Who Will Sherman Bitch at Now?

[Hank Kingsley]

I just wonder, but does your hatred towards the Seahawks, go back to Romo's fumbling the potential winning field goal snap?

I'm a lot older than that.....

 

[The Oldtimer]

I'm a lot older than that.....

So your dislike of the Seahawks go back further, than the Tony Romo's potential winning botched (holder) field goal in the playoffs?

 

[Hank Kingsley]

So your dislike of the Seahawks go back further, than the Tony Romo's potential winning botched (holder) field goal in the playoffs?

My dislike of Seattle goes back to Day 1. And it was only enhanced when they wouldn't sell out in their stinker years and I couldn't see the double header games due to blackouts.

On the other hand, it did make me buck up for Sunday Ticket...

For the record, I don't HATE Seattle, but I don love for them to lose.

 

[Uhsplit]

A week or so ago I posted all about the Seattle defense making a comment that it seemed to be aging and a bit over paid. This thought did not go over well with the Seahawk fans.

The funny thing is if you take 15 min to read through the game thread what you will find beinf said by Seahawk fans being very critical of the defense with one even mentioning about the pay they get.

I posted that the Seattle defense even with their amazing front office has not been able to draft any defensive player that is currently a starter in the last 4 drafts.

Is it possible to go through 4 drafts and not have drafted at least one person who is capable of starting on your defense? I am no football expert but in my mind this tells me that the current starters are surely getting older. It also tells me that there are very limited players able to step in behind the current starters.

This type of situation could tend to lead to regression

I responded to you post by informing you that GB spends more on their D than Seattle does and is not near as effective. Why focus on the Seahawks D more than on GB's D?
That I don't get.

 

[Uhsplit]

Nice to see we are still relevant. 8 pages on who will Sherm bitch at next?
Reminder, it's almost the end of the month and your rent is coming up.

 

[LambeauLegs]

I responded to you post by informing you that GB spends more on their D than Seattle does and is not near as effective. Why focus on the Seahawks D more than on GB's D?
That I don't get.

Go read the game day thread on your team board against the Cards. I stopped counting how many people were blaming the defense and one in fact said they dont play because they are paid.

I in no way was comparing which team spends more on any group of players. The facts show that the Seattle defense is not as good this year as previous years. Maybe you dont agree with this but the statistics and game play show this. When looking at why the defense is not as good as previous years it comes down to a few things. One they are older, two not adequate depth meaning not many quality back ups which is caused by poor drafting in the last 4 years with not even drafting one defensive starter in those 4 years. The undrafted free agents that Seattle has had over the last 4 years has not been good as was shown.

The main parts of the Seattle defense was put together between 2010 and 2012. Since that time no quality starting talent has been added. This means it is an aging defense. I did not say old I said aging meaning it is getting older with limited prospects to take the place of the defensive players that are aging.

The strength of the Seattle team is or was the defense but it is not at all what it use to be. Losing 3 out of the last 5 games with teams scoring over 30 points.

I will go do some research on the player salaries of defensive starters of both teams and report back. As it is the starters that I was commenting about as far as being over paid for Seattle. I saw posted by Seattle fans in the game thread about how team Management had so much money invested in the D that they are not able to help the biggest need on the team which is the O line. That is coming from Seattle fans not me. When I say they are over paid I was not comparing them to other teams but looking at your team comparing what the defense is paid compared to what the offense was paid.

It was easier to maintain better quality back ups when you only had to pay your QB in his initial contract and only had to pay your QB limited amount of money. But now that he is making his $20,000,000 it is not so easy.

 

[Logicallylethal]

According to our SportsHoopla experts with their phd in Seahawks football

1) 26-27 year old players are now considered an aging defense
2) our window is closed
3) Seahawks season is over

 

[Logicallylethal]

Maybe we should start looking into drafting 16-17 year old players now because obviously when you draft a player coming out of a college at 22 they only have a 4 year window until they are considered aging and declining at 26-27

 

[chf]

And it was only enhanced when they wouldn't sell out in their stinker years.

