what would you trade for Richard Sherman?

[thequick12]

If it's true, as Schefter is reporting, that Sherman is the one who actually asked Seattle to trade him and THEN talked all that crap about how the trade rumors make him laugh and they won't know what they had till he's gone... that would make him an even bigger tool than he already is.

how so? teams cut players all the time why can't a player orchestrate a trade

I think he'd be at least as good as shields in our defense. and the number 29 pick not really much. even first and another pick excluding the 2nd or 3rd doesn't seem that steep.

 

[brandon2348]

I qualify as someone who has hated Sherman and all you have to do is look up some of my old posts. I can put past hatred down in order for the Packers to have the best chance to win a championship.

I believe he is a guy that you hate to face but would love to have on your team. He has major respect for Aaron Rodgers and holds him pretty highly.

If we can handle Martellus Bennett then we can handle Richard Sherman. The guy is a "winner" and make no mistake about it. When has this guy even missed a game?

So yeah I want "my eggs in that basket"

 

[Dantés]

how so? teams cut players all the time why can't a player orchestrate a trade

I think he'd be at least as good as shields in our defense. and the number 29 pick not really much. even first and another pick excluding the 2nd or 3rd doesn't seem that steep.

I don't have a problem with a guy asking to be traded. What I'm saying is that if it's true that he did ask, and THEN talked all this stuff in the media about how the notion makes him laugh and they won't know what they had until it's gone, that's bush league. His comments paint the Seahawks as being foolish and a little nefarious for wanting to move him. It's garbage to try and portray them that way in the media if all they're really doing is what you asked for.

 

[brandon2348]

I don't have a problem with a guy asking to be traded. What I'm saying is that if it's true that he did ask, and THEN talked all this stuff in the media about how the notion makes him laugh and they won't know what they had until it's gone, that's bush league. His comments paint the Seahawks as being foolish and a little nefarious for wanting to move him. It's garbage to try and portray them that way in the media if all they're really doing is what you asked for.

The media in Seattle hates him so who knows what the truth is of how things actually played out.

I think at this point you let things simmer and see if the Hawks lower there price regarding Sherman. If someone wants to give too much and we miss out then oh well.

 

[Dantés]

The media in Seattle hates him so who knows what the truth is of how things actually played out.

I think at this point you let things simmer and see if the Hawks lower there price regarding Sherman. If someone wants to give too much and we miss out then oh well.

Yeah, that's fine. My position against the trade is assuming a high price tag. You never know... maybe they want to move him worse than we realize. I doubt it, but we'll see.

My understanding of the media situation in Seattle is that it all started when he criticized OC Darrell Bevell's playcalling publicly. Many people in the media (rightfully, IMO) thought that move on Sherman's part was garbage and they were critical of him. So, being the baby he is, Sherman froze them all out and now it's an out and out feud.

My take is that Sherman feels he should be allowed to say anything about anyone in any way he chooses with impunity, but if anyone is critical in return then they're racist or laughable or shouldn't have access to him. He gets to play by one standard and holds everyone else to another.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Yeah, that's fine. My position against the trade is assuming a high price tag. You never know... maybe they want to move him worse than we realize. I doubt it, but we'll see.

My understanding of the media situation in Seattle is that it all started when he criticized OC Darrell Bevell's playcalling publicly. Many people in the media (rightfully, IMO) thought that move on Sherman's part was garbage and they were critical of him. So, being the baby he is, Sherman froze them all out and now it's an out and out feud.

My take is that Sherman feels he should be allowed to say anything about anyone in any way he chooses with impunity, but if anyone is critical in return then they're racist or laughable or shouldn't have access to him. He gets to play by one standard and holds everyone else to another.

Sounds like just the kind of guy we need in Green Bay

I'm totally on the fence with Sherman and think he could go either way in giving the Packers a better defense or it could backfire and he turns into a major distraction. He might actually mature a little in GB, see that he doesn't have to play big man on campus and really do something special for a city that will really embrace if he ...well.....plays by their rules. But questioning the coaches and acting as if his crap doesn't stink, would have to end or I don't think he would be worth whatever the price Seattle ends up getting for him. "Buyer beware when a seller is trying to pawn off something that you would think the seller still covets."

 

[brandon2348]

Sounds like just the kind of guy we need in Green Bay

I'm totally on the fence with Sherman and think he could go either way in giving the Packers a better defense or it could backfire and he turns into a major distraction. He might actually mature a little in GB, see that he doesn't have to play big man on campus and really do something special for a city that will really embrace if he ...well.....plays by their rules. But questioning the coaches and acting as if his crap doesn't stink, would have to end or I don't think he would be worth whatever the price Seattle ends up getting for him. "Buyer beware when a seller is trying to pawn off something that you would think the seller still covets."

