Bird’s Eye View (An Evaluation of The Team's Moves) ...

[A-Dog]

if Brady's critical, it's in a calm well thought out and respectful way, then he's done... One is being a professional, and one is being selfish petulant child.

But you are completely dismissing Brady's very public, very disrespectful, very unprofessional, very petulant, very NOT CALM sideline outburst, for the very arbitrary reason that it happened "on the field." Maybe it wasn't directly to the press, but the press certainly picked it up and ran with it.

This is called a DOUBLE STANDARD.

I am not defending Sherman's actions at all, and I am tending to agree with the OP that Sherman displays the characteristics of a classic narcissist (I dated one, they are monsters). However, somebody posted that Belichick doesn't put up with players that are outspoken or question their authority, and that's a load of crap.

 

[A-Dog]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Like how good they are, if they are injured, or how much salary they make and age?

I was completely in favor of cutting Sherman, for the reasons mentioned, that's not what I'm talking about here.

 

[chris98251]

Gronk is also outspoken, just not about the Patriots until lately with his retirement threat.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Has nothing to do with race.

Sherman decided after the SB loss that he was no longer buying into the program and Pete's "Kumbaya" positive approach to everyone sacrificing for the betterment of the team.

He chose instead to publicly criticize his coordinators and teammates, and even the local press for daring to question his sudden change of attitude.

Then he had the misfortune of getting hurt, and that made him expendable. Because that's what happens when you're a pain in the ass, you're personality is only going to be tolerated until you stop playing well.

The End.

 

[adeltaY]

if Brady's critical, it's in a calm well thought out and respectful way, then he's done... One is being a professional, and one is being selfish petulant child.

But you are completely dismissing Brady's very public, very disrespectful, very unprofessional, very petulant sideline, very NOT CALM sideline outburst, for the very arbitrary reason that it happened "on the field." Maybe it wasn't directly to the press, but the press certainly picked it up and ran with it.

This is called a DOUBLE STANDARD.

I am not defending Sherman's actions at all, and I am tending to agree with the OP that Sherman displays the characteristics of a classic narcissist (I dated one, they are monsters). However, somebody posted that Belichick doesn't put up with players that are outspoken or question their authority, and that's a load of crap.

Loooool the "Brady gets mad and it's okay but Sherman gets mad and it's out of line (or worse, some will call him a thug)" is practically a meme. Kinda funny to see someone defend that line of thinking. Brady is "calm, well thought out, respectful" hahaha. Did you see him yell at BoB? I don't have a problem with either, not remotely. Don't see how justifying one and decrying another is fair based on how they acted in the moment.

 

[A-Dog]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Has nothing to do with race.

Sherman decided after the SB loss that he was no longer buying into the program and Pete's "Kumbaya" positive approach to everyone sacrificing for the betterment of the team.

He chose instead to publicly criticize his coordinators and teammates, and even the local press for daring to question his sudden change of attitude.

Then he had the misfortune of getting hurt, and that made him expendable. Because that's what happens when you're a pain in the ass, you're personality is only going to be tolerated until you stop playing well.

The End.

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

 

[mrt144]

FWIW, I think the reason that fans, myself included, look past Sherman's tirades and outburst towards coaches is because it was cathartic as hell to have someone pulling the thread from within the organization on some of the issues we were seeing in real time.

We can chase our tails about the right way of doing things but man, Sherman concentrated collective fan frustration into his voice.

Yet, many fans want players to "shut up and play." Some of us just want them to dance for us and be quiet and justify it by saying the players earn millions and that there are thousands who wish they could play in the league. I wonder if that's right. Doesn't feel like it to me, but I'm no ethics expert.

Hold on, I'm trying to get Chidi from The Good Place on line 1.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Has nothing to do with race.

Sherman decided after the SB loss that he was no longer buying into the program and Pete's "Kumbaya" positive approach to everyone sacrificing for the betterment of the team.

He chose instead to publicly criticize his coordinators and teammates, and even the local press for daring to question his sudden change of attitude.

Then he had the misfortune of getting hurt, and that made him expendable. Because that's what happens when you're a pain in the ass, you're personality is only going to be tolerated until you stop playing well.

