End of an Era?

[SoulfishHawk]

You mean Haushka missing that game winner at Arizona in 2016? :lol:

 

[olyfan63]

You mean Haushka missing that game winner at Arizona in 2016? :lol:

Priceless! Yes, we had them dead to rights for the W and Hauschka shanks it. Seattle area ERs were suddenly inundated with Seahawks fans with mild concussions from slapping their foreheads in disbelief.

So it's really that miss by Hauschka that was the key to everything. That miss opened the door to not renew Hauschka's contract, and brought in Blair Witch. The rest is history.
Who says there isn't accountability? It's just that in this case, a Cleveland-style throw-the-bum-out just got us a worse bum. So let's try not to go all Cleveland on too many players or coaches. Except CaBevell of course.

 

[Uncle Si]

It sounds like a ridiculous internet term for setting ones own personal agenda into a conversation.

However, moving on... Frank Clark was arrested for DV. That is a red flag. If you claim that PC and JS did their homework on him (they must have, because they don't seem naive enough to assume the mantra of the acronym you referred to) then surely they did the same with McDowell. These coaches do not succumb to "angles."

They both are inherent risks. Trying to brush away the risk of one as some social agenda is disingenuous and assumptive.

So we're into name calling and insults now? "Disingenuous and assumptive"? Really? Whatever... Especially when it seems we basically agree on nearly all points.

JS/PC knew there would be an SJW/PC poopstorm if they drafted Clark, a PR situation to "manage" for a while. And there absolutely was. The local networks brought up Clark's DV allegation several times every game for much of the first year.

Let's set the DV aspect aside for a moment; I'd forgotten there was another huge issue with Clark where he went into someone's home and jacked their MacBook Air laptop between his freshman and sophomore years. He got rung up on a felony on that one. I'll grant red flag status for that. Especially since there was an actual conviction. (Clark plea-bargained, admitted guilt, sentence gave him one more chance and eventually a clean slate if he kept his nose clean for years)

Back to DV for a moment; Clark's girlfriend gave off all the vibes of a person with a personality disorder, basically, a crazy chick who would freak out and physically attack him, leaving him the choice of whether to let her pound away and scratch and bite and claw him. There are actually many women like that, whether you have personally experienced that or not. My guess is that Clark did grab her and throw her off him. With his strength, she'd probably fly across the room, hitting the wall. I wouldn't be surprised if she came at him 3 or 4 times like that. Who is the guilty party, the smaller person initiating an assault, or the one who defends himself from the assault? In the SJW/PC world, the man is always wrong and must be jailed, charged, and found guilty. But wait, what if the smaller person initiating the assaults is male?
BTW, they did ring up Clark for Disorderly Conduct on that one.

Anyway, on the positive side of the character ledger, Clark did punch Germain Ifedi in the mouth in training camp this year during pass-rushing drills. So there is that in his favor. Bloodied Ifedi up to where he had to leave the field. Well, maybe not a positive, if it's to the point of incapacitating teammates. Oh yeah, and there was an SJW/PC-ish writer, this article here, http://thebiglead.com/2017/08/03/frank- ... -seahawks/ who insisted the Hawks should cut Clark. (to be immediately snapped up by other teams)

I wouldn't be surprised if Pete and John saw Malik McDowell as Frank Clark 2.0, or Bruce Irvin 2.0
He still could be. However, one rap whispered against McDowell was "lacking effort at times". "Lacking effort" is something I have NEVER, EVER heard about Frank Clark, or for that matter, Bruce Irvin. So that part does worry me a little.

Assumptive and disingenuous are insults?

(Preface... this is a direct reply to your post, not you as a person. Your original post referring to the DV incident was assumptive and disingenuous. Your recent reply is textbook enabling. We clearly see this issue differently. Im sure you're still a good guy).

Trying to fetter out the details of a case of such personal nature on a message board is pointless. The nature of the crime and the details around it are not as important as the concept that he was involved in a violent incident and was drafted anyways. You also continue to feel the need to refer to SJW/PC as some type of derogatory term. You can defend Clark (you clearly want to while taking shots at people who take issues with his DV case) but its not really germane to the point of the post.

The whole point of the Frank Clark/Malik McDowell comparison was that both had legal trouble/red flags before being drafted. One would assume the Seahawks put as much effort into their research on McDowell as they did on Clark (and presumably Lynch when they traded for him). This was a reply made to a poster who questioned taking high risk players in the draft and McDowell was a reflection of that failure. I brought up Clark as a success. Why try to wedge Clark into some category other than a "risky" pick because of his issues heading into the draft? Lynch and Harvin were risky. One worked out, the other didnt.


I agree on the issues with McDowell. But PC seems to think these risks are worth taking.

 

[TwistedHusky]

My understanding was that the big issue with McDowell was concern about production. Sure there were character concerns (that appear to have been justified) but guys that produce get lots of excuses made for them.

He appeared to be a guy that was productive in some games and would go stretches where he was clearly putting out minimum effort. He looked like a path of least resistance player that didn't really love the game, a paycheck player.

