On second thought...we should have paid Norman

[AceBoogie]

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

[Rags]

I didn't read the content of the post because paying a CB who is nearly 30 years old nearly 50 mil Guaranteed is fuging stupid lol

[the butch]

OH DEAR GOD.  ENOUGH ALREADY.

[Blackmagic]

Norman was very good. but he's no Revis. Cardinals play man, and Peterson gets beat sometimes, but he's on an island. Seahawks play more man than we do. The CB's were rated as second rounders by Gettleman. So, no reaches.

The 14 million not spent on Norman, can be spent on KK, Star, Kelvin, Trai and Norwell.

[juliosantos]

You prob hated norman 2  seasons ago. We made him he was a scheme fit.

[Rags]

7 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson

Read the post, decided to blow this up.

The difference between paying Sherman and Peterson is when they're in their 30s/Close to their 30s, theyy're be near the end or at the end of their contracts. Josh will be in the 2nd year of his 5 year deal when he's 30. 

And unless you're Champ Bailey or Charles Woodson, 30s are around the time CBs start dropping off a bit. 

[goodoleboy]

G-Man got 2 for the price of 1.

[Jangler]

[GoobyPls]

Everyone knows we should of payed Norman at least for this upcoming season.

 

People are just back tracking cause they blindly agree with every DG move.

[TheRumGone]

26 minutes ago, AceBoogie said:

It's not just this draft that makes me realize we should have paid Josh Norman, it's thinking back to last season. How many times during the course of last season did you stand up and say "PAY THAT MAN"

I'm sure you can flip through old game threads, it was said a lot. Norman made game changing plays last year. He was a dynamic playmaker for this team. I'm not saying we should have paid him what Washington did, but I don't think we had to go that high. 

The Seahawks paid Richard Sherman, The cardinals paid Patrick Peterson, you could argue that Revis was the reason the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 

CB was already considered a need coming in, with Josh Norman on the team. I think two reaches by our GM, who typically doesn't reach for need, shows just how bad the situation really is. 

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

[Castavar]

5 minutes ago, GoobyPls said:

Everyone knows we should of payed Norman at least for this upcoming season.

 

People are just back tracking cause they blindly agree with every DG move.

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

[The_Rainmaker]

1 minute ago, TheRumGone said:

I think we should have kept the tag for a year but I get why we pulled it. This isn't static though, because Josh is gone OTHER players, regardless of position, are going to make plays, game changing plays. We have a ton of talent on this team. 

 

You ou can't just look at Josh being gone and say well we're gonna lose 5 game changing plays this upcoming season. It doesn't work that way. 

IDK about losses but it  will affect team in a sense that LBs will have to take on more responsiblity and will burden them slightly in doing their own assignments. Specifially the play where  Luke tipped the ball away from WR and started yelling at Finnegan trying to cover up that mistake. 

[GoobyPls]

3 minutes ago, Castavar said:

We WERE going to pay for Norman this season. Blame Norman and his agent for not signing it.

Nope can't blame him when he wanted to resign with the team the second he was cut.

 

Not only that but they had until June to reach a deal, so cutting him just cause you couldn't reach an agreement 2 month before the deadline is asinine.

 

 

[Jangler]