Heh.

 

[LambeauLegs]

I responded to you post by informing you that GB spends more on their D than Seattle does and is not near as effective. Why focus on the Seahawks D more than on GB's D?
That I don't get.

Ok reporting back. Now if we go back to the start of this convo my comment was " The Seattle defense is aging and is over paid" In no place did I ever compare the Seattle defense to the Packer defense. I also did not say that the Seattle defense was a bad defense. I said it has regressed which the facts do show that it has regressed and many Seattle fans do admit to that fact.

Now when looking at my comment on the Seattle D being over paid I am referring to the starters who play on defense. Now you and Sonny or someone made some comment that the Packer D is paid more then the Seattle D. When looking at the over all defensive payroll with all defensive players maybe it is but if we look at the actual players who start and actually play meaning the starting players on each teams defense it is not even close. The Seattle defense is quite a bit older and paid quite a bit more.

I went to this website and took the ages and contract #'s for year 2016 only. I only used the 2016 contract figure including roster bonus and workout bonus payments. I did not include signing bonuses for players of either team

The players listed are taken off the team depth chart off of each teams website that is available from the NFL website. In the Packers case I am using Sam Shields as a starter even though he only played part of the first game. I also show the Packers numbers with using his replacement Rollins. In the Seahawks case I have Earl Thomas numbers as he has been a starter until recently.

Seattle Seahawks - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com Green Bay Packers - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com

Here is the comparison:

Seattle:

Bennet age 31 pay= $5,000,000
Rubin age 30 pay = $1,000,000
McDaniel age 31 pay = $$985,000
Avril age 30 pay = $6,000,000
Morgan age 28 pay = $1,000,000
Wagner age 26 pay = $3,468,000
Wright age 27 pay = $5,250,000
Sherman age 28 pay = $12,569,000
Shead age 28 pay = $600,000
Chanchelor age 28 pay = $5,100,000
Thomas age 27 pay = $8,000,000

Average age = 28.54 years and total pay = $48,972,000


Packers:

Clark age 21 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Guion age 29 pay = $1,900,000
Daniels age 27 pay = $5,000,000
Perry age 26 pay = $4,000,000
Ryan age 24 pay = $525,000 Year 2
Martinez age 22 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Matthews age 30 pay = $8,650,000
Randall age 24 pay = $794,000 Year 2
Shields age 29 pay = $8,000,000
Burnett age 27 pay = $4,100,000
Clinton Dix age 24 pay = $1,178,000 Year 3

Rollins age 24 pay = $605,000 replacing Shields Year 2

Average age with Shields = 25.72 Total pay with Shields = $35,047,000
Average age without Shields and adding Rollins = 25.27 Total pay replacing Shields with Rollins = $27,652,000


Your question to me about which defense would I rather have? Well if I look into the future I would prefer a younger team where the majority of the defense does not have to be replaced all in a short period of time. If you look at the 4 Seattle players that are all age 30 or over do you think they will come back ans sign again for s discount to stay with Seattle or do you think since they are near the end of their football life most likely signing their last contract will they go for the money? If they want to go for the money how much more do you think Seattle would want to pay them?

As players age they slow down and are not as effective. with 1/3 of the Seattle defensive starters being age 30 or over it may be part of the reason for the regression and not playing as well as the season wears on. if you look at the last 5 games the Hawks have a record of 2-3 and have allowed 96 points scored against them with 2 teams putting up in the 30's and one close to 40. Over that time the Hawks have allowed 19.2 points to be scored against them which is a significant jump over their average before the last 5 games.

In the same time frame when the Packers actually finally had the above listed players actually playing they are 5-0 and have had 88 points scored against them with an average of 17.6 points against.

I am sure everyone has their own opinions but myself would prefer a younger team. Sheilds only played 1/2 a game this year and is most likely done. As I look at the Packer D it then shows me that there will be 6 players or more than half the team that have 3 or less years with the team. This team has room for significant growth with the young people that have been brought in each year to help build the team and depth. It they average 17.6 points against with an offense that scores an averages 26.73 points a game I have nothing to complain about.

