverse happens and a guy outperforms the contract and wants to be paid accordingly? 2 way street bruh. 2 way street

At the point of cutting a player, the team has paid the player for the work he has given them to that point. If they feel his services are not equal to what they will have to pay him in the future, then in many cases his contract is terminated and he has the right to renegotiate a contract for his perceived future value. This is still a two way street, since the player still has the ability to play and be paid. Every roster is full of under achievers and over achievers at the end of the season. Some being paid more then they should have and some less. But if management has to renegotiate contracts for all 53 players at the end of the year based on this, we might as well rip up long term contracts like the one Chancellor signed.

My biggest issue is with how players like Chancelor do it and maybe that is partly on management too. If he feels he is entitled to more pay, then ask for it, but honor the contract you signed by coming to practice and playing for the money you agreed to. Also, don't sign a 4 year contract if you aren't going to honor it or sign one with enough incentives that make your pay equal to your contribution. Good management will see the value of a good player and possibly renegotiate on good terms and all ends well. But if I was in managements shoes and a player like Chancellor said "pay me more or I sit out", I would send him a recliner and a subscription to NFL Sunday Ticket.

 

[Sky King]

It's not meant to be misleading TJV. Technically, it's not an opinion. The asterisks regarding his game are being well-placed to qualify the argument that it's mostly the team around him that enhances his success - all valid points that I'm not in disagreement with. Significantly, that he is blessed with a very good D while Rodgers is not). My point also has not been that he is in the upper-echelon of NFL QBs, Wimm, although that may possibly appear to be a fair assumption. Let me clear that up now. I don't.

But Wilson is a fiesty, never-say-die gamer who can (and has) beaten the Packers and other teams along the championship trail by making big plays when his team needed them the most. Or, to put it left-handedly, he has not consistently stunk-up the joint by losing games as the lesser QBs seem to do often enough. It is fully acknowledged that he whiffed on one crucial play that did cost his team the last SB, although the play called was certainly suspect with Lynch available in the backfield (my asterisk). Nevertheless, IMHO he still can be a very dangerous QB who cannot be dismissed out-of-hand because he lacks athletic ability or grit in the clutch. He can rise to the occasion at any time.

He may not be one's first choice as the QB to consistently carry a team on his shoulders for an entire season. But he's proven of making important plays in clutch moments of any single game. That has earned my respect as a foe.

 

[Croak]

His contract actually did have $7,825,000 guaranteed money ($5 mil. signing bonus and $2.825 M for his 2013 adjusted salary).

I never have bought into the theory of "his career can be over in a single play" as a factor in a professional athletes salary. First of all, its part of the risk of playing the game. Second, its an insurable risk (see Jermichael Finley). Finally, someone who has already been paid $7.825 M and has to go find employment outside the NFL....I'm not feeling sorry for.

A number of years ago, I sat down and calculated that I could support my family at my salary (back then) for 30 years on just ONE million dollars. It's probably down to about 25 now with inflation and all. But still. If you make almost 8 million dollars in one year, you should be able to live the rest of your life comfortably without working.

 

[TJV]

Teams cut players that don't perform up to their contracts. It's a way of life in the NFL. Why freak out when the reverse happens and a guy outperforms the contract and wants to be paid accordingly? 2 way street bruh. 2 way street

IMO it's a "2 way street" at the signing of a contract. The team, the player, and his agent know - or should know - all the advantages and disadvantages of the contract being offered. Here, according to rotoworld’s site are the terms of the contract he signed:

4/22/2013: Signed a five-year, $
29.323 million contract. The deal contains $17 million guaranteed, including a $5 million signing bonus. Another $5.7 million is available through incentives. 2015: $4.55 million, 2016: $5.1 million, 2017: $6.8 million (+ $325,008 roster bonus), 2018: Free Agent

IMO the major risk the player assumed was outplaying the terms of the contract. The major risk the team assumed was a career-ending injury as well as the risk of the player under-performing the deal. That’s the 2 way street.

