Seahawks re-signing Brandon Browner

[bjornanderson21]

I thought Browner and Clemons looked done even before 2015.

I generally don't like moves like these because I don't trust teams to think rationally with old players they like. We've seem it countless times with the Mariners where they brought in old veterans way past their prime for spring training invites, then got duped by a meaningless Spring Training hot streak, and then gave them meaningful reps in real games, resulting in players who were among the most harmful, sub-replacement level players in baseball. The justification for this mistake was always the same. "They're locker room guys!"

So far Pete has been good at avoiding this type of mistake. I hope he can put emotions aside and judge Clemons and Browner by how much they have left in the tank, and not on how much he likes them in the locker room. If they show legitimate signs of resurgence then it's okay to roll the dice with them on the final roster, otherwise it would be better to thank them and say goodbye.

What would give you a reason to think Pete and John make emotional decisions?

Maybe "hey we respect the hell out of what you guys meant to this team so we're going to give you every chance to make this team" type of decisions. Which is exactly what I think bringing both Clemons and Browner back is all about.

But emotional? Hell no, there's no history to tell us otherwise. Emotional decision would have meant;

- overpaying to keep Tate
- not cutting guys like Red Bryant, zach miller, etc
- keeping a team leader like Max Unger
- starting Matt Flynn over Wilson
- caving into Kam's holdout
- Releasing M-Rob

Many other examples, but if there's one thing we do know about Pete and John.............they respect and admire the hell out of their players, but they DO NOT have one sentimental bone in their bodies when it come to making emotional decisions that may hurt the team.

Red was easily kept a year longer than he should've been.

As for Michael Robinson, he WAS kept around longer than his talent/ability dictated, because of nostalgia.

Pete isn't flagrantly guilty, but he also isn't as innocent as you say he is.


In regards to Tate, he is an absolute bargain compared to what we got with Harvin. Harvin cost us as much as 3 seasons of Tate on his new deal. If Pete didn't have an irrational emotional desire to get Harvin at ANY cost we could still have Tate on the team. Instead of wasted cap in 2014 and dead cap in 2015 we would've been paying Tate to ball for us.

 

[Tech Worlds]

I thought Browner and Clemons looked done even before 2015.

I generally don't like moves like these because I don't trust teams to think rationally with old players they like. We've seem it countless times with the Mariners where they brought in old veterans way past their prime for spring training invites, then got duped by a meaningless Spring Training hot streak, and then gave them meaningful reps in real games, resulting in players who were among the most harmful, sub-replacement level players in baseball. The justification for this mistake was always the same. "They're locker room guys!"

So far Pete has been good at avoiding this type of mistake. I hope he can put emotions aside and judge Clemons and Browner by how much they have left in the tank, and not on how much he likes them in the locker room. If they show legitimate signs of resurgence then it's okay to roll the dice with them on the final roster, otherwise it would be better to thank them and say goodbye.

What would give you a reason to think Pete and John make emotional decisions?

Maybe "hey we respect the hell out of what you guys meant to this team so we're going to give you every chance to make this team" type of decisions. Which is exactly what I think bringing both Clemons and Browner back is all about.

But emotional? Hell no, there's no history to tell us otherwise. Emotional decision would have meant;

- overpaying to keep Tate
- not cutting guys like Red Bryant, zach miller, etc
- keeping a team leader like Max Unger
- starting Matt Flynn over Wilson
- caving into Kam's holdout
- Releasing M-Rob

Many other examples, but if there's one thing we do know about Pete and John.............they respect and admire the hell out of their players, but they DO NOT have one sentimental bone in their bodies when it come to making emotional decisions that may hurt the team.

Red was easily kept a year longer than he should've been.

As for Michael Robinson, he WAS kept around longer than his talent/ability dictated, because of nostalgia.

Pete isn't flagrantly guilty, but he also isn't as innocent as you say he is.


In regards to Tate, he is an absolute bargain compared to what we got with Harvin. Harvin cost us as much as 3 seasons of Tate on his new deal. If Pete didn't have an irrational emotional desire to get Harvin at ANY cost we could still have Tate on the team. Instead of wasted cap in 2014 and dead cap in 2015 we would've been paying Tate to ball for us.

I agree about Tate. Had we kept him I'm 100% convinced that we would have been back to back Champs.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

[Scottemojo]

I thought Browner and Clemons looked done even before 2015.

I generally don't like moves like these because I don't trust teams to think rationally with old players they like. We've seem it countless times with the Mariners where they brought in old veterans way past their prime for spring training invites, then got duped by a meaningless Spring Training hot streak, and then gave them meaningful reps in real games, resulting in players who were among the most harmful, sub-replacement level players in baseball. The justification for this mistake was always the same. "They're locker room guys!"