I think you make a great point that GB might be a good place for Sherman. He is 29 and has a HOF career going. What a better place to finish it off then in GB?

One thing about Sherman is he is very very smart. I think he is more then capable to fit in with the Packers.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

Being a Russ Wilson fan I have spent a lot of time watching the Hawks. I would love to see Sherman and his fire here. He would be an upgrade at CB and he has two years left on a contract not so much more than we were paying Shields. The only hang up would be what in actual compensation the Hawks want in return. But I think we should for sure do every bit of research and negotiation to see if this can work out. Not sure what player they would want, but I would start with our first and work from there to see if we can reach an agreement.

 

[McKnowledge]

While Richard Sherman isn't known as a wife beater, a child whipper or a man who has punched a woman in a restaurant, it is hard to deny that both his personality and his style of play can be polarizing amongst his coaches, teammates and Seahawk fans. I don't really question his abilities at all and think he would be a vast improvement for the Packers at the CB position. However, if the Packers are even considering trading for a player like Sherman, they need to look at and weigh the entire package that Sherman would bring to the Packers and their fans.

They should do that with all players.

 

[thequick12]

I don't have a problem with a guy asking to be traded. What I'm saying is that if it's true that he did ask, and THEN talked all this stuff in the media about how the notion makes him laugh and they won't know what they had until it's gone, that's bush league. His comments paint the Seahawks as being foolish and a little nefarious for wanting to move him. It's garbage to try and portray them that way in the media if all they're really doing is what you asked for.

the team would do what benefits them and Sherman is doing what benefits him. I see no difference

 

[Dantés]

the team would do what benefits them and Sherman is doing what benefits him. I see no difference

So hypothetically if Sherman never asked to be traded and the Seahawks lied to the media and said that they were only shopping him per his request, that would be cool with you?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Seattle is going to have to pay Thomas a fortune. It became apparent that Thomas is the backbone of that defense. Without him, it all failed. With a healthy Sherman, who started to look like the weak link.

I'm more concerned with a year from now when Sherman wants to become the highest paid cb in the league, entering his 30s. We willing to give a first rd pick to lose the guy 2 or 3 years from now?

If he was playing like he was 2 or 3 years ago... then yes.... but wasn't Rodgers picking on him last year? Kinda making him look bad?

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

Rodgers makes a lot of players look bad. If we can get him for the next two years and have a chance at another SB or two, then we can let him walk once his contract expires. Just for the chance. Let someone else pay him if he wants to be th highest paid. But to get two years if it solidifies our CB issue, yeah, worth it.

 

[C-Lee]

If we get Richard Sherman (and the key guys stay healthy), we are CLEARLY the NFC favorites.

Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback I've ever seen. Give the guy a COMPETENT defense, please.

 

[brandon2348]

Seattle is going to have to pay Thomas a fortune. It became apparent that Thomas is the backbone of that defense. Without him, it all failed. With a healthy Sherman, who started to look like the weak link.

I'm more concerned with a year from now when Sherman wants to become the highest paid cb in the league, entering his 30s. We willing to give a first rd pick to lose the guy 2 or 3 years from now?

If he was playing like he was 2 or 3 years ago... then yes.... but wasn't Rodgers picking on him last year? Kinda making him look bad?

Richard Sherman wasn't the "weak link". He didn't have his typical season but he still played well and also played almost the whole season with a sprained MCL. I have no concerns about Richard Sherman being able to help our secondary and being the missing piece back there.

Thompson just needs to make it happen.

 

[thequick12]

So hypothetically if Sherman never asked to be traded and the Seahawks lied to the media and said that they were only shopping him per his request, that would be cool with you?

yes thats business. I believe it's called posturing. however that would not be in thereno best interest. the way the story first came out was in their best interest. we're willing to listen to offers, not trying to trade him. that sets them up to get the most in return. the revelation that it was Sherman who asked to be traded takes the advantage from them and teams would likely offer less if they know Sherman demanded the trade

 

[thequick12]

Seattle is going to have to pay Thomas a fortune. It became apparent that Thomas is the backbone of that defense. Without him, it all failed. With a healthy Sherman, who started to look like the weak link.

I'm more concerned with a year from now when Sherman wants to become the highest paid cb in the league, entering his 30s. We willing to give a first rd pick to lose the guy 2 or 3 years from now?

