Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Is it arrogance?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:21 am
  • lukerguy wrote:Does Kam's money count against the cap until the contract ends?

    Injured players shouldn't count against the cap.


    That doesn't account for the Belicheat factor. He would just have players fake injury to get them off the cap and rest them for post season.
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6285
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:39 pm
  • JayhawkMike wrote:We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

    It’s frustrating.


    Checks to see if OP is new here...

    Listen free agency is like when the new Iphone comes out. People racing out to buy the new shiny toy.

    You can argue that the Seahawks haven't drafted as well lately and you're probably right but sitting out free agency is not a bad thing. The Patriots largely do it. Even our glory years (2012-2014) were built via the draft rather than free agency.

    When we did dip into free agency it was 1 year value deals like what we got with Bennett and Avril.

    Most free agents only play 2-3 years before they are cut again. Go look at the 2016 free agent class, you will laugh at how many of those guys are out of the league or free agents right now.
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2258
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:41 pm
  • That is a downward trajectory. Then take in the terrible moves this team has made since then. Jimmy Graham trade. Sheldon Richardson one year rental. Malik Mcdowell. Resigning Kam. Letting Earl walk for no compensation. Cutting Sherman instead of trading him to get something. Trading Bennet for pennies. Penny. And look at the team now. Barely any draft capital. Holes all over the place. This team was better last year than in 2017 but that was a mirage. But hey, they did good stuff 5 years ago so we should be happy, right?[


    They made some bad decisions and it appears to me they are in the process of fixing it. Signing a bunch of overpaid free agents won't fix the issue. Being smart with their money and drafting well would.
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2258
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:45 pm
  • bmorepunk wrote:
    knownone wrote:Woah... This is starting to feel like the twilight zone. The league year has barely even started maybe we should wait until after the draft before we bury this team in irrelevancy.


    There's always a contingent of people who are unhappy that the front office doesn't pick up the big name, big dollar free agents the first few days. FOMO is real.


    Yup that's it. You see Jets fans beating their chest right now as off-season champions but will you be shocked when they win 7 games?
    WestcoastSteve
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2258
    Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:00 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:47 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:Does Kam's money count against the cap until the contract ends?

    Injured players shouldn't count against the cap.


    That doesn't account for the Belicheat factor. He would just have players fake injury to get them off the cap and rest them for post season.


    The way to deal with that cheat is to make the money for players subject to recall part of the cap.
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5720
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:53 pm
  • WestcoastSteve wrote:
    Seymour wrote:One signing we still could pull off is TJ Lang. He played well last year and letting Sweezy go could possibly be a sign it could happen.

    I would put him clearly above Fluker also.

    Edit....well debatable since I did not realize he missed 10 games. maybe a bargain contract signing??

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-veteran-guard-t-j-lang-is-released-by-the-lions-making-him-an-intriguing-option-for-teams-in-free-agency



    We don't need another injury prone OL we have Simmons and potentially Fluker.

    He seems like the next Mike Wahle. Hard Pass


    He is NOT injury prone. Nothing like the others. Last year was his first major (over 3 games) issue with that.

    However, with two years under his belt, Lang quickly established himself as one of the most reliable pass-protecting guards in the NFL. About as durable as they came, Lang played at least 900 snaps in each season from 2011 to 2016, and he recorded pass-blocking grades north of 75.0 in five of those six seasons. His career-best stretch came between 2015 and 2016, where he earned elite pass-blocking grades of 90.1 and 91.9, respectively, while he allowed a grand total of 31 total pressures on his combined 1299 pass-blocking snaps over that span.
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6285
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:55 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Its not realistic to assume 12-4 and super bowl every year as an expectation.

    Not one team hasnt made tough decisions like the ones you criticized above... while leaving out many positive decisions as well.

    Its flat irratuonal to expect the team to continue the sort of success in the way they did in 2013 and 14 for multiple years.

    Considering what they have accomplished, id say leadership has done fine. In gindsight could they have done a few things different, yeah of course.

    But 5 playoff years and 10 win seasons since a super bowl loss is better than every nfl team except one. And that team does not deal with the mitigating factor of paying a qb.


