The Tom Johnson Fiasco

[Seymour]

This whole thread is like some people complaining about all the money they wasted on insurance vs others saying that insurance is worth it even if you never use it.

The money is less concerning then the dumb mismanagement issue.

Some say I'm making a big deal? Nope, I'm passing along what others outside the organization are saying about how blatantly dumb this is. It's in most every major sports publication and no, it doesn't happen all the time like some would make you believe after they re-script it. :roll:

Many quotes like this...

This ranks comparatively low on my list of grievances with John Schneider and Pete Carroll, but they made a complete debacle out of this situation. They’ve made the defensive line depth worse, cost themselves some cap room, all of this for Luani to not even play at all.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...gn-minnesota-vikings-seattle-seahawks-release

https://247sports.com/nfl/seattle-seahawks/Article/Tom-Johnson-re-sign-Vikings-Seahawks-122085126/

https://www.fieldgulls.com/2018/9/1...-tom-johnson-seahawks-nfl-roster-debacle-news

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports...gns-with-vikings-after-release-from-seahawks/

https://www.chatsports.com/seattle-...seahawks-plan-to-re-sign-tom-johnson-14755092

https://www.vikings.com/news/tom-johnson-rejoining-vikings-after-stint-with-seahawks

https://www.foxsports.com/north/story/minnesota-vikings-sign-tom-johnson-defensive-tackle-091918

 

[DJrmb]

Too much back tracking for me dude. "These kind" of mistakes...only now you mean "those kind" that actually cost less?? Double talk.

Done with this one...

I didn't back track at all, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted what I said. It's kind of an ass hole thing to assume what someone was trying to communicate even after they clarify what they meant. But hey, maybe you needed an out... :2thumbs:

Looks like we were arguing two different points anyways. I can agree that it definitely would have made more sense to cut Johnson before his contract became guaranteed. All in all though the cost either way isn't prohibiting so it just didn't register as a big deal to me. shrug, oh well. Have a good rest of your day Seymour. :irishdrinkers:

 

[bmorepunk]

Johnson's hit against the cap sucks, but the Bennett dead money is what really sucks ($5.2 million). And Sherman, Lane, and Kearse are costing another $6.5 million together.

I wouldn't call Johnson's dead money a "fiasco" though; it's about 1% of the salary cap.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Yep.

The problem isn't the cap loss (though it should be pointed out we lost an effective kicker for near the same amount and to save that money we signed someone that assured we missed the playoffs. Apparently, near $2M is enough to care about cutting effective kickers).

The problem is the process by which they make decisions and how these decisions are evaluated.

More and more decisions being made that seem almost capricious, without regard to impact on the cap, cost, or apparently even effectiveness.

We were an organization that was tremendously proactive and far-seeing. Deals were made to build this team that took a while to gel. This looks extremely reactive - if that.

Decisions are being made that look flippant and haphazard, almost knee-jerk, to fill holes that should have been filled before Game 1. Worse, this is not the result of some major injury where we lost a key piece and needed to make deals to suddenly fill the gap. This was a Game 2 deal that came not as the result of some major surprise injury but as the result of poor planning.

Yes, we are missing some guys, but you should plan to lose depth occasionally in a violent collision sport. This is just bad roster planning and clutching/grabbing to try to try new things to fill holes. Because that works? When?

Is it a symptom of what this represents where we are having problems. Generally, you don't shed veteran DTs can that can be or are reasonably solid when your existing line is struggling to even be effective. Especially to bring in 3rd string DBs that very likely don't move the needle at all. Maybe this is a high upside guy that is going to turn into another Kam, I am happy to be wrong.

You shouldn't only be able to make those decisions by spending $2M and then cutting a valuable DT while making your competition better. It might turn into a great move but it screams bad decisioning. The recent other moves by this FO already have made me skeptical of their processes/ability - this reinforces it.

 

[ivotuk]

He was released because of all the injuries in the secondary. We needed another DB. But come game time, some of our starters were able to play.

Tom Johnson seemed like a safe one to release because of his age, and the fact that he was the one that we could most afford to lose. They were going to sign him back, but he signed with the Vikings. You have to take risks because of injuries. It wasn't a bad risk to take.

It's easy to jump all over the FO now in hindsight. But I don't see it as a big deal. Vikings signed him because he knew their scheme better than anyone else out there. Not because he is all that talented.

Not a big deal.

 

[mikeak]

He was released because of all the injuries in the secondary. We needed another DB. But come game time, some of our starters were able to play.

Tom Johnson seemed like a safe one to release because of his age, and the fact that he was the one that we could most afford to lose. They were going to sign him back, but he signed with the Vikings. You have to take risks because of injuries. It wasn't a bad risk to take.

It's easy to jump all over the FO now in hindsight. But I don't see it as a big deal. Vikings signed him because he knew their scheme better than anyone else out there. Not because he is all that talented.

Not a big deal.

But they signed a player that didn’t play.....and hey knew exactly what they were signing when they did it

It is like the FO trading to prioritize running, coaches saying running will be prioritized then field a team that doesn’t run

If the spots were taken up by LBs that played then maybe we would understand

 

[mikeak]

Twisted husky - excellent post IMHO

And yes this knee jerk ties in my mind to trading for Sheldon and Duane last year. It is the exact same thinking selling the farm and putting us in bad downstream end results

 

[Seymour]

Twisted husky - excellent post IMHO

And yes this knee jerk ties in my mind to trading for Sheldon and Duane last year. It is the exact same thinking selling the farm and putting us in bad downstream end results

That was part of my intrigue with this move and the domino effect that the crappy Richardson deal had last year because Johnson was signed to help cover for that loss. Then it all ties back into them both going to the Vikings, and the fact we are still suffering the Kearse cap hit this season. All goes to show how poor moves can snowball and you should not judge them on their own but the overall effect of them combined.