Hard to judge that entirely in college because they don't fairly pay the players but it sure looks like that judgement was not in error now.

A lot of the scouting reports used words like lazy at the time, those were the red flags though I concede some of his other conduct did not help matters.

I do not remember people using terms like lazy or not a hard worker to describe Clark, so I am not sure I get how the comparison works. Unless we are just saying that the Seahawks are happy to pull in high ceiling guys regardless of the red flags - which hopefully they are not. Red flags for character? Sure. Red flags for work ethic? Hopefully hell no.

 

[Uncle Si]

I do not remember people using terms like lazy or not a hard worker to describe Clark, so I am not sure I get how the comparison works. Unless we are just saying that the Seahawks are happy to pull in high ceiling guys regardless of the red flags - which hopefully they are not. Red flags for character? Sure. Red flags for work ethic? Hopefully hell no.

I remember both having red flags. My comparison to the two was that whatever due diligence they did on Clark you would assume they did on McDowell as well.

It was a reply to the idea that the risk/reward of taking these guys might not be worth it.

 

[olyfan63]

[
Assumptive and disingenuous are insults?

(Preface... this is a direct reply to your post, not you as a person. Your original post referring to the DV incident was assumptive and disingenuous. Your recent reply is textbook enabling. We clearly see this issue differently. Im sure you're still a good guy).

Trying to fetter out the details of a case of such personal nature on a message board is pointless. The nature of the crime and the details around it are not as important as the concept that he was involved in a violent incident and was drafted anyways. You also continue to feel the need to refer to SJW/PC as some type of derogatory term. You can defend Clark (you clearly want to while taking shots at people who take issues with DV) but its not really germane to the point of the post.

The whole point of the Frank Clark/Malik McDowell comparison was that both had legal trouble/red flags before being drafted. One would assume the Seahawks put as much effort into their research on McDowell as they did on Clark (and presumably Lynch when they traded for him). This was a reply made to a poster who questioned taking high risk players in the draft and McDowell was a reflection of that failure. I brought up Clark as a success. Why try to wedge Clark into some category other than a "risky" pick because of his issues heading into the draft? Lynch and Harvin were risky. One worked out, the other didnt.

I agree on the issues with McDowell. But PC seems to think these risks are worth taking.

Yes, "disingenous" is an insult attacking the poster, not the post. It's a political word suggesting I am somehow intentionally trying to mislead others. That IS a personal attack, to me, and your words "declaring" otherwise... well, rubbish. You then proceed to insult me further as an "enabler" of violence against women, for good measure. I'm a realist, and I've enabled nothing. Do you intentionally enable false accusers of men? No? I truly didn't think so.

If you want to talk further about the DV/Red Flag/PC-SJW angle, at least the parts that piss you off, , how about we take that to an Off-field forum thread? If you are just itching to insult me further, why not just invite me to the Shack and we can openly share how we really feel? Let's let this thread get back to football-related.

I do find your views on false allegations and gender bias to be naive. Perhaps you have no close personal experience with the life-destroying experience of evidence-free false allegations being treated as true. May God bless your life that you never do experience this horror. Members of the Duke Lacrosse team sure did. Men without resources to hire good lawyers would be so screwed. Google the Duke Lacrosse case for a non-naive view of how dangerous it can be for men out there.

In any case, we all agree that with Frank Clark, Pete and John and their scouting/player evaluation team did a lot of homework, and decided the risk was worth it. I'm glad they did. With Bruce Irvin, they did their homework too, and he was a good player for us the last 2 years of his contract, and was a big factor in our Super Bowl win; he was the "spy" on Colin Kaepernick, and Kaep knew he couldn't outrun Irvin, and had to pass => "The Tip". Irvin was a huge factor in several 2013 NFCCG critical plays.

Also, on Harvin, Pete got an "education" on sociopathic personality disorders. Going in, Pete thought Harvin was just a disadvantaged and misunderstood young man, and foolishly gave Harvin a pass for past behavior that had massive, massive red flags, way beyond Clark. I posted a bunch at the time on how Harvin's behavior checked a lot of boxes for Borderline Personality Disorder, and in particular, a highly destructive sociopathic form of that condition. (Vince Young, ex Titans QB, IMO also checked many boxes for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, sociopathic flavor. I suspect that's why he was out of the league so young)

I know Pete and John will never make the mistake of failing to diagnose a sociopathic Cluster B personality disorder (Borderline, Narcissistic, and some less common ones) again when evaluating a potential draft pick or free agent. So we can rest assured that whatever else, that is not an issue that Malik McDowell has. He's just a young dumbass going through a learning curve. Just like Clark was. Pete and John did their homework best as they could and Pete decided to roll the dice. I hope he's right. I'm not that optimistic though; Clark is smart and 100% hard-working; Irvin was less-smart, and 100% hard-working; McDowell is (unknown) and what, 75% hard-working? 75% Red flag to me.

I'm sure Pete and John feel they have to pursue risk/reward players, to make up for typically drafting in 25th-ish or later draft position, where the vast majority of elite athletic talent, game-changer type players are long gone.