The things that screws everything up is injuries which was shown when 6 starters on the Packer D were out at the same time as it is hard to have quality depth without a drop off when more than half your starting defense is out for 4 weeks or so in a row as was shown by the Pack in the middle of the season.

But if looking at the current team depth charts with healthy players I would be completely happy with the Packers D with youth and how they have played when healthy with room for growth and not much loss in the future


If you have some numbers that show the Packers have a higher paid starting defense than Seattle please go show me as i would want this information to be correct

 

[seafandoghawk]

Go read the game day thread on your team board against the Cards. I stopped counting how many people were blaming the defense and one in fact said they dont play because they are paid.

I in no way was comparing which team spends more on any group of players. The facts show that the Seattle defense is not as good this year as previous years. Maybe you dont agree with this but the statistics and game play show this. When looking at why the defense is not as good as previous years it comes down to a few things. One they are older, two not adequate depth meaning not many quality back ups which is caused by poor drafting in the last 4 years with not even drafting one defensive starter in those 4 years. The undrafted free agents that Seattle has had over the last 4 years has not been good as was shown.

The main parts of the Seattle defense was put together between 2010 and 2012. Since that time no quality starting talent has been added. This means it is an aging defense. I did not say old I said aging meaning it is getting older with limited prospects to take the place of the defensive players that are aging.

The strength of the Seattle team is or was the defense but it is not at all what it use to be. Losing 3 out of the last 5 games with teams scoring over 30 points.

I will go do some research on the player salaries of defensive starters of both teams and report back. As it is the starters that I was commenting about as far as being over paid for Seattle. I saw posted by Seattle fans in the game thread about how team Management had so much money invested in the D that they are not able to help the biggest need on the team which is the O line. That is coming from Seattle fans not me. When I say they are over paid I was not comparing them to other teams but looking at your team comparing what the defense is paid compared to what the offense was paid.

It was easier to maintain better quality back ups when you only had to pay your QB in his initial contract and only had to pay your QB limited amount of money. But now that he is making his $20,000,000 it is not so easy.

To play devil's advocate here:

After leading the league in scoring defense for four consecutive years, this year's version of the Seahawk defense sits at #2 (and this despite weathering injuries leading to multiple weeks without star players like Kam Chancellor, Michael Bennett, and Earl Thomas).

1. So where is the significant drop off?
2. How come the drop off isn't significantly greater considering that their players are all aging and that they've had to play back ups for significant chunks of the season?
3. How exactly do you know that the back ups aren't quality back ups? What do you base that assumption on?

 

[seafandoghawk]

Ok reporting back. Now if we go back to the start of this convo my comment was " The Seattle defense is aging and is over paid" In no place did I ever compare the Seattle defense to the Packer defense. I also did not say that the Seattle defense was a bad defense. I said it has regressed which the facts do show that it has regressed and many Seattle fans do admit to that fact.

Now when looking at my comment on the Seattle D being over paid I am referring to the starters who play on defense. Now you and Sonny or someone made some comment that the Packer D is paid more then the Seattle D. When looking at the over all defensive payroll with all defensive players maybe it is but if we look at the actual players who start and actually play meaning the starting players on each teams defense it is not even close. The Seattle defense is quite a bit older and paid quite a bit more.

I went to this website and took the ages and contract #'s for year 2016 only. I only used the 2016 contract figure including roster bonus and workout bonus payments. I did not include signing bonuses for players of either team

The players listed are taken off the team depth chart off of each teams website that is available from the NFL website. In the Packers case I am using Sam Shields as a starter even though he only played part of the first game. I also show the Packers numbers with using his replacement Rollins. In the Seahawks case I have Earl Thomas numbers as he has been a starter until recently.

