olyfan63":1nwlcix3 said:
Kiwi, a more constructive thing to do would be simply ignore this thread and post where you actually have something to contribute. Sure, you have the "right" to express your opinion. But WHY do you need to do it here, and take the thread off track?
At last check, most fan message boards like this one expect and even encourage guesswork and speculation. "Qualification" is not a prerequisite; as has been repeatedly pointed out, most truly "qualified" individuals are receiving paychecks for their coaching and consulting services.
It would be awesome to read more SWOTs by other posters. Props to LukerGuy and others for their efforts. Really, a stab at a real SWOT is time-consuming enough it almost takes a separate post for each letter, S, W, O, T, like the two-part posts that LukerGuy did.
Right now the best-laid plans of PC/JS have been turned into hamburger by key injuries. A few things they hoped would work out clearly haven't, or at least haven't gelled yet. (OL, RBs, and TE's as example where things are in disarray) One thing we have seen is that PC/JS make adjustments. What adjustments will they choose to make? A SWOT is definitely a useful exercise and no doubt PC/JS are doing their own version of it full steam right now. Can't wait to see what PC/JS do. See how they adjust scheme to the situation. What players they go get. Which current players step up big-time. Tha's a big part of the fun and excitement of following this amazing team, front office, and coaching staff. It's interesting and even exciting to see what some of the fine football minds on .NET come up with (of course Kearly, but a personal favorite of mine is BigSkyDoc, followed by far too many others to list here), and then see which of those ideas then align with what PC/JS do, and what winds up working or whiffing. Fun stuff!
Now, can we get back to people posting their own SWOTs and critiquing others' actual SWOTs?
You've got me wrong - JesterHawk posted a Threat that he identified, which was dismissed by dogorama as having nothing to do with this thread, but I counter that the very existence of this thread shows that JesterHawk's identified Threat was a valid one. It's entirely on topic as it is a discussion of JesterHawk's proposed Threat.
However, I do find most posters here come from more of a blue-collar background, or at least not from such a corporately structure that spends time constructing formal SWOT analyses. It's likely to be viewed by many as fancy-pants middle-management claptrap.
I am also guilty of thinking that because none of us have the intimate knowledge of the team available to team management, the best we can possibly do is to be the proverbial blind men describing the elephant, except within a formalised structure many won't be familiar with.
At the end of the day this is all just a fancy way for people to express their opinions, which they can do without all the unnecessary overhead in many other threads which are more accessible to people without business management training.
So in conclusion, my opinion about this approach is:
Strengths:
Allows middle-management individuals an opportunity to express their opinions on the Seahawks in a familair way.
Invites discussion from people who are most comfortable operating within this formal structure
Weaknesses:
Formal structure may be a turn-off to posters unable or unwilling to invest the time in all four areas in order to present a post.
People unfamiliar with the structure may feel inhibited expressing ideas within the structured format
SWOT often seen as middle-management make-work by people outside the corporate environment
Opportunities:
Forcing people to consider both strengths and weaknesses may encourage fair-minded anlalysis
Any additional Seahwaks discussion is a good thing
Threats:
People who don't care for the format may say so
Possible stagnation if not enough people take up the SWOT structure rather than simply posting "Fire Bevell".
