Sherman Doubles Down on Moore Argument

[Popeyejones]

It's about whether or not Richard Sherman still buys into Pete Carroll's program.

Personally I don't think he does. If that's the case, this is only going to get worse.

FWIW I think he totally buys into Pete Carroll's program, and this (and all the things like it that the Hawks seem to always be dealing with) are simply a consequence OF Pete Carroll's program.

If you never discipline anyone for behavior and are constantly encouraging players to be themselves over time you're gonna end up with players threatening the media, criticizing each other in the media, flipping off their coordinators from the field, getting in fights on the sideline, jumping offsides all the time, trying to get in fights with the other team after games are already over, pretending to take dumps in the endzone, holding out when their teammates get paid, and so on.

It's just basic social dynamics and the downside of an anything-goes coaching style.

TO BE VERY CLEAR I think the Seahawks are still a LONG WAY away from it really mattering too much, but way off into the future if they ever start losing more than they win I think the wheels could fall off pretty quickly. It happens every time with player's coaches, IMO.

(The reverse: when strong disciplinarians start losing, rather than the team imploding more publicly, all the players basically just tune the coach out and stop giving extra effort/trying so hard).

 

[Mojambo]

Fair points all. I'd respond by saying that I think Sherman buys into the aspects of Pete Carroll's program WHICH SUIT HIM, but certainly not the entire program.

Pete Carroll does offer an immense amount of freedom to his players, but that freedom is NOT free. It comes with a very few rules, the first of which is PROTECT THE TEAM.

Sherman's not doing that. And it's a problem. All the media/Jim Moore stuff that many people on this forum are hung up on is totally irrelevant.

 

[Rocket]

I believe that Sherm is speaking of context. His recent comment said

It was incorrect how they portrayed it, yes. It gets to the point where nobody needs the truth anymore.

HOW THEY PORTRAYED IT... that's about context. The sentence before and the sentence after, before and after the "bury" quote, they matter. If I've learned anything in the past year, it's that context is truly important, and that the meaning of a point can get muddied by the press who can only speak in sound bytes, and said bytes can't include entire grammatical sentences.

I know I'm approaching the P word, but this is not just a P concept but a J (ournalism) and a C (ommunication) issue. Me, I blame cellphone english, as in How R U 2 day.

Context. It matters.

For example... Someone says "I hate it when Belichick smiles." - Reporter quotes "Belichick smiles".
A better sound byte to be sure, and a true quote, but not at all what was originally written. In addition, what was the conversation at the time? What was said before and after... context, it matters.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

He could be smarter, for sure (or he's being real smart... who knows).

I just don't feel the outrage over this that others do.

Who exactly is "outraged"? I sure am not. Sherman sure appears to be though. I would prefer he own up, live and learn, play football and act like a leader. Lies and denial will just prolong the scrutiny on him. Attacking the entire media in this manor is sure to get him additional bad press. He must want that if he "is so smart".

The poor poor media, such the victims.......... :roll:

Boo fricken' hooo! Time for the local sports media to put on their big boy pants and stop being such whiney little beotches.

Richard Sherman giving Moore the "red ass" was well deserved IMHO.

I care about what happens on the field, if some troglodyte sports radio reporter gets his feelings hurt after acting like a Richard Cranium, so be it!

Regardless of how you feel about the media or Moore, Sherman had no right to threaten Moore........and then lie about it?

This is not on Moore or the media, this is 100% Sherman and his inability to swallow a little pride and accept responsibility for being a jerk.

If Sherman had 10 picks last year and kicked ass on the field, then I'd even be open to the "well that's how Richard's wired and what makes him a great player, having a chip on his shoulder and me against the world" mentality.

But he didn't, he had a down year and was a pain in the ass, so that narrative doesn't fly with me anymore. If you're gonna bring a bunch of nonsense to the team, then you better back it up on the field.

 

[Uncle Si]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

 

[chris98251]

Walk into any bar and you can find people that are jerks and they don't offer apologies either, this is .Nets version of the View, now who's Elisabeth Hasselbeck?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

Vitriol is a strong word. Vitriol is Greg Hardy type of trouble.