Seattle Seahawks - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com Green Bay Packers - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com

Here is the comparison:

Seattle:

Bennet age 31 pay= $5,000,000
Rubin age 30 pay = $1,000,000
McDaniel age 31 pay = $$985,000
Avril age 30 pay = $6,000,000
Morgan age 28 pay = $1,000,000
Wagner age 26 pay = $3,468,000
Wright age 27 pay = $5,250,000
Sherman age 28 pay = $12,569,000
Shead age 28 pay = $600,000
Chanchelor age 28 pay = $5,100,000
Thomas age 27 pay = $8,000,000

Average age = 28.54 years and total pay = $48,972,000


Packers:

Clark age 21 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Guion age 29 pay = $1,900,000
Daniels age 27 pay = $5,000,000
Perry age 26 pay = $4,000,000
Ryan age 24 pay = $525,000 Year 2
Martinez age 22 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Matthews age 30 pay = $8,650,000
Randall age 24 pay = $794,000 Year 2
Shields age 29 pay = $8,000,000
Burnett age 27 pay = $4,100,000
Clinton Dix age 24 pay = $1,178,000 Year 3

Rollins age 24 pay = $605,000 replacing Shields Year 2

Average age with Shields = 25.72 Total pay with Shields = $35,047,000
Average age without Shields and adding Rollins = 25.27 Total pay replacing Shields with Rollins = $27,652,000


Your question to me about which defense would I rather have? Well if I look into the future I would prefer a younger team where the majority of the defense does not have to be replaced all in a short period of time. If you look at the 4 Seattle players that are all age 30 or over do you think they will come back ans sign again for s discount to stay with Seattle or do you think since they are near the end of their football life most likely signing their last contract will they go for the money? If they want to go for the money how much more do you think Seattle would want to pay them?

As players age they slow down and are not as effective. with 1/3 of the Seattle defensive starters being age 30 or over it may be part of the reason for the regression and not playing as well as the season wears on. if you look at the last 5 games the Hawks have a record of 2-3 and have allowed 96 points scored against them with 2 teams putting up in the 30's and one close to 40. Over that time the Hawks have allowed 19.2 points to be scored against them which is a significant jump over their average before the last 5 games.

In the same time frame when the Packers actually finally had the above listed players actually playing they are 5-0 and have had 88 points scored against them with an average of 17.6 points against.

I am sure everyone has their own opinions but myself would prefer a younger team. Sheilds only played 1/2 a game this year and is most likely done. As I look at the Packer D it then shows me that there will be 6 players or more than half the team that have 3 or less years with the team. This team has room for significant growth with the young people that have been brought in each year to help build the team and depth. It they average 17.6 points against with an offense that scores an averages 26.73 points a game I have nothing to complain about.

The things that screws everything up is injuries which was shown when 6 starters on the Packer D were out at the same time as it is hard to have quality depth without a drop off when more than half your starting defense is out for 4 weeks or so in a row as was shown by the Pack in the middle of the season.

But if looking at the current team depth charts with healthy players I would be completely happy with the Packers D with youth and how they have played when healthy with room for growth and not much loss in the future


If you have some numbers that show the Packers have a higher paid starting defense than Seattle please go show me as i would want this information to be correct

The Seahawks defensive line starters that you've listed are the only position group that in average age may be past its prime (and you didn't include Frank Clark, Cassius Marsh, or Jarran Reed, all of whom considerably younger and all starter-quality players who get significant minutes every game). It happens that the Seahawks have fielded a rotation-heavy D-Line for several years now. When Avril and Bennett start to decline physically, Clark and Marsh already are experienced an are there to step in as starters. Same with Reed. So your idea that the Hawks don't have 'quality depth' doesn't seem to apply to the D-line.

The other two position groups (LB & Secondary) have starters at the athletic prime of their careers. How much do you acually know about the players backing them up?

 

[LambeauLegs]

The Seahawks defensive line starters that you've listed are the only position group that in average age may be past its prime (and you didn't include Frank Clark, Cassius Marsh, or Jarran Reed, all of whom considerably younger and all starter-quality players who get significant minutes every game). It happens that the Seahawks have fielded a rotation-heavy D-Line for several years now. When Avril and Bennett start to decline physically, Clark and Marsh already are experienced an are there to step in as starters. Same with Reed. So your idea that the Hawks don't have 'quality depth' doesn't seem to apply to the D-line.