    So, you admit that the team is on a downward trajectory but are OK with it cause we did good things 5 years ago. At what point will you stop being OK with this mediocrity? This team has made continual garbage decisions over and over again but these decisions are just shrugged off with a "pobodys nerfect" and the irrational belief that some how we are about to turn the corner. The constant defense of this administration is baffling. It's like with players, you need to get rid of them a year too early instead of a year to late. Pete and John have put this team in such bad straights that when they are finally canned it is going to take multiple years (IF everything goes right) to get them back in competition. But I guess that it's fine that we are not a legit contenteder because we won it all in the Obama era.


    Yes 10 win seasons and playoffs are some dire straights.

    If you want to quantify a downward trajectory as "not winning 12 games a year and not making a super bowl" then i reckon conversing about how illogical that is makes no sense.

    Also.. they continue to find diamonds in the rough. As apparent by the salaries those players are garnering from other teams


    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16509
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:00 pm
  • Lang is definitely an option to explore. He won't count against the comp pick formula either.

    If he is right health wise, sign me up.
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2106
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:33 pm
  • Fade wrote:Lang is definitely an option to explore. He won't count against the comp pick formula either.

    If he is right health wise, sign me up.


    That would be truly epic. Pete and John almost got ridden out of town a couple of years ago when they didn't get Lang. Watch them get him now and he doesn't cost a comp pick.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16509
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:57 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    So, you admit that the team is on a downward trajectory but are OK with it cause we did good things 5 years ago. At what point will you stop being OK with this mediocrity? This team has made continual garbage decisions over and over again but these decisions are just shrugged off with a "pobodys nerfect" and the irrational belief that some how we are about to turn the corner. The constant defense of this administration is baffling. It's like with players, you need to get rid of them a year too early instead of a year to late. Pete and John have put this team in such bad straights that when they are finally canned it is going to take multiple years (IF everything goes right) to get them back in competition. But I guess that it's fine that we are not a legit contenteder because we won it all in the Obama era.


    Yes 10 win seasons and playoffs are some dire straights.

    If you want to quantify a downward trajectory as "not winning 12 games a year and not making a super bowl" then i reckon conversing about how illogical that is makes no sense.

    Also.. they continue to find diamonds in the rough. As apparent by the salaries those players are garnering from other teams


    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.
    seanmatt
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:23 pm
  • People judge THIS team a success because they recognize that theyve managed to stay more competitive than any franchise outside 1 over the last 6 years despite purging a roster full of stars. 5 playoff runs. 5 10 win seasons. Regardless of the 2 years before those are difficult successes to maintain.

    They also probably see the machinations similar to what helped build those 2 super bowl runs.

    Its not rocket science... and purporsefully ignoring some of the obvious successes of this team while suggesting others are linking past success to current is simply playing a game by yourself
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14573
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:26 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    Wow. Four whole years huh? Woe is us.

    You do recall that we have only been to the Super Bowl 3 times in the entire history of this franchise, right?

    Yet now the expectation is that we should make it every year and if we don't it's some sort of debacle? And this seems reasonable to you?

    It is extremely difficult to get to a Super Bowl in this league. Ask any team not named the Patriots.
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:33 pm
  • Chapow wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    Wow. Four whole years huh? Woe is us.

    You do recall that we have only been to the Super Bowl 3 times in the entire history of this franchise, right?

    Yet now the expectation is that we should make it every year and if we don't it's some sort of debacle? And this seems reasonable to you?

    It is extremely difficult to get to a Super Bowl in this league. Ask any team not named the Patriots.


    Yeah ask the Lions.........
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 26214
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:11 pm
  • I don’t have any particular big name FAs we should sign if any. But we will wait past tier 2, 3 and 4 and get tier 5 projects and bat .200 with them leaving us with holes, piss pore first half offense and Wilson fleeing for his life like a volleyball on the ocean.

    We will drop to get more picks (good) then reach with the ones we use.

    This again because we don’t hit consistent Ichiro singles but think we are so much smarter we swing for the fences. All the other draft experts know things too.

    :oops:
    JayhawkMike
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 51
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 3:06 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:51 pm
  • JayhawkMike wrote:But we will wait past tier 2, 3 and 4 and get tier 5 projects and bat .200 with them leaving us with holes

    Free agents signed on or after May 8th do not count against our compensatory picks. If we could truly bat .200 on a bunch of very cheap guys with zero downside then that would be awesome and worth bringing in a bunch.

    You probably realize that under a salary cap the Hawks are going to spend all their money either way and waiting in FA isn't being cheap. We will still spend the entire cap value on players whether we sign a bunch of tier 1 FA or nobody at all.