Also agree Twisted had a good post and view of exactly what I'm talking about also. :irishdrinkers:

 

[Fade]

The body of evidence had been established for years now that Pete Carroll, in terms of managing the entire operation at this juncture is in over his head.

I think he would still be a good defensive head coach, but that is all Pete must be for him to be at his best.

Major decisions on personnel, and offensive input need to go away ASAP. Pete has been sabotaging his own operation for far too long.

If I am Paul Allen at the end of this season. I would try to coerce Carroll into this new type of role going forward. If he balks at it, bye Pete.

 

[seabowl]

Reminds me of the transition tag out on Hutch that was an atrocious move.

 

[jammerhawk]

That's a stretch.

All it is to me is more of Big Balls Pete, when he should be a more careful.

I do agree with Fade however, that Pete needs to defer more to others on the major personnel decisions as several of his big moves have bit the team in the rear.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The Hutch thing was hubris. Ruskell was doing his 'fat guy with the goblet' move and it backfired on him. This is different.

The way the FO is decisioning lately is just...weird.

Take last year with Sheldon as an example.

You have a player you essentially rent for one year. To do this, you have to pay valuable draft capital that costs your team for the next several years (in terms of potential on field productivity/contribution).

Now, look at the roster last year:

No RB/thin at RB
Spotty OL
Declining DL production
Potential injuries and depth issues in the secondary

Is that roster (one that missed the playoffs WITH the player you added) going to scream SB to you? What are you going all in on?

There was little rational reason to expect the playoffs from this roster, much less reason to believe that Sheldon was the missing piece to put us back in the SB hunt. But they paid for him and paid dearly.

So you either have no/flawed decisioning evaluation process for FA moves or you are trying to keep a dead baby afloat so nobody notices it is dead. Because other than a SB run the only reason to make that trade is to keep fan interest up and somehow keep the team competitive that year.

It just made no sense. Not just looking back in hindsight, there was literally no reason to expect a playoff performance from that team. Just weird.

 

[truehawksfan]

The Steve Hutch fiasco was with a different coach and gm.

And, I think what IVO said is being brushed under the rug so it deserves to be repeated. It was never the coach and GM intent to cut a vested veteran. But, there was a need to add a safety to the 53. No one can forecast who will get injured.

Again, as someone already said, but worth mentioning we didn’t resign the safety’s to the 53 to start, but to get on the field if an injury occurs. Based on our current injury situation, to have a healthy back up makes sense. Don’t you think?

I get it. It doesn’t make sense to cut a vested vet and lose 2MIL in cap space.

So, I ask the arm chair GM’s. Who do you cut and how do you spin it?

IMO, That’s the real question.

The DLINE is young, hungry and agressive. As noted, they held the Bears QB to 200 yds and their starting RB to 35 yds. I know this is just one game so I think we should see how this plays out for 16 games, not 2.

And, if Johnson was such a valuable asset to the Vikes, why didn’t they sign him in the first place? Why did they let him go?

 

[12thbrah]

This is nitpicking. I'm personally not freaking out if I have $170 and lose $2 of it. Tom Johnson was DL depth and he'll be DL depth in Minnesota. This team is in rebuild mode. Why would you keep a guy just on principal if you have younger potentially more talented players on the roster?

 

[Fade]

This is nitpicking. I'm personally not freaking out if I have $170 and lose $2 of it. Tom Johnson was DL depth and he'll be DL depth in Minnesota. This team is in rebuild mode. Why would you keep a guy just on principal if you have younger potentially more talented players on the roster?

You're absolutely correct in a vacuum, it isn't a big deal.

Now pullback and look at the oddball moves from the last 3 years.


The people complaining, are looking at an extended period of questionable moves and this is....

 

[DomeHawk]

I just hope this becomes reminiscent of when PC/JS first came here and emptied the roster and I was like, WTH?

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

Jesus.

Someone quickly name one time they niticed Tom Johnson was on the team between the time he as signed and the time he was cut. Please.

What a dumb thread.

 

[olyfan63]

Theory: The Seahawks showed that they don't play any reindeer games -- er, roster games, with veterans, so that they will continue to have an inside track for some of these UFA signings. Tom Johnson is the new poster child.

Not saying it's right, just one possibility.

Johnson signs, the Seahawks cut him the Friday before Game 1, whole different deal. Word gets around. Next Free agent will think twice.

 

[AgentDib]

I agree with many that I'd rather have 3 comp picks next year than the FA we signed. To whatever degree Tom Johnson didn't work out as an old FA, his share towards losing a comp pick is a concern.

That being said, I wasn't at all surprised that Pete added old FAs to try to compete this season. He did it starting in 2010 when he first showed up and ever since then we've had a rotation of older FA DL churning through. Pete has never viewed this season as a throwaway rebuild year and their moves the last two seasons have been to try to win games now. That leaves him at odds with the fans who are expecting a more serious rebuild based on future draft picks.

Personally, I think Pete has earned the right to try to stay competitive. I also think we'll never have a fair view of that decision due to the injuries over the last two seasons that have sabotaged the team.

 

[Seymour]

Jesus.

Someone quickly name one time they niticed Tom Johnson was on the team between the time he as signed and the time he was cut. Please.

What a dumb thread.

What a dumb post.
This is not about missing Johnson at all! :roll:

It is about a trend of haphazard bad moves that still continue through when we are attempting to rebuild. The fact we are paying someone $1.8M (total) to play 1 game and now we are paying him to play against us.

The fact is we miscalculated cutting a starting Dlineman for a #4 safety that never played. The miscalculation was either he wasn't who we thought he was (should have never made the team with week 1 full salary guarantee), or we would get him back (but he chose to double dip instead which is smart since he is near career end).