The End.

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

Sure, I never said the primary reason Sherman's gone was because he was a pain in the ass.

Of course his injury and massive contract were the main reason. But if he wasn't being divisive at every turn? I betcha we try a little harder to work something out...........or we match the Niners offer.

 

[Seymour]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Has nothing to do with race.

Sherman decided after the SB loss that he was no longer buying into the program and Pete's "Kumbaya" positive approach to everyone sacrificing for the betterment of the team.

He chose instead to publicly criticize his coordinators and teammates, and even the local press for daring to question his sudden change of attitude.

Then he had the misfortune of getting hurt, and that made him expendable. Because that's what happens when you're a pain in the ass, you're personality is only going to be tolerated until you stop playing well.

The End.

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

That is acceptable.....as long as one is willing to completely ignore the other problems and the fact the team publicly shopped him prior to last season before the injury even occurred.

 

[HawkRiderFan]

I get that Brady had the infamous argument on the sidelines with McDaniel and has been seen yelling at the O on the sidelines etc. But imo it's a bit of a reach saying that is the same as when Sherm had two situations in 2016 where he had to be physically restrained during sideline confrontations.

It feels like with his personality it was a situation where it would all be good while things were going well around him, like the 2012-2014 stretch. But if anything happened big happened internally that was brutal for the organization, like the Super Bowl pass that seems to be the catalyst for a lot of this, that combined with Sherm's personality was going to make an eventual parting of the ways inevitable.

 

[A-Dog]

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

That is acceptable.....as long as one is willing to completely ignore the other problems and the fact the team publicly shopped him prior to last season before the injury even occurred.

How about the Seahawks knew they were unlikely to re-sign him to a big deal for his age 31 season, so they decided to explore possibilities for getting some kind of return on him before he became a free agent?

I can play this game all day.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

That is acceptable.....as long as one is willing to completely ignore the other problems and the fact the team publicly shopped him prior to last season before the injury even occurred.

How about the Seahawks knew they were unlikely to re-sign him to a big deal for his age 31 season, so they decided to explore possibilities for getting some kind of return on him before he became a free agent?

I can play this game all day.

But why wouldn't we be interested in resigning a top 5 corner still in his prime last year?

My guess is we'll certainly be interested in extending Russell, Doug and Bobby. Wonder why not Richard? Such a mystery.

 

[vin.couve12]

How about this: Sherman was making $13M a year, he'll be 30 years old, and he just tore his Achilles. Therefore the team decided to cut him.

The End.


It's not the Seahawks decision that I am questioning, it's the narrative that some fans are pushing about why the decision was made (and the Bennett decision, and the looming Richardson decision) that I think is pretty ridiculous.

That is acceptable.....as long as one is willing to completely ignore the other problems and the fact the team publicly shopped him prior to last season before the injury even occurred.

How about the Seahawks knew they were unlikely to re-sign him to a big deal for his age 31 season, so they decided to explore possibilities for getting some kind of return on him before he became a free agent?

I can play this game all day.

But why wouldn't we be interested in resigning a top 5 corner still in his prime last year?

My guess is we'll certainly be interested in extending Russell, Doug and Bobby. Wonder why not Richard? Such a mystery.

You extend the season of their last year, not prior. If any of those 3 tear an achilles on a contract year or just prior, they'd be subject to the same...and yes, even RW. He's not exactly a pure pocket passer.

 

[Uncle Si]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Like how good they are, if they are injured, or how much salary they make and age?

Outside of one or two posts where do you see an”undercurrent?”

I’m not upset with Sherman the Seahawk. It bothers me how he’s continued the narrative out the door.

 

[Uncle Si]

Well if we were a Soccer team the owner just brings a gun on the field or the fans riot in the stands, god forbid a player on the team say something that was true even if it did cause some heartburn.

I guess all we can say is GOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAL.

Really struggling to stay on topic..

I suppose when you're out of ideas..

But, if you want to have a go.. then do it. Don't try and be cryptic. I blew off the first one. I'll give you this one and another.