The other two position groups (LB & Secondary) have starters at the athletic prime of their careers. How much do you acually know about the players backing them up?

As stated I went by the team depth chart as indicated on each teams website. The packers as well have back ups through all the D positions that get significant playing time. The back ups are back ups for a reason. They are not as good as the starters. So if back ups take over there will be a decrease in talent compared to the starting players which will make the unit not as good. There was no statement made about the quality of the level of play from the back ups other than it must not be as good as the starters otherwise they would be starting.

I myself just find it quite odd that Seattle has not been able to draft any starting defensive players in the last 4 years. They hit it it good or maybe it was luck from 2010 to 2012 when most of the current starters were obtained by the Seahawks. But since that time Schneider have not been nearly as effective.

My personal opinion of why I feel there would be a drop off in talent if the back ups were playing on the Seattle D would be from comments I have seen shared by Seattle fans saying without Thomas there is a big drop off. When Kam was out many said he is hard to replace., when Bennet was out there was a big difference is what I saw was being said. If there were quality back ups my guess is there would not be as big of a drop off as Seattle fans have been taking about.

The other reason is because team Management has not restocked the defensive back ups through drafting or by finding undrafted free agents for the defense starting in year 2013 which is the year after most of those good players were taken.

We can review that here.

In 2013 only one drafted player is left on the team and it is an offensive player, also in 2013 there are no undrafted free agents that were obtained that year that are currently on the team. So in 2013 no help at all for future defensive help or back ups.

In 2014 there are 3 players drafted still left on the team, one is Britt on the O line the other two are defensive with Marsh and Pierre-Louis. One is listed as a back up and one is not good enough to be a back up and is listed as 3rd team. When looking at undrafted free agents in 2014 there is one defensive player still on the team that being Coyle who is a back up. So in 2014 there are 3 defensive players added. Marsh, Pierre-Louis, and Coyle

IN 2015 there are 3 players still on the team from that draft. One is on defense and that is Clark If we look at the undrafted free agents there no players on the team on offense or defense so in 2015 one player Clark

In 2016 there are currently 7 players from the draft still on the team. The problem is only one of them is on defense and he is a back up. Undrafted free agents in 2016 bring in one defensive player Powell who is listed as 3rd team. In 2016 there were 2 defensive players added Reed and Powel

When looking at years 2013 - 2016 the four years after the good players were obtained it shows you have added 6 younger defensive players as back ups as there were no starters added in those years. Marsh, Pierre-Louis, Coyle, Clark, Reed, and Powell.

With a defense having 11 players and the Seahawks only getting 6 back ups in the last 4 years that are on the team from the draft or undrafted free agents it does not look like there are enough back ups to replace those aging veterans. If you cant find them in the draft or undrafted free agents about the only other place to get them is by signing free agents. The problem is they come at a cost and that is not as easy to do when you have a $20 million dollar QB

When trying to maintain a team it generally helps to bring in young players that can be developed over 2 or 3 years so that they can replace those getting older. That does not appear to be happening on Seattle with so many players in their 30s. When you look at the back up help for the line backers and secondary when one is hurt all I read from Seattle fans is that the back up is a drop off in talent.

Why dont you tell me how you feel those 6 defensive players stack up in comparison to the player they would replace if they were starting?

 

[gohusk]

Ok reporting back. Now if we go back to the start of this convo my comment was " The Seattle defense is aging and is over paid" In no place did I ever compare the Seattle defense to the Packer defense. I also did not say that the Seattle defense was a bad defense. I said it has regressed which the facts do show that it has regressed and many Seattle fans do admit to that fact.

Now when looking at my comment on the Seattle D being over paid I am referring to the starters who play on defense. Now you and Sonny or someone made some comment that the Packer D is paid more then the Seattle D. When looking at the over all defensive payroll with all defensive players maybe it is but if we look at the actual players who start and actually play meaning the starting players on each teams defense it is not even close. The Seattle defense is quite a bit older and paid quite a bit more.