Rotoworld goes on to quote Rapoport:

NFL Network's Ian Rapoport reports the Seahawks and holdout SS Kam Chancellor are only $900,000 apart in contract talks. In real-world money, that's obviously a huge gap, but that's couch-cushion change in the NFL. Chancellor reportedly simply wants his 2016 salary bumped up with some guaranteed money kicked into it; he has no issues with his 2015 pay. The Seahawks aren't budging, but things can change quickly and likely will.

That isn't a huge difference but he agreed to the contract in place knowing (or he should have known) there was a chance he would outplay that deal. And he was guaranteed $17M even if he suffered a career-ending injury in his first practice of TC in 2013.

BTW, Sky King: I agree with everything in your post except your posting “He's led his team to more Super Bowls” is technically a fact. (If you hadn’t said technically I’d have let it go ) The fact is he was the quarterback on two Super Bowl appearing teams. To the extent he “led” those teams is an opinion (technically).

 

[XPack]

Teams cut players that don't perform up to their contracts. It's a way of life in the NFL. Why freak out when the reverse happens and a guy outperforms the contract and wants to be paid accordingly? 2 way street bruh. 2 way street

Makes you wonder, why teams still bother with a contact, doesn't it? Surely he has performance incentives built into his contact, same way as he has guaranteed money to shore him up in case of a cut.

These '2 ways streets' would just lead to a showdown at OK corral. Chaos when everyone decides to renegotiate when they are holding the cards.

 

[Sky King]

IMO it's a "2 way street" at the signing of a contract. The team, the player, and his agent know - or should know - all the advantages and disadvantages of the contract being offered. Here, according to rotoworld’s site are the terms of the contract he signed: IMO the major risk the player assumed was outplaying the terms of the contract. The major risk the team assumed was a career-ending injury as well as the risk of the player under-performing the deal. That’s the 2 way street.

Rotoworld goes on to quote Rapoport: That isn't a huge difference but he agreed to the contract in place knowing (or he should have known) there was a chance he would outplay that deal. And he was guaranteed $17M even if he suffered a career-ending injury in his first practice of TC in 2013.

BTW, Sky King: I agree with everything in your post except your posting “He's led his team to more Super Bowls” is technically a fact. (If you hadn’t said technically I’d have let it go ) The fact is he was the quarterback on two Super Bowl appearing teams. To the extent he “led” those teams is an opinion (technically).

You got me there.

 

[Half Empty]

Yeah and how is what he's doing any different then what they would be doing by either renegotiating or cutting him if he sucked? Nobodies asking for retroactive pay and nobodies being asked to feel sorry for them. But i refuse to blame a guy for trying to make as much as he can when his career earning power is st its peak and this is the time when he'll make 95% of his lifetime income.

Teams cut players that don't perform up to their contracts. It's a way of life in the NFL. Why freak out when the reverse happens and a guy outperforms the contract and wants to be paid accordingly? 2 way street bruh. 2 way street

The only reason this is when he'll make virtually all of his income is because he's making obscene money in a short span of time. Let's pay them anywhere what useful people make, and then he's only worried about 25% of his lifetime income. (And, yes, owners, the commish, and all the others)

As far as the contract goes, the contract he signed said he could be cut. If he didn't like it, he could have tried to get a real job. When one does outplay his contract, he has gambled and lost, and he waits for the next opportunity (e.g. Packer players) - grumbling all the way to the bank.

 

[brandon2348]

I think we win this game handily for several reasons and being only a -3 point favorite at home is a gift IMO. This isn't the same Seattle team and were playing them at home. Yes they still have some core guys Wilson, Lynch, Sherman, Wagner, Thomas etc. but you have to be able to block. They might currently have the worse offensive line in the NFL with no real experience, continuity and basically just plugging guys in.

IMO the regression has reached another level with the Seahawks by not really being able to re-load successfully through draft in the past few years coupled with the "Harvin deal" that there still paying for. They brought in Jimmie Graham = BFD. He is a soft dome player TE. He is the TE version of Peyton Manning.