    Maybe you could be more specific about what positions you believe need immediate help from tier 2, tier 3, and tier 4 free agents, and whether that is worth giving up compensatory draft picks?
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3653
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:05 pm
  • JayhawkMike wrote:I don’t have any particular big name FAs we should sign if any. But we will wait past tier 2, 3 and 4 and get tier 5 projects and bat .200 with them leaving us with holes, piss pore first half offense and Wilson fleeing for his life like a volleyball on the ocean.

    We will drop to get more picks (good) then reach with the ones we use.

    This again because we don’t hit consistent Ichiro singles but think we are so much smarter we swing for the fences. All the other draft experts know things too.

    :oops:


    Oh and another out of the woodwork post saying we don't know shit as a F.O. but everyone else does.

    Many of us remember 1976 to 2005 and are not on the band wagon but have been in the wagon train. John and Pete have hit a lot more then they miss, when they go south it's when a certain OC or they feel an urgency to go after a player that may have attitude question marks.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 26214
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is it arrogance?
Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:50 pm
  • Seymour wrote:
    WestcoastSteve wrote:
    Seymour wrote:One signing we still could pull off is TJ Lang. He played well last year and letting Sweezy go could possibly be a sign it could happen.

    I would put him clearly above Fluker also.

    Edit....well debatable since I did not realize he missed 10 games. maybe a bargain contract signing??

    https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-veteran-guard-t-j-lang-is-released-by-the-lions-making-him-an-intriguing-option-for-teams-in-free-agency



    We don't need another injury prone OL we have Simmons and potentially Fluker.

    He seems like the next Mike Wahle. Hard Pass


    He is NOT injury prone. Nothing like the others. Last year was his first major (over 3 games) issue with that.

    However, with two years under his belt, Lang quickly established himself as one of the most reliable pass-protecting guards in the NFL. About as durable as they came, Lang played at least 900 snaps in each season from 2011 to 2016, and he recorded pass-blocking grades north of 75.0 in five of those six seasons. His career-best stretch came between 2015 and 2016, where he earned elite pass-blocking grades of 90.1 and 91.9, respectively, while he allowed a grand total of 31 total pressures on his combined 1299 pass-blocking snaps over that span.


    For Lang to even begin to replicate his success from GB in Seattle he'd have to completely relearn his pass-blocking technique without the Packers' patented non-holds.
    Grahamhawker
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1883
    Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:19 pm
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:25 am
  • seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Yes 10 win seasons and playoffs are some dire straights.

    If you want to quantify a downward trajectory as "not winning 12 games a year and not making a super bowl" then i reckon conversing about how illogical that is makes no sense.

    Also.. they continue to find diamonds in the rough. As apparent by the salaries those players are garnering from other teams


    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.
    Last edited by MontanaHawk05 on Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16509
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:27 am
  • seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    Yes 10 win seasons and playoffs are some dire straights.

    If you want to quantify a downward trajectory as "not winning 12 games a year and not making a super bowl" then i reckon conversing about how illogical that is makes no sense.

    Also.. they continue to find diamonds in the rough. As apparent by the salaries those players are garnering from other teams


    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    Because none of us have actual agency in whether they make it to the SB or not? I mean, honestly, we're all interested fans here but I wouldn't work myself up over something I have no hand in over the course of years and years.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:32 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.
    seanmatt
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:40 am
  • mrt144 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    You must been a huge Browns fan in the 80s. I mean, they WENT to the AFC championship game four times in a row! I wish that I had your taste for losing, it would make things easier. The reality is that we are no longer a viable contender for the Super Bowl. That window is closed. The team keeps getting worse and worse (which you are OK with cause they make the playoffs) and will eventually tank. Yes, the goal of the team should be to win the Super Bowl. Every year. This regime is arrogant as they think that they are still ahead of the curve. The league has moved past them and figured them out. We lost a bunch of players and are sitting on our hands with only a couple draft picks. Pete and John think they can build a championship teams with reject players and we are gonna see more Mingo's added to the squad (while letting folks like Earl walk with no compensation). Can't wait for you to talk about how great the team is in a couple years when we have multiple 7-9 seasons and let Russel walk with no compesation. I mean, will there ever be a time when what this team did 6 years ago doesn't cover for their current failures for you?


    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    Because none of us have actual agency in whether they make it to the SB or not? I mean, honestly, we're all interested fans here but I wouldn't work myself up over something I have no hand in over the course of years and years.