I went to this website and took the ages and contract #'s for year 2016 only. I only used the 2016 contract figure including roster bonus and workout bonus payments. I did not include signing bonuses for players of either team

The players listed are taken off the team depth chart off of each teams website that is available from the NFL website. In the Packers case I am using Sam Shields as a starter even though he only played part of the first game. I also show the Packers numbers with using his replacement Rollins. In the Seahawks case I have Earl Thomas numbers as he has been a starter until recently.

Seattle Seahawks - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com Green Bay Packers - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com

Here is the comparison:

Seattle:

Bennet age 31 pay= $5,000,000
Rubin age 30 pay = $1,000,000
McDaniel age 31 pay = $$985,000
Avril age 30 pay = $6,000,000
Morgan age 28 pay = $1,000,000
Wagner age 26 pay = $3,468,000
Wright age 27 pay = $5,250,000
Sherman age 28 pay = $12,569,000
Shead age 28 pay = $600,000
Chanchelor age 28 pay = $5,100,000
Thomas age 27 pay = $8,000,000

Average age = 28.54 years and total pay = $48,972,000


Packers:

Clark age 21 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Guion age 29 pay = $1,900,000
Daniels age 27 pay = $5,000,000
Perry age 26 pay = $4,000,000
Ryan age 24 pay = $525,000 Year 2
Martinez age 22 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Matthews age 30 pay = $8,650,000
Randall age 24 pay = $794,000 Year 2
Shields age 29 pay = $8,000,000
Burnett age 27 pay = $4,100,000
Clinton Dix age 24 pay = $1,178,000 Year 3

Rollins age 24 pay = $605,000 replacing Shields Year 2

Average age with Shields = 25.72 Total pay with Shields = $35,047,000
Average age without Shields and adding Rollins = 25.27 Total pay replacing Shields with Rollins = $27,652,000


Your question to me about which defense would I rather have? Well if I look into the future I would prefer a younger team where the majority of the defense does not have to be replaced all in a short period of time. If you look at the 4 Seattle players that are all age 30 or over do you think they will come back ans sign again for s discount to stay with Seattle or do you think since they are near the end of their football life most likely signing their last contract will they go for the money? If they want to go for the money how much more do you think Seattle would want to pay them?

As players age they slow down and are not as effective. with 1/3 of the Seattle defensive starters being age 30 or over it may be part of the reason for the regression and not playing as well as the season wears on. if you look at the last 5 games the Hawks have a record of 2-3 and have allowed 96 points scored against them with 2 teams putting up in the 30's and one close to 40. Over that time the Hawks have allowed 19.2 points to be scored against them which is a significant jump over their average before the last 5 games.

In the same time frame when the Packers actually finally had the above listed players actually playing they are 5-0 and have had 88 points scored against them with an average of 17.6 points against.

I am sure everyone has their own opinions but myself would prefer a younger team. Sheilds only played 1/2 a game this year and is most likely done. As I look at the Packer D it then shows me that there will be 6 players or more than half the team that have 3 or less years with the team. This team has room for significant growth with the young people that have been brought in each year to help build the team and depth. It they average 17.6 points against with an offense that scores an averages 26.73 points a game I have nothing to complain about.

The things that screws everything up is injuries which was shown when 6 starters on the Packer D were out at the same time as it is hard to have quality depth without a drop off when more than half your starting defense is out for 4 weeks or so in a row as was shown by the Pack in the middle of the season.

But if looking at the current team depth charts with healthy players I would be completely happy with the Packers D with youth and how they have played when healthy with room for growth and not much loss in the future


If you have some numbers that show the Packers have a higher paid starting defense than Seattle please go show me as i would want this information to be correct

You have a bad defense. Our defense has looked bad lately but I think the results speak for themselves over the last 4 years. We could watch these guys become mediocre and we'd still do better than the Pack does on that side of the ball.

 

[LambeauLegs]

To play devil's advocate here:

After leading the league in scoring defense for four consecutive years, this year's version of the Seahawk defense sits at #2 (and this despite weathering injuries leading to multiple weeks without star players like Kam Chancellor, Michael Bennett, and Earl Thomas).

