jammerhawk":2kv3uljh said:
Why there is a pathological need to slam every ex-team player with past history escapes me.
There isn't.
The Seahawks just traded Frank Clark. They chose not to make him the 3rd highest paid defensive player in the NFL and commit to him long term. There is completely relevant and current discussion and debate around whether that was the right choice and why or why not.
Why is Clark's behavior relevant to that discussion?
When an organization is choosing to make someone the 3rd highest defensive player in the league, commit to him long-term, and build the team around him, in my opinion you only do that for players who are either a) the best of the best, or b) true leaders who set an example and put the team first. Ideally when you give a player $100M+ they are both. In my opinion Frank Clark does not quite fit in to either category. He's not Aaron Donald or Khalil Mack from a talent/production perspective, and on the flip side he has established a pattern of poor decision making that disqualifies him from being a true leader.
Earl and Sherm fit in to category A when they got their 2nd contracts. Kam and KJ fit in to category B. Note that Kam and KJ got 3rd contracts and Earl and Sherm did not.
Russell and Bobby fit in to both. Russ got his 3rd contract and I fully expect Bobby to get his.
There is a reason Earl, Sherm, Bennett, and now Clark were never captains, despite being great players with incredible energy and big personalities. They don't fit category B. When Kam held out and the captaincy opened up, it was Bobby who took it over, not Earl, Sherm, or Bennett.