Put it this way, people complain about Sherman and Bennett, but I see Soccer as way more out of line as far as public displays from the Commission, the fans and the owners as being corrupt and bad public opinion for their teams and sport. Yet nobody seems to think that's a problem when it comes to the media. Our fans and the media blows one players statements out of the water that were accurate but dismiss it because it was a public.

Maybe it's because the NFL, or maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

It's just seems hypocritical to me.

Well.. that’s not far off. European soccer fans tolerate a lot of corruption and inflation while perpetrating their own transgressions. I think some of it is the game has grown far past the local club mentality financially but the fans are still the same hard nosed blue collars who have had tickets in their family for decades. It’s a strange relationship.

But a conversation for a different time (and forum)

I’m not burning my Sherman jersey (only Hawks jersey I own). Just not liking how he’s left

 

[A-Dog]

maybe because Americans have their underwear bunched too tight.

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Like how good they are, if they are injured, or how much salary they make and age?

Outside of one or two posts where do you see an”undercurrent?”

It's not *just* this thread

But it's all around this forum, fanbase, league, nation and world. Just look at the recent video posted by Mike Tyson and Justin Coleman.

If you don't think politics (and in this day and age, that includes race) don't permeate this board, you're not paying attention.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I think he had to go public because nothing was being done. Look back now, and he was right. The necessary changes of getting rid of Bevell and Cable finally happened albeit years later than it should have.

BS. Being right means never throwing from the 1 again, that was the main pet peeve of Sherman that came out.

He is and was wrong about that, and it is a completely ridiculous request (and especially so with our crap magic run game) And yes...I too hated that play call, but so what? :roll:

I get you, but Sherman was bitter about more things than just 'The Play'. In his defense though, the team has tried to run that same slant play a few more times since then and still had the same disastrous results.

That is no defense. There has NOT been another game lost from a pass getting picked at the one (ie...same disastrous results)

Where do you come up with that?

I didn't mean disastrous in the terms of the outcome of the game (come on, it was the worst play in football history in the biggest game ever), but more so on the outcome of that particular play itself. Seattle tried the same slant against the Redskins for a 2-point conversion last year and it was picked and almost ran back. They tried it against somebody else too and I believe it was also intercepted, but I cant remember and don't have any proof of that right now. I was just making light of the slant.

 

[Uncle Si]

There is a socio-political undercurrent at work here and I find it a bit disturbing.

Some fans really seem to want the players to stay in line, keep their mouths shut, and bow to authority (owner/GM/coaches). Players that get too uppity should be ostracized and removed. However, this can be applied selectively, as some players are granted immunity from this based on certain criteria.

Like how good they are, if they are injured, or how much salary they make and age?

Outside of one or two posts where do you see an”undercurrent?”

It's not *just* this thread

But it's all around this forum, fanbase, league, nation and world. Just look at the recent video posted by Mike Tyson and Justin Coleman.

If you don't think politics (and in this day and age, that includes race) don't permeate this board, you're not paying attention.

Right.. not paying attention. I do appreciate the condescending reminder about our nations issues

We do a pretty decent job off niping that talk on this board. And since we are discussing our own beliefs on the matter I’ll take a pass getting wrangled into this type of discussion with you

You want to have a deeper discussion please take it to the proper forum.

 

[Hawkscanner]

As I've said many times, there is a large piece of me that likes Richard Sherman quite a lot. Richard Sherman the elite level shutdown CB is an AWESOME, amazing asset. It's just all the other baggage that eventually just gets too cumbersome to carry after awhile.

 

[A-Dog]

Right.. not paying attention. I do appreciate the condescending reminder about our nations issues

We do a pretty decent job off niping that talk on this board. And since we are discussing our own beliefs on the matter I’ll take a pass getting wrangled into this type of discussion with you

You want to have a deeper discussion please take it to the proper forum.

Happy to take it to a different forum, I am just responding to people who address me, and you asked a direct question. I certainly am NOT trying to wrangle anyone. I'm sorry if you felt condescended to, but you expressed surprise at my post so I felt a reminder maybe was in order. I will drop it now - if anyone wants to respond further on this particular topic please do so in the shack.