Maybe it's the FO

[jammerhawk]

This is one troll of a thread. The team isn't in chaos. By that logic, the Patriots are in chaos every year. Last year they got rid of two of their best defensive players, during the season.

I completely agree that the team isn't in chaos and this thread is yet another in the Eeyore series of 'woe is us' type posts, coaches causing disharmony, Bevell sucks and should be immediately fired along with Cable and half the rest of the coaching staff. Pete has lost the team with his rah, rah, just compete message; and Schneider is an idiot for not spending the whole offseason available cap on old perpetually injured OTs who have been cast loose from their previous team's.

Maybe it's just actually the negativity of the OP and everything is actually alright?

 

[seahawkfreak]

Sorry should have been more clear...I meant resigning OL guys. Skilled positions seem to be ok.

That doesn't pass muster. Seattle did resign two players (Unger and Giacomini) before. But otherwise, have been judicious about who they resign.

John won't resign mundane talent if he doesn't have to. Seattle has I think the biggest number of 6m+ contracts on it's roster in the league.

Ultimately, when you're in a position like Seattle was -- you have simply far too many worthy players to resign. You can't sign them all. So you choose the ones that provide the biggest value over a replacement.

Seattle resigned recently:

Wright
Wagner
Chancellor
Sherman
Thomas
Baldwin
Kearse
Lynch
Wilson
Lane

And allowed to walk:

Irvin
Sweezy
Okung
Gilliam
Carpenter
Malcom Smith
Byron Maxwell
Tate

Other than Irvin and Tate, I don't think any of those guys were worth resigning. Maxwell was -- but his market was not worth competing in.

Kearse and Lane probably look like mistakes (moreso Kearse than Lane). But those deals were also very modest. And one could have easily made the case that they needed to based on the state of the roster at the time their deals expired.

If Carpenter or Sweezy were even worth the deals they did sign -- I think Seattle would have chose to sign them. Those guys were empirically not worth both the money it would have required to keep them, nor the players we would have had to let go (Wright/Chancellor) to stay under the cap.

So I would reject the theory that John doesn't value or want to pay OL talent. Because I can't fault the organization even a little bit based on the choices they did make in letting them go. It's a bigger cap sin to pay second deals to bad players. The only reason those players even got the money they did get, is because there are many teams out there that don't have enough good players of their own worth resigning.

Awesome perspective and clarity. Specifically not being able to keep Wright and Chanellor if we kept Carpenter or Sweezy.

 

[BlueTalon]

The team is not in chaos.

 

[Siouxhawk]

New nickname for Frank Clark: Chaos!

 

[Uncle Si]

The team is not in chaos.

But that's not fun, interesting or miserable... so it can't be true.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The team is not in chaos.

Chaos is not some finite measurable thing with something as complex as a pro sports franchise............like there's some magic chaos mason dixon line where if you cross it, it becomes chaotic.

I could certainly make a case that at times over the course of the Schneider/Carroll era that this team had some chaos type problems that were a detriment to the whole, and at the least a distraction that hindered focus on what's important, winning.

So when things like Harvin being traded or Sherman is shopped, that tells us that those players have indeed crossed into an area of negative chaos that is no longer acceptable.

Doesn't mean it prevents any of the team goals of winning from happening, but it's certainly negative chaos that isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

 

[hawkfan68]

I don't believe that the team is in chaos. A team in chaos doesn't muster 10+ win seasons each year.

However, I do think they need to re-evaluate how they look at OL players. I think not resigning Okung and Sweezy says a lot. I would have made Okung or Sweezy a priority resigning over Jeremy Lane or Jermaine Kearse. Okung and Sweezy were the best players on OL. They talk a lot about having continuity on the OL but show very little action toward keeping continuity on the OL.

I think there are similarities on how Ted Thompson and John Schneider view the OL players on their respective teams. That's all I was trying to point out. It seems both Ted and John put less emphasis on OL than they do skill position players. I think Lane or Kearse could have been replaced much more easily than Okung or Sweezy. We found that out last season. Shead replaced Lane (Lane was the starter at RCB going into the season). Kearse the same deal. Got beat by Lockett and PRich.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

As long as they keep winning, doesn't matter if they are or not.