If he was playing like he was 2 or 3 years ago... then yes.... but wasn't Rodgers picking on him last year? Kinda making him look bad?

yes if Seattle would take the 29th pick for Sherman that's a no brainer of a trade. I guess the question is do you go with the safe bet and trade for Sherman or gamble the player you draft is gonna develop into a player in 2 years in which case your only guaranteed 2 or 3 years of that players services

 

[sschind]

I don't believe the Seahawks consider Hundley or Spriggs a good enough player to include in a trade for Sherman.

Besides, they have this guy named Russell Wilson at QB who I think they kinda like.

 

[sschind]

Meanwhile the Falcons drop almost 70 million to tie up there no.1 corner. When are people gonna finally realize that you have to be willing to spend money to win a Super Bowl.

Report: Falcons, Trufant Sign Massive 5-Year Extension (via https://br.app.link/get-the-app ) http://teamstre.am/2pdlpXz

Who is the last player of Trufant's caliber that Ted let go? Are you saying we should have spent 70 million on Casey Hayward last season or any of the free agents that left us in the past couple of years? If Ted has guys with thattalent he tends to keep them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The net cost in both salaries and impact on the compensatory draft for next year would have been markedly less-than trading for Sherman now.

The Packers trading for Sherman would have no effect on the oh-so important compensatory picks next season.

The main one, for me, is that I think he will have the price tag (in terms of trade value) of an elite corner and I don't believe he is an elite corner in our defense.

Every defensive coordinator in the league should be able to use Sherman in a way for him to be able to perform at an elite level.

If he was playing like he was 2 or 3 years ago... then yes.... but wasn't Rodgers picking on him last year? Kinda making him look bad?

Please don't make up stuff. Rodgers largely avoided Sherman during the game vs. the Seahawks last season, targeting him only twice resulting in a catch for 11 yards.

Besides, they have this guy named Russell Wilson at QB who I think they kinda like.

The Seahawks possibly need a backup quarterback after Trevon Boykine was arrested two week ago though.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The Packers trading for Sherman would have no effect on the oh-so important compensatory picks next season.



Every defensive coordinator in the league should be able to use Sherman in a way for him to be able to perform at an elite level.



Please don't make up stuff. Rodgers largely avoided Sherman during the game vs. the Seahawks last season, targeting him only twice resulting in a catch for 11 yards.



The Seahawks possibly need a backup quarterback after Trevon Boykine was arrested two week ago though.

I'm not making stuff up. You are the one who said the vikes wr destroyed Randall for 180 yds and a td... look at the YouTube clip of those 9 catches. Randall was only covering him for 4 or 5 of those plays. Most were contested too. Diggs just make some great catches on some well placed throws. Yes, one missed tackle. Yes he played soft one play and was burnt as a result... but far from being the toilet paper in a 9 catch 183 td 1 td **** storm that you claimed...!

Anyways. I don't know if it was the year before or what. But I remember a game recently that Rodgers seemed to be going after Sherman. And Winning. If you used the same logic with sherman, as with Randall, then I doubt 11 yds on one catch is accurate.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not making stuff up. You are the one who said the vikes wr destroyed Randall for 180 yds and a td... look at the YouTube clip of those 9 catches. Randall was only covering him for 4 or 5 of those plays. Most were contested too. Diggs just make some great catches on some well placed throws. Yes, one missed tackle. Yes he played soft one play and was burnt as a result... but far from being the toilet paper in a 9 catch 183 td 1 td **** storm that you claimed...!

Anyways. I don't know if it was the year before or what. But I remember a game recently that Rodgers seemed to be going after Sherman. And Winning. If you used the same logic with sherman, as with Randall, then I doubt 11 yds on one catch is accurate.

Geez, Eli, why is it so tough to admit you were wrong about it??? Take a look at PFF's numbers from last year's game against the Seahawks:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-sea-gb-grades/

It's true Randall wasn't responsible for all of Diggs' reception in the week 2 matchup (see how easy it is to acknowledge you erred???) but according to PFF he gave up seven receptions for 161 yards and a TD to the Vikings receiver. In addition he was flagged for pass interference on a crucial third down play late in the game helping Minnesota seal the win.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-gb-min-grades/

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Geez, Eli, why is it so tough to admit you were wrong about it??? Take a look at PFF's numbers from last year's game against the Seahawks:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-sea-gb-grades/

It's true Randall wasn't responsible for all of Diggs' reception in the week 2 matchup (see how easy it is to acknowledge you erred???) but according to PFF he gave up seven receptions for 161 yards and a TD to the Vikings receiver. In addition he was flagged for pass interference on a crucial third down play late in the game helping Minnesota seal the win.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-gb-min-grades/

I have no problem admitting I am wrong. But did you go and watch the YouTube clip of the 9 catches??? No. You didn't. I know this because you still claim Randall was responsible for 7 catches, 161, 1td.