So far Pete has been good at avoiding this type of mistake. I hope he can put emotions aside and judge Clemons and Browner by how much they have left in the tank, and not on how much he likes them in the locker room. If they show legitimate signs of resurgence then it's okay to roll the dice with them on the final roster, otherwise it would be better to thank them and say goodbye.

What would give you a reason to think Pete and John make emotional decisions?

Maybe "hey we respect the hell out of what you guys meant to this team so we're going to give you every chance to make this team" type of decisions. Which is exactly what I think bringing both Clemons and Browner back is all about.

But emotional? Hell no, there's no history to tell us otherwise. Emotional decision would have meant;

- overpaying to keep Tate
- not cutting guys like Red Bryant, zach miller, etc
- keeping a team leader like Max Unger
- starting Matt Flynn over Wilson
- caving into Kam's holdout
- Releasing M-Rob

Many other examples, but if there's one thing we do know about Pete and John.............they respect and admire the hell out of their players, but they DO NOT have one sentimental bone in their bodies when it come to making emotional decisions that may hurt the team.

Red was easily kept a year longer than he should've been.

As for Michael Robinson, he WAS kept around longer than his talent/ability dictated, because of nostalgia.

Pete isn't flagrantly guilty, but he also isn't as innocent as you say he is.


In regards to Tate, he is an absolute bargain compared to what we got with Harvin. Harvin cost us as much as 3 seasons of Tate on his new deal. If Pete didn't have an irrational emotional desire to get Harvin at ANY cost we could still have Tate on the team. Instead of wasted cap in 2014 and dead cap in 2015 we would've been paying Tate to ball for us.

Agree on Tate.

Disagree on Red. He was a key part of the 2 down run D. He helped get a ring, correct?

Extremely disagree on Robinson. Without him, when he was sick, fullback was a serious problem. It took him some time to get up to speed, but he made a difference. He definitely was not kept around for nostalgia, he was brought back for injury replacement and need.

I get it, you have taken a hard stance that personnel decisions have been bad since 2013. But in your efforts to support your they have sucked ever since they traded for Percy stance, you have talked out your ass quite a bit. Keeping players for nostalgia? What a load of horse shit. They cut Robinson and brought him back when they were desperate for a FB who knew the offense.

Red and Robinson were simply role players anyway.

 

[Tical21]

Am I the only one that thinks Browner has a legit shot of playing on the outside in the nickel, above Shead and Simon?

I don't see any chance he was brought in for TE reasons. In our cover-3, corners don't get into the seams, and you're not going to move BB to LB. Are you suggesting we're going to take Kam off the field on passing downs?

 

[morgulon1]

Am I the only one that thinks Browner has a legit shot of playing on the outside in the nickel, above Shead and Simon?

I don't see any chance he was brought in for TE reasons. In our cover-3, corners don't get into the seams, and you're not going to move BB to LB. Are you suggesting we're going to take Kam off the field on passing downs?

They will figure out how to get him and his unique qualities on the field. He brings something to Seattle

 

[kearly]

I thought Browner and Clemons looked done even before 2015.

I generally don't like moves like these because I don't trust teams to think rationally with old players they like. We've seem it countless times with the Mariners where they brought in old veterans way past their prime for spring training invites, then got duped by a meaningless Spring Training hot streak, and then gave them meaningful reps in real games, resulting in players who were among the most harmful, sub-replacement level players in baseball. The justification for this mistake was always the same. "They're locker room guys!"

So far Pete has been good at avoiding this type of mistake. I hope he can put emotions aside and judge Clemons and Browner by how much they have left in the tank, and not on how much he likes them in the locker room. If they show legitimate signs of resurgence then it's okay to roll the dice with them on the final roster, otherwise it would be better to thank them and say goodbye.

What would give you a reason to think Pete and John make emotional decisions?

As said in the quoted text, "Pete has been good at avoiding this type of mistake." But that doesn't mean I should be worry free. This is a unique situation, with two former, beloved players returning to the team in old age. Sentiment will likely factor more strongly here than it would for a random roster bubble scrub. It's easier to cut a guy like Antoine Winfield than it is for Brandon Browner because there aren't any relational tethers to sever. I'm giving Pete the benefit of the doubt but I am worried by the downside.

Am I the only one that thinks Browner has a legit shot of playing on the outside in the nickel, above Shead and Simon?

I don't see any chance he was brought in for TE reasons. In our cover-3, corners don't get into the seams, and you're not going to move BB to LB. Are you suggesting we're going to take Kam off the field on passing downs?

Good post. My immediate thought when I heard the news was that he was going to compete at outside corner. Seattle is pretty thin there. Lane is more of a slot guy, Shead is replacement level IMO, and Simon can't stay healthy and is an even more extreme penalty magnet than Browner. Whether Browner makes the cut or not, there's definitely a job there for the taking at outside corner.

 

[MLOhawks]

There is a reason I have never changed my avatar! Browner will always be one of my favorite Seahawks of all time, penalties be damned!