1. So where is the significant drop off?
2. How come the drop off isn't significantly greater considering that their players are all aging and that they've had to play back ups for significant chunks of the season?
3. How exactly do you know that the back ups aren't quality back ups? What do you base that assumption on?

Well when looking at those same years 2013 to 2016 here is what most all would call a regression or drop off unless you are a Seattle fan.

Lets look at the stats:

2013 = Ave points allowed = 14.4
Total yards allowed = 273.6
Passing Yards = 172
Rushing yards = 101.6

2014 = Ave points allowed = 15.9
Total yards allowed = 267.1
Passing yards = 185.6
Rushing yards = 81.5

2015 = Ave points allowed = 17.3
Total yards allowed = 291.9
Passing yards = 210.2
Rushing yards = 81.5

2016 = Ave points allowed = 17.9
Total yards allowed = 323.11
Passing yards = 228.1
Rushing yards = 95


So when looking at the last 4 years you can see that the yards allowed per game and the points allowed oer gaame have gotten worse each year. That is called regression. The Seahawks are just lucky that the points allowed stat is still fairly respectable but is kept that way because of the opportunity to pad stats playing in a weak division getting to play the Cards, Rams, and 49ers twice. When you look at the year 2013 and you actually had talented teams in your divison playing the 49ers and the cards twice and still having a 14.4 pointa against is an impressive feat. But not so much this year it just gives you the ability to pad stats making the points against look better than it really is making up for when you had higher scores against you when you played better teams.

 

[LambeauLegs]

You have a bad defense. Our defense has looked bad lately but I think the results speak for themselves over the last 4 years. We could watch these guys become mediocre and we'd still do better than the Pack does on that side of the ball.

As said previously there was never a comparison made ever of who had a better defense.

I am just having to defend my statement of "The Seattle Defense is aging and is over paid and it has regressed"

All of this clearly shows that

 

[gohusk]

As said previously there was never a comparison made ever of who had a better defense.

I am just having to defend my statement of "The Seattle Defense is aging and is over paid and it has regressed"

All of this clearly shows that

Dude, do you proof read the shit you write? You just listed salaries of your team vs. the Seahawks.

 

[LambeauLegs]

Dude, do you proof read the shit you write? You just listed salaries of your team vs. the Seahawks.

You are like 3 weeks behind this has been going on in a few threads that started way back in the Seattle/Packer game week.

During that week I made the statement that "The Seattle defense is aging is over paid and has regressed" That is all I said and have been defending it with facts that have been posted in several different threads. In those threads Seattle fans kept trying to compare the Seattle defense to the Packer Defense saying it was much better.

The fact is I never said it wasnt good or that the Packer D was better. All I said was "The Seattle D is aging is over paid and has regrressed.

Since that time I have been told by Seattle fans that the Packer D is paid more than Seattle and I was asked if I was happy with the Packer D with it being paid more than Seattle. I had to prove that statement incorrect so that is why the Salary numbers are there. The salaries were in no way posted to show that the Packers had a better D but more to the fact that the Seattle D is over paid

These topics were started while you were still way in hiatus and before you recently came back

 

[Great Dayne]

As said previously there was never a comparison made ever of who had a better defense.

I am just having to defend my statement of "The Seattle Defense is aging and is over paid and it has regressed"

All of this clearly shows that

Game Set Match

 

[Uhsplit]

Ok reporting back. Now if we go back to the start of this convo my comment was " The Seattle defense is aging and is over paid" In no place did I ever compare the Seattle defense to the Packer defense. I also did not say that the Seattle defense was a bad defense. I said it has regressed which the facts do show that it has regressed and many Seattle fans do admit to that fact.

Now when looking at my comment on the Seattle D being over paid I am referring to the starters who play on defense. Now you and Sonny or someone made some comment that the Packer D is paid more then the Seattle D. When looking at the over all defensive payroll with all defensive players maybe it is but if we look at the actual players who start and actually play meaning the starting players on each teams defense it is not even close. The Seattle defense is quite a bit older and paid quite a bit more.