 

[Uncle Si]

The team is not in chaos.

Chaos is not some finite measurable thing with something as complex as a pro sports franchise............like there's some magic chaos mason dixon line where if you cross it, it becomes chaotic.

I could certainly make a case that at times over the course of the Schneider/Carroll era that this team had some chaos type problems that were a detriment to the whole, and at the least a distraction that hindered focus on what's important, winning.

So when things like Harvin being traded or Sherman is shopped, that tells us that those players have indeed crossed into an area of negative chaos that is no longer acceptable.

Doesn't mean it prevents any of the team goals of winning from happening, but it's certainly negative chaos that isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

Come on Sarge, you don't believe that Sherman being shopped is some kind of "chaos"... Was "Deflategate" chaos?

It's business, and all too common in the NFL. His actions on the sideline may be negative, but "chaos?" Chaos is a team sitting down and refusing to play for its coaches. Chaos is the offense fist fighting the defense.

Chaos is a tornado. What we have here is a little bit of rain.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The team is not in chaos.

Chaos is not some finite measurable thing with something as complex as a pro sports franchise............like there's some magic chaos mason dixon line where if you cross it, it becomes chaotic.

I could certainly make a case that at times over the course of the Schneider/Carroll era that this team had some chaos type problems that were a detriment to the whole, and at the least a distraction that hindered focus on what's important, winning.

So when things like Harvin being traded or Sherman is shopped, that tells us that those players have indeed crossed into an area of negative chaos that is no longer acceptable.

Doesn't mean it prevents any of the team goals of winning from happening, but it's certainly negative chaos that isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

Come on Sarge, you don't believe that Sherman being shopped is some kind of "chaos"... Was "Deflategate" chaos?

It's business, and all too common in the NFL. His actions on the sideline may be negative, but "chaos?" Chaos is a team sitting down and refusing to play for its coaches. Chaos is the offense fist fighting the defense.

Chaos is a tornado. What we have here is a little bit of rain.

Chaos just means turmoil. So it's not an incorrect word to use with what happened this year or last with Sherman.

And yes, Delfategate was also chaos.........but like I said above, it doesn't means teams can't rise above it, circle the wagons and win.

Every organization deals with chaos, the good ones know how to handle it, and the bad ones let it implode them from the inside.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

A lot is riding on if Sherm decides to act like a grown up and a true leader this season.

 

[Chapow]

Chaos is clearly defined as "complete disorder and confusion" or "a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."

Again, this team is not in chaos. Not even close.

 

[Uncle Si]

I think both terms are hyberolic for defining these situations.

Chaos: complete disorder and confusion.
Turmoil: a state of great disturbance

The team is in neither one of these states, nor has it been. Sherman and Harvin as individual players may have been in turmoil. The Seattle Seahawks as an organization and a team have not been.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think both terms are hyberolic for defining these situations.

Chaos: complete disorder and confusion.
Turmoil: a state of great disturbance

The team is in neither one of these states, nor has it been. Sherman and Harvin as individual players may have been in turmoil. The Seattle Seahawks as an organization and a team have not been.

guess we'll have to semantically disagree. Show the video of Sherman screaming at his teammates and coaches on the sideline to someone disconnected from the situation or team and they might use the word chaotic, that's all I'm saying.

Did Sherman's antics last year negatively affect us to the point of wins and losses? Probably not, but it affected the team enough for him to be shopped, either initiated by him, or the team. Take your pick.

 

[Uncle Si]

Sherman was in chaos at times... and in that moment. He's doing his thing while the rest of the team is still trying to win a football game.

But the team/organization? I mean 10-5-1 doesn't jump off the page like 13-3, but it's not a team in "chaos"

Can't be just built around one guy is all I'm saying. I do agree that the FO and PC have a much longer leash for the players than say the Patriots. But that's only accurate to the degree that Kraft and BB have let Brady (and noone else, not strangely) get away with all sorts of shenanigans while engaging in plenty themselves.

 

[chris98251]

[youtube]n-mpifTiPV4[/youtube]

 

[Uncle Si]

He's coming back to Jurassic World 2