    Sure, none of us have the agency to take them to the Bowl. But with that logic, why come to this board? Why engage in any critical discussion? We all come here to talk about the team, and about the moves they make. Also, if enough fans start sharing the perspective of folks like myself (and the boos from the stadium the last couple years shows that more are) this team might make a change in regime. Listen, I get it. Some of y'all look at the moves this team has made and go, "yeah, we are doing great!" I disagree. I want more. I think this team keeps making horrible moves and that they are going to get worse and worse. I think the lack of action in free agency is them believing too highly in their ability to find reclamation projects. And I will continue to "work myself up" cause I'm a sports fan, dude. I'm not gonna pretend to be too cool for school. When the Hawks lose it bums me out.
    seanmatt
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 8:50 am
  • seanmatt wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    Because none of us have actual agency in whether they make it to the SB or not? I mean, honestly, we're all interested fans here but I wouldn't work myself up over something I have no hand in over the course of years and years.


    Sure, none of us have the agency to take them to the Bowl. But with that logic, why come to this board? Why engage in any critical discussion? We all come here to talk about the team, and about the moves they make. Also, if enough fans start sharing the perspective of folks like myself (and the boos from the stadium the last couple years shows that more are) this team might make a change in regime. Listen, I get it. Some of y'all look at the moves this team has made and go, "yeah, we are doing great!" I disagree. I want more. I think this team keeps making horrible moves and that they are going to get worse and worse. I think the lack of action in free agency is them believing too highly in their ability to find reclamation projects. And I will continue to "work myself up" cause I'm a sports fan, dude. I'm not gonna pretend to be too cool for school. When the Hawks lose it bums me out.


    Because we aren't binary creatures. I am invested enough to want to talk about the how and why and when of the Hawks. But I'm not so invested that I'm really put out by lack of SBs. I usually count my blessings in the offseason and rattle off curses during the season. ;)

    I think you are mistaking some people's acceptance of the situation for complete support, lack of criticism, etc etc. I am highly critical of aspects of the team but not enough to go out of my way out of the season to badger people into agreeing with me. I think Schotty is average AT BEST, I think Pete is too dogmatic and not adaptable enough, I think there are small tweaks here and there that could improve the fortunes if there is the will to do so, I think the team is best served not bringing in outside talent for draft picks and Free Agents only when depth requires it. The team really isn't consistent enough in outside acquisition to feel good immediately any time a move is made - it's always "We'll see if they know what they're doing I guess" rather than "I know this is gonna elevate the team". Exception might be D Line vets in their mid to late 20s.

    All those criticisms and more are there BUT there are totally worse situations to be in, way less hopeful situations, and a slightly better than the field chance to win a SB. When the 2019 season starts up again I'll be plenty salty if things go sideways but until then - there's not going to be any of the changes you imagine are necessary.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:46 am
  • seanmatt wrote:Sure, none of us have the agency to take them to the Bowl. But with that logic, why come to this board? Why engage in any critical discussion? We all come here to talk about the team, and about the moves they make. Also, if enough fans start sharing the perspective of folks like myself (and the boos from the stadium the last couple years shows that more are) this team might make a change in regime. Listen, I get it. Some of y'all look at the moves this team has made and go, "yeah, we are doing great!" I disagree. I want more. I think this team keeps making horrible moves and that they are going to get worse and worse. I think the lack of action in free agency is them believing too highly in their ability to find reclamation projects. And I will continue to "work myself up" cause I'm a sports fan, dude. I'm not gonna pretend to be too cool for school. When the Hawks lose it bums me out.


    If you're just a consumer, then maybe it's time to find a new store, product, or brand, a winning one, one that doesn't "bum you out." I'm not saying, "just leave!" I'm simply echoing previous sentiments--you don't have to bow down to this team. You can go cheer for the one that always wins.

    And there is only one of those. At least in recent history. There is no guarantee that team will continue to do so. Every other choice will be for teams that may or may not have success by going to the SB. Good luck with that!

    And until you can explain and predict exactly what moves would be great (ahead of time) and an overarching philosophy that goes beyond "we need to win," your evaluation of this horrible team/FO (who keeps getting us to the playoffs with scrubs) contributes nearly nothing to educating the readers/fans here.

    Besides the Patriots, which team(s) have a philosophy you appreciate and why? Give specifics, and show how those decisions have directly led those teams to the big game.