I don't call it on Randall when the safety wasn't there to help, when he obviously was supposed to. Or the other big play where diggs caught the inside slant, and the entire middle of the field was empty. Where's the other 10 packers on that play? The td catch, Randall was all over him, and was there to try and knock the ball out after the catch was made. Hardly burnt. Just a great throw/catch, and I think it showed that diggs is a great young talent for them...
True those 3 plays were the lions share of the yds diggs got that day. But was it all on Randall? No.

And like I said. I seen Sherman getting thrown at with my own eyes. The announcers even mentioned it, because typically we avoid rd sherman. Maybe it was 2015? Maybe it was a playoff game and it wasn't even GB??? I don't watch Seattle typically unless it's GB. But If I remember right, it was adams...
so I'm supposed to believe your stats rather than my own memory? Stats can be and are manipulated... like when is it a safety's fault or a CBs fault, when a deep throw is made, and the cb is expecting help, and the safety doesn't get there in time? Or when it's a zone, and the cb is just one of the two or three guys who got burnt?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Geez, Eli, why is it so tough to admit you were wrong about it??? Take a look at PFF's numbers from last year's game against the Seahawks:

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-sea-gb-grades/


It's true Randall wasn't responsible for all of Diggs' reception in the week 2 matchup (see how easy it is to acknowledge you erred???) but according to PFF he gave up seven receptions for 161 yards and a TD to the Vikings receiver. In addition he was flagged for pass interference on a crucial third down play late in the game helping Minnesota seal the win.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-gb-min-grades/

Here is an article that explains exactly my point.
https://www.profootballfocus.com/richard-sherman-earns-career-low-pff-grade-against-packers/

It might not have even been the packers that was throwing at him, and doing well. But I remember thinking that Sherman wasn't looking good without Thomas behind him cleaning everything up around him....and the announcer mentioning that they are going after Sherman that day...

Also. I seen the Adams plays weren't against Sherman. But Sherman was obviously frustrated for some reason. When he took that cheap shot on Adams...and maybe I was just remembering Adams being more physical than Sherman? Which just doesn't happen. I do remember getting pissed when Sherman took the cheap shot, because he couldn't beat him face to face... regardless. My take of the game was that Sherman was made to look bad. In many ways was true.

 

[brandon2348]

I have no problem admitting I am wrong. But did you go and watch the YouTube clip of the 9 catches??? No. You didn't. I know this because you still claim Randall was responsible for 7 catches, 161, 1td.

I don't call it on Randall when the safety wasn't there to help, when he obviously was supposed to. Or the other big play where diggs caught the inside slant, and the entire middle of the field was empty. Where's the other 10 packers on that play? The td catch, Randall was all over him, and was there to try and knock the ball out after the catch was made. Hardly burnt. Just a great throw/catch, and I think it showed that diggs is a great young talent for them...
True those 3 plays were the lions share of the yds diggs got that day. But was it all on Randall? No.

And like I said. I seen Sherman getting thrown at with my own eyes. The announcers even mentioned it, because typically we avoid rd sherman. Maybe it was 2015? Maybe it was a playoff game and it wasn't even GB??? I don't watch Seattle typically unless it's GB. But If I remember right, it was adams...
so I'm supposed to believe your stats rather than my own memory? Stats can be and are manipulated... like when is it a safety's fault or a CBs fault, when a deep throw is made, and the cb is expecting help, and the safety doesn't get there in time? Or when it's a zone, and the cb is just one of the two or three guys who got burnt?

We have never really "picked Sherman apart". Last year Adams beat Lane and Jordy beat Shead. Sherman gave up a few plays but nothing major here.

In 2015 Jones beat Sherman for a TD on a post route. Other then that Sherman played pretty well in that game.

I've watched almost every Seattle game over the last 4-5 years. Sherman is the real deal and if you insert him into Sherman, House, Burnett, Dix then we almost certainly emerge as one of the top secondaries in the NFL. Maybe the best if our young guys develop adequately.

I really don't understand why some people are obsessed with bringing in a recently non productive ADRIAN Peterson with checkered past who doesn't fit our system in but think bringing in Sherman would be a huge mistake. Makes zero sense to me