This is just some of us wishing our star player and supposed team leader would be a little more contrite and sorry about screwing up.

Big picture, Richard is a good dude, and does a lot of great things for our community. I know that, just wish he'd chill the hell out and cut out the nonsense. He seems to crave the drama for some reason.

 

[Uncle Si]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

Vitriol is a strong word. Vitriol is Greg Hardy type of trouble.

This is just some of us wishing our star player and supposed team leader would be a little more contrite and sorry about screwing up.

Big picture, Richard is a good dude, and does a lot of great things for our community. I know that, just wish he'd chill the hell out and cut out the nonsense. He seems to crave the drama for some reason.

I'm with you in a lot of this. But Read the thread (and the other that accompanied this incident when it first occurred) and find the vitriol. it's not hard. He's a POS to one on here. You indicated you wanted the thread to dissect why he was trying to play the victim. These are pretty nasty comments, no? A lot of was fairly hypocritical as well (not yours, but others).

In the end, I think you answered your own question.. he craves the drama/attention. That doesn't always leave him in a good light.

It will be interesting to see if this continued into training camp or preseason. Then it becomes a real distraction and something the team or PC specifically have to deal with.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It will be interesting to see if this continued into training camp or preseason. Then it becomes a real distraction and something the team or PC specifically have to deal with.

I hope not, but if I had to give my honest opinion? Yes, I do think this continues.........mainly because Pete has failed to reign Richard in, and even is making excuses for him.

Now maybe behind closed doors Pete has put the hammer down, but from Richard's latest interview that either didn't happen, or it didn't affect him at all.

 

[grizbob]

How long till the draft??!!

 

[StoneCold]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

People are concerned it will affect play on the field. Add in it's just wrong to deny that it happened. That is a serious head scratcher, and I can see why people are bothered or at least find it an interesting story.

One thing we don't know and some people assume, is that it already has caused problems and is why we only won 10 games. I think problems on the field have led to the off field (sidelines is off field in my mind) stuff, as opposed to teh other way around, but we really have no way of knowing. If it hasn't, then there is nothing for Pete to address.

 

[Seymour]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

People are concerned it will affect play on the field. Add in it's just wrong to deny that it happened. That is a serious head scratcher, and I can see why people are bothered or at least find it an interesting story.

One thing we don't know and some people assume, is that it already has caused problems and is why we only won 10 games. I think problems on the field have led to the off field (sidelines is off field in my mind) stuff, as opposed to teh other way around, but we really have no way of knowing. If it hasn't, then there is nothing for Pete to address.

That incident was the result of a reporter questioning Sherman going rogue on the sidelines and going after Pete and both coordinators. Pete absolutely has to put an end to that if he has it in him that is.

Schneider says on the subject "everyone has a bad day". Day or 4 I guess he meant LOL. OK we know he is afraid of Sherm as well.

 

[Jerhawk]

My two cents:

Sherman is still pissed about the end of XLIX. He fears the window has closed, he's not getting any younger and neither is the core of the team.

He's trying to cover his butt for what he said by blaming the media rather than looking in the mirror. He blames Bevell and Carroll for XLIX, and doesn't understand or agree with the direction the team is going. He knows the loss of Lynch was the equivalent of the team losing its heart, and he's aware that void will never be filled

 

[Uncle Si]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

People are concerned it will affect play on the field. Add in it's just wrong to deny that it happened. That is a serious head scratcher, and I can see why people are bothered or at least find it an interesting story.

One thing we don't know and some people assume, is that it already has caused problems and is why we only won 10 games. I think problems on the field have led to the off field (sidelines is off field in my mind) stuff, as opposed to teh other way around, but we really have no way of knowing. If it hasn't, then there is nothing for Pete to address.

I don't disagree with any of this. I'm interested, although not really "bothered"... it's an easy story to digest right now. Camp opens in the Summer. It might be something later. Some are still doubling down themselves on how the assumption of how much it all really impacts the team (and must personally bother them). That's fine. I don't see it that way, yet.