    Time to show your cards, or your bluff gets called.
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2018
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:01 am
  • seanmatt wrote:This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense.


    Straw man. Very few people are actually attacking critics that intensely, and you're letting their voices be too loud for you. The vast majority of us are willing to critique them on things. We just don't see a problem in their overall philosophy.

    For example, their 2017 free agent signings were all jaw-droppingly uninspiring. Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh? That far outweights Jimmy Graham as the worst free agent signings.
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16509
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:04 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.


    So you want the Seahawks to cheat, be dishonest, film practices, lie about injuries, fake injuries, and then go to massage parlors as long as they win Super Bowl after Super Bowl.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 26214
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:52 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl.... I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.

    In my view you have an incomplete understanding of the role that uncertainty takes in the NFL. It's a brief 16 game season followed by single elimination playoffs where one single play or referee call can often make the difference between moving on or being eliminated. Do you give the Rams credit for making the Superbowl last season on a blown call? Do you give us credit for 2014 even though GB completely blew the game?

    What would you say our preseason chances of winning the Super Bowl have looked like since Pete took over? They have been something like this:
    2010: 3%
    2011: 4%
    2012: 7%
    2013: 12%
    2014: 12%
    2015: 9%
    2016: 9%
    2017: 8%
    2018: 7%

    Those probabilities are extremely good for any NFL team, and if you add them up you get a 73% chance of winning one Super Bowl which is how we've done. Nobody is telling you to be happy because we won a single Super Bowl and so you shouldn't care how we do now, but that this has been an outstanding decade of Seahawks football.

    How the Patriots have managed to do even better than we have over the interval is a very long topic that merits it's own discussion in the NFL forum. There are things they do which are worth emulating and then there are questionable things they do which many fans would prefer we did not imitate. In my view the largest factor has been a very team friendly contract for the best QB in NFL history. That QB also just so happens to own a sports therapy center that the Patriots pay on the side. We should always be willing to learn things from extreme outliers but you absolutely shouldn't use them as a benchmark for determining what a successful team looks like.
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3653
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:10 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Seymour wrote:Who has New England signed?

    Do they fail yearly also?


    No, the Pats go to the Superbowl yearly. We haven't been in how many years? Just cause this strategy works for the Pats doesn't mean it works for us. Look at our downward trajectory. Pete and John have lost their magic.


    What downward trajectory?

    Every team but one, the same who pays their qb pennies on the dollar, is playing the same game.

    Seattle has been one of the most successful at it the last 8 years.

    They are teying to repeat what they did 6-8 years ago with a 30 million dollar qb. Thats not arrogance or confidence or any non-quantifiable emotion.

    Its tactical. It worked last year.


    2014- 12-4 lost the Super Bowl
    2015- 10-6- Lost in the Divisional Round
    2016- 10-5-1 Lost in the Divisional Round
    2017- 9-7 No playoofs
    2018- 10-5 Lost in WIldcard Round

    That is a downward trajectory. Then take in the terrible moves this team has made since then. Jimmy Graham trade. Sheldon Richardson one year rental. Malik Mcdowell. Resigning Kam. Letting Earl walk for no compensation. Cutting Sherman instead of trading him to get something. Trading Bennet for pennies. Penny. And look at the team now. Barely any draft capital. Holes all over the place. This team was better last year than in 2017 but that was a mirage. But hey, they did good stuff 5 years ago so we should be happy, right?


    You're trying way too hard. Kam and Sherman, you're just off. And if I'm not mistaken, you're saying Penny was a bad pick? How do you know that? I thought he started looking a lot better by the end of the season.

    I guess the old adage is true. Some people see negative, others see positive. Change is change.
    HansGruber
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2668
    Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2012 4:39 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:18 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    So, how many Super Bowls in a seven-year span are enough for you?


    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14573
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 1:28 pm
  • :irishdrinkers:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11590
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:41 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    Can we throw him through the Moon Door Si can we ? Can we????????
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 26214
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:05 pm
  • Had to google "Moon Door"
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14573
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:11 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:Had to google "Moon Door"



    :34853_doh:


    You had one job.................... :)
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 26214
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:12 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:Had to google "Moon Door"



    :34853_doh:


    You had one job.................... :)


    Ive never seen the show (im the one)
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14573
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:25 pm
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    I think the better question is why you judge THIS team a success for what they did five years ago. Honestly, I don't think this regime will ever get us back to the bowl. Yeah, those back to back Super Bowls were great, but that was then and this is now. Listen, if you think that the the team making the right moves to become a contender again that is your right. I just think that it's ridiculous to say that because they did it in the past means that they will necessarily do it again. For me, I don't care how many Super Bowls they've had in the last seven years; I care that they haven't even been close to one in the past four.