The biggest reason why I believe we beat the Seahawks by at least 2 TD's is they wont be able to get pressure with 4 guys and the secondary wont be able to keep up with our offense. Cary Williams is a **** compared to departed Maxwell and more importantly they have nobody in the slot who can handle Cobb with Jeremy Lane out. Throw in no Kam Chancellor and "IT"S OVER".

There only chance is to "clock hog" like the Bears tried and run the ball and control the clock and get turnovers along with a special teams score. Not sure there set up to do that this year. If we play solid special teams and don't turn ball over it will be a "Glorious Win" at "Lambeau", Can't wait!

GO PACK GO!

 

[rodell330]

We won't beat the Seahawks handidly.. I think we will win a close game.

 

[brandon2348]

We won't beat the Seahawks handidly.. I think we will win a close game.

Get back to me on it then. I laid out how it could be a fight. There gonna need turnovers, a special teams score and help. This one could get out of hand. I wanna see Wilson put the ball in the air 40 times. I really do.

There nothing special as far as pass rush and they simply don't currently have the back end to stop our offense.

I say 34-16.

 

[MiamiBeachPacker]

I have to agree with rodell

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think we win this game handily for several reasons and being only a -3 point favorite at home is a gift IMO. This isn't the same Seattle team and were playing them at home. Yes they still have some core guys Wilson, Lynch, Sherman, Wagner, Thomas etc. but you have to be able to block. They might currently have the worse offensive line in the NFL with no real experience, continuity and basically just plugging guys in.

IMO the regression has reached another level with the Seahawks by not really being able to re-load successfully through draft in the past few years coupled with the "Harvin deal" that there still paying for. They brought in Jimmie Graham = BFD. He is a soft dome player TE. He is the TE version of Peyton Manning.

The biggest reason why I believe we beat the Seahawks by at least 2 TD's is they wont be able to get pressure with 4 guys and the secondary wont be able to keep up with our offense. Cary Williams is a **** compared to departed Maxwell and more importantly they have nobody in the slot who can handle Cobb with Jeremy Lane out. Throw in no Kam Chancellor and "IT"S OVER".

There only chance is to "clock hog" like the Bears tried and run the ball and control the clock and get turnovers along with a special teams score. Not sure there set up to do that this year. If we play solid special teams and don't turn ball over it will be a "Glorious Win" at "Lambeau", Can't wait!

GO PACK GO!

You have been posting that same stuff about the Seahawks for 1 1/2 years now and we all know how that worked out last season. I like the Packers chances to win on Sunday as well but there's no reason to think this game will be a cakewalk.

 

[ivo610]

If I got mad at players for holding out when they feel they out perform their contract, I would have to get mad at teams when they cut a player for underperforming.

 

[ivo610]

I have to agree with rodell

Ive never read that on this forum from anyone before

 

[brandon2348]

Y

You have been posting that same stuff about the Seahawks for 1 1/2 years now and we all know how that worked out last season. I like the Packers chances to win on Sunday as well but there's no reason to think this game will be a cakewalk.

Yeah, We lost to them at Seattle on banner night. We beat them and gave a game away in the NFC Champ game. We haven't had them in Green Bay for quite some time. There going down. They can take there maxed out salary cap and diluted roster back to Seattle to there bandwagon fan base. They wont even win there division this year. Bye Bye Seattle.

Were not playing in Seattle this year. Not this weekend. Not come winter.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

We haven't had them in Green Bay for quite some time.

As much as I would like to forget the "Fail Mary" game, they did "beat" us in Green Bay in 2012.

 

[Mondio]

Fail Mary was in Seattle

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

See...I forgot it already.....how could I forget that part of it? Had it been in Green Bay, they never would have let Seattle out of the Stadium.

Thanks for the correction.

After Further Review........The Seahawks last visit to Green Bay was in 2009, Packers won 48-10

 

[Packerlover]

After losing to the Rams, Seattle will be bringing their A game to lambeau. Their O'line is their weakness. I think we can stop Lynch and get pressure on Wilson. The Packers just have to contain Wilson after the protection breaks down..