 

[StoneCold]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

People are concerned it will affect play on the field. Add in it's just wrong to deny that it happened. That is a serious head scratcher, and I can see why people are bothered or at least find it an interesting story.

One thing we don't know and some people assume, is that it already has caused problems and is why we only won 10 games. I think problems on the field have led to the off field (sidelines is off field in my mind) stuff, as opposed to teh other way around, but we really have no way of knowing. If it hasn't, then there is nothing for Pete to address.

That incident was the result of a reporter questioning Sherman going rogue on the sidelines and going after Pete and both coordinators. Pete absolutely has to put an end to that if he has it in him that is.

Schneider says on the subject "everyone has a bad day". Day or 4 I guess he meant LOL. OK we know he is afraid of Sherm as well.

I get that you think it's a problem, but if the team's on field play is unaffected what is their to address?

 

[Seymour]

I completely get that Sgt. Shouldn't the only thing we care about is the production on the field though?

I mean I'd understand if a player was getting into trouble, or bringing the team down with antics off the field. I completely understand being upset about his antics on it.

This story though is just a non-starter for me, and I'm amazed at how much vitriol towards Sherman there is on here about it.

People are concerned it will affect play on the field. Add in it's just wrong to deny that it happened. That is a serious head scratcher, and I can see why people are bothered or at least find it an interesting story.

One thing we don't know and some people assume, is that it already has caused problems and is why we only won 10 games. I think problems on the field have led to the off field (sidelines is off field in my mind) stuff, as opposed to teh other way around, but we really have no way of knowing. If it hasn't, then there is nothing for Pete to address.

That incident was the result of a reporter questioning Sherman going rogue on the sidelines and going after Pete and both coordinators. Pete absolutely has to put an end to that if he has it in him that is.

Schneider says on the subject "everyone has a bad day". Day or 4 I guess he meant LOL. OK we know he is afraid of Sherm as well.

I get that you think it's a problem, but if the team's on field play is unaffected what is their to address?

The team is affected, it has to be. Listen to Kam on the subject.

Chancellor said his teammates need to first acknowledge that the lack of discipline is a problem before trying to fix it, adding that it was up to each individual on the team to do some self-examination during the offseason

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...Kam-Chancellor-calls-out-lack-of-10858486.php

 

[Uncle Si]

"One thing I told the defense is that every game that we argue, every game where on the field it was a bunch of arguing, trying to fight the other team, we lost," Chancellor told Q13's Ian Furness. "I told them that humility sets in. You've got to remain poised. You've got to remain humble throughout all the battle."

"Fighting the other team outside of the whistle, that's when it takes away energy and it drains you," he said. "That stuff will drain you. You exert enough energy throughout the whistle. After the whistle it's just wasted energy, and that's what we need to cut out of our game."

Kam's quotes are attributed to Bennett after the Atlanta game and related directly to their play. Some connections (albeit indirect) between on field emotions and the impact on the game and off field ones.

 

[Seymour]

"One thing I told the defense is that every game that we argue, every game where on the field it was a bunch of arguing, trying to fight the other team, we lost," Chancellor told Q13's Ian Furness. "I told them that humility sets in. You've got to remain poised. You've got to remain humble throughout all the battle."

"Fighting the other team outside of the whistle, that's when it takes away energy and it drains you," he said. "That stuff will drain you. You exert enough energy throughout the whistle. After the whistle it's just wasted energy, and that's what we need to cut out of our game."

Kam's quotes are attributed to Bennett after the Atlanta game and related directly to their play. Some connections (albeit indirect) between on field emotions and the impact on the game and off field ones.

Really? So he would refer to Bennett as "teammates"?

Disagree. He was talking to any teammates it applied to, which pretty obviously includes Sherman.

Point is. Kam believes the lack of disipline is affecting the team, and it passes the eye test as well IMO.

 

[Largent80]

Jeezus, lets draft the entire LOB (LOL now) replacements and be done with this.

 

[Seymour]

Jeezus, lets draft the entire LOB (LOL now) replacements and be done with this.

LOL is right. But....we wont be "done" with that for years though.