    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.
    seanmatt
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:54 pm
  • seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.


    In the future, your response may be interpreted the way you mean if you devote a little more thought and effort to it. Strutting in and being like "Sup sycophants, drink Pete's bathwater today?" isn't going to help convey your thoughts in an effective way.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:51 am
  • :snack:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11590
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:42 am
  • seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    TIL that the divisional playoff round isn't even close to the Super Bowl.

    It's two wins away, dude. Closer than most of the league.

    This "cutting through the bullcrap and telling it like it is" act isn't convincing. You didn't answer my question, because you know there's no good answer: you want Seattle to be winning lots of Super Bowls, but you probably acknowledge that it isn't realistic for any team other than the Patriots to do so. So Seattle is excelling in the same way that every other perennial contender is.

    "That was then and this is now"...good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl.


    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.



    Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

    Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

    Your choice on how you want it to be received.
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 14573
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:38 am
  • JayhawkMike wrote:We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

    It’s frustrating.


    So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

    If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

    Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

    And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

    What a terrible take.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 14410
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:40 am
  • Yeah, you don't want to be the team that "wins the off-season"
    There's a reason certain teams are spending a boat load of $ on players. Very few of the playoff teams from last year jumped on the initial frenzy. Did I read that correctly? Fail more than succeed???? :34853_doh:
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11590
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:45 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

    It’s frustrating.


    So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

    If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

    Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

    And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

    What a terrible take.


    Can this be a real instance of FOMO?

    I mean, I totally get it. Other teams are tricking themselves out with fat spoilers, fat exhaust pipes, etc etc.

    It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:51 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:We go through this most years. We let good players go and don’t address needs in free agency. I have always thought it is because Pete and JS think they are just that much brighter than everyone else. They think they can take other teams trash and turn it into starters. They ignore all the draft projections and take picks rounds earlier because they are just that much better. In the end they fail more than they succeed.

    It’s frustrating.


    So let me get this straight, you'd like to be the Jets, Browns, Cardinals, Raiders, Lions and all the other bad teams that are 80% of the teams that overspend every year in this first wave of ridiculous contract free agency, and then still stink ever year.

    If you need to build your roster through the first wave of overpriced terrible contracts of free agency, then you're doomed for failure.

    Fortunately that's not how we build our roster, we build through the draft and mining value in free agency. It's how you get a DJ Fluker, and not overpay for TJ Lang. You wait until all the stupid franchise overpay, then you get value.

    And not sure how you call a FO that's put together a perennial playoff roster and gone to two SB's "fail more than succeed."

    What a terrible take.


    Agreed.

    Is it arrogance?
    Chapow
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2873
    Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:38 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:04 am
  • mrt144 wrote:

    It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?


    Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

    He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

    Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

    I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 14410
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:24 am
  • Fans are fans, and most of us have played, coached, or watched the game most our adult lives. In the simplest terms, we all know if your team has 22 players that are better any other team’s 22 players your team will win the most games.

    Unfortunately, the NFL has spent years devising a system to make that impossible.

    Yet as fans we want that disparity for our favorite team, we want our team to be better, have better players, be coached better, play better, and have any luck that comes along, fall in our favor. If we didn’t, we’d be casual observers not “fans”. And the ways to rail against the NFL’s system, to achieve the consummate team, are as long and numerous as there are fans.

    Even teams the casual observer considers great, like the Patriots, have their disparagers. A quick trip to any Patriots’ forum will find much of the same free agency, draft picks, trades, front office and coaching criticisms.

    As fans, to strive for perfection is human nature, but to expect it, is the definition of delusional.

    So, are the Seahawks perfect? No.
    Is the front office striving to make them perfect? I think so, why wouldn’t they?
    Will they reach perfection? That would be delusional.
    As fans should we hope, wish, pray, contemplate, dissect, discuss, or argue the ways to perfection?

    Well, fans are fans and most of us...
    FidelisHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 490
    Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:39 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:37 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:

    It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?


    Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

    He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

    Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

    I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.


    Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:58 am
  • mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:

    It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?


    Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

    He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

    Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

    I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.


    Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.


    I think it starts and ends with one word, value.

    All the information on every players is mined, vetted and analyzed intensely and thoroughly ad naseum................until a calculated educated determination (guess) can be arrived at.

    Each FO has their own process, our's is no exception. But make no mistake it's all about value. Can you take a risk on a player with the large majority of your core physical, mental and emotional traits, yet has baggage.

    Frank Clark it worked (top 15 value vs liklihood of being a problem or bust due to emotional issues). Malik McDowell it didn't work (top 15 value vs. immature and work ethic red flags).

    And I'd LOVE to interview our front office guys, man that'd be so interesting for a football junkie. Learning about their process. It'd be incredible.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 14410
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:07 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:

    It's funny that I find more arrogance in the strategic/tactical side of things than with personnel. I mean Percy and Jimmy are two things that might lend themselves to arrogance, sure, but that's still a partial reflection on how they were used strategically and tactically. Is speculation arrogance inherently?


    Definitely another interesting conversation. I do think Pete is VERY arrogant tactically.......he believes in his core philosophies on both sides of the ball, and that's that.

    He's also arrogant with personnel, he thinks he can mine the best out of troubled or under performing players once they're indoctrinated into his locker room culture.

    Sometimes it works (Lynch, Kendricks, Clark, Fluker), and sometimes it doesn't (Harvin, McDowell).

    I guess people want perfection, and you're never going to get perfection when it comes to evaluating human beings, especially young human beings playing a sport. You just want to succeed more than fail, and Pete and John have done that, very well. There is no disputing that.


    Full agreement here. The question arrived to me though because speculation - seeking to find maligned assets that can perform as well if not better than non maligned assets - in football personnel resources could be misconstrued as arrogance OR it could merely be a more variable outcome risk/reward method of acquisition. We'd have to interview the coaching and management staff to be sure.


    I think it starts and ends with one word, value.

    All the information on every players is mined, vetted and analyzed intensely and thoroughly ad naseum................until a calculated educated determination (guess) can be arrived at.

    Each FO has their own process, our's is no exception. But make no mistake it's all about value. Can you take a risk on a player with the large majority of your core physical, mental and emotional traits, yet has baggage.

    Frank Clark it worked (top 15 value vs liklihood of being a problem or bust due to emotional issues). Malik McDowell it didn't work (top 15 value vs. immature and work ethic red flags).

    And I'd LOVE to interview our front office guys, man that'd be so interesting for a football junkie. Learning about their process. It'd be incredible.


    I really wish that more people in the football industry would write books and articles contemporaneously but slow reveal them like 5-6 years later. I actually don't like the mystery of why people do things.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:51 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    You stated that the Pats are as successful as I would like the Hawks to be. It is possible. If the Pats can be that successful than I want the Hawks to be that successful. If Pete and John aren't going to bring us that level of success than I want to move to someone who might. I want as many if not more Super Bowl wins as the Pats.

    Also, this board has really changed throughout the years. This whole "if you crtitque the team you are a bandwagoner" thing is really nonsense. Listen, the Hawks are a product I consume. I am the customer. I don't owe this brand any loyalty. I pay their salaries when I buy their merch, go to games, or watch them on TV. I don't have to "treat the gang that got you to the Super Bowl" in any sort of fashion. This whole fealty things that folks like you have is weird. The seahawks are not my kings. I do not have to bow to them and say, "thank you oh noble ones for what you have brought me." They went one the Super Bowl. Awesome. Folks like us have made them rich beyond most peoples wildest dreams. As a paying customer I want more from this product that it is currently giving me. Clearly you don't. Good for you. But I ain't gonna genuflect before them just cause I really enjoyed the product that they put out one year.



    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.



    Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

    Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

    Your choice on how you want it to be received.


    The OP made a point that goes against the common wisdom of this board and got a lot of negative feedback. I made a comment of support of the OP and got lambasted. You didn't talk about how to "treat the gang" but someone else did. I responded. The truth is, I am being received the way that I am being received because I have an unpopular opinion. I feel like this board has become a place where practicing "wrong think" gets one slammed. The first couple years of this regime was one where they found market inefficiencies and picked players that were passed over by other teams. I think the league has caught up but Pete/John still think they can find diamonds in the rough. Disagree with me all you want, man. But don't selectively tone police based on the viewpoint of the poster. Pete/John optimists