I went to this website and took the ages and contract #'s for year 2016 only. I only used the 2016 contract figure including roster bonus and workout bonus payments. I did not include signing bonuses for players of either team

The players listed are taken off the team depth chart off of each teams website that is available from the NFL website. In the Packers case I am using Sam Shields as a starter even though he only played part of the first game. I also show the Packers numbers with using his replacement Rollins. In the Seahawks case I have Earl Thomas numbers as he has been a starter until recently.

Seattle Seahawks - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com Green Bay Packers - NFL Team Contracts - Rotoworld.com

Here is the comparison:

Seattle:

Bennet age 31 pay= $5,000,000
Rubin age 30 pay = $1,000,000
McDaniel age 31 pay = $$985,000
Avril age 30 pay = $6,000,000
Morgan age 28 pay = $1,000,000
Wagner age 26 pay = $3,468,000
Wright age 27 pay = $5,250,000
Sherman age 28 pay = $12,569,000
Shead age 28 pay = $600,000
Chanchelor age 28 pay = $5,100,000
Thomas age 27 pay = $8,000,000

Average age = 28.54 years and total pay = $48,972,000


Packers:

Clark age 21 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Guion age 29 pay = $1,900,000
Daniels age 27 pay = $5,000,000
Perry age 26 pay = $4,000,000
Ryan age 24 pay = $525,000 Year 2
Martinez age 22 pay = $450,000 Rookie
Matthews age 30 pay = $8,650,000
Randall age 24 pay = $794,000 Year 2
Shields age 29 pay = $8,000,000
Burnett age 27 pay = $4,100,000
Clinton Dix age 24 pay = $1,178,000 Year 3

Rollins age 24 pay = $605,000 replacing Shields Year 2

Average age with Shields = 25.72 Total pay with Shields = $35,047,000
Average age without Shields and adding Rollins = 25.27 Total pay replacing Shields with Rollins = $27,652,000


Your question to me about which defense would I rather have? Well if I look into the future I would prefer a younger team where the majority of the defense does not have to be replaced all in a short period of time. If you look at the 4 Seattle players that are all age 30 or over do you think they will come back ans sign again for s discount to stay with Seattle or do you think since they are near the end of their football life most likely signing their last contract will they go for the money? If they want to go for the money how much more do you think Seattle would want to pay them?

As players age they slow down and are not as effective. with 1/3 of the Seattle defensive starters being age 30 or over it may be part of the reason for the regression and not playing as well as the season wears on. if you look at the last 5 games the Hawks have a record of 2-3 and have allowed 96 points scored against them with 2 teams putting up in the 30's and one close to 40. Over that time the Hawks have allowed 19.2 points to be scored against them which is a significant jump over their average before the last 5 games.

In the same time frame when the Packers actually finally had the above listed players actually playing they are 5-0 and have had 88 points scored against them with an average of 17.6 points against.

I am sure everyone has their own opinions but myself would prefer a younger team. Sheilds only played 1/2 a game this year and is most likely done. As I look at the Packer D it then shows me that there will be 6 players or more than half the team that have 3 or less years with the team. This team has room for significant growth with the young people that have been brought in each year to help build the team and depth. It they average 17.6 points against with an offense that scores an averages 26.73 points a game I have nothing to complain about.

The things that screws everything up is injuries which was shown when 6 starters on the Packer D were out at the same time as it is hard to have quality depth without a drop off when more than half your starting defense is out for 4 weeks or so in a row as was shown by the Pack in the middle of the season.

But if looking at the current team depth charts with healthy players I would be completely happy with the Packers D with youth and how they have played when healthy with room for growth and not much loss in the future


If you have some numbers that show the Packers have a higher paid starting defense than Seattle please go show me as i would want this information to be correct

No offense, but that was too much to read.
Your #'s might be right, but they are missing other incentives.
Spotrac is well known.
NFL Defense Spending - Cap

I never did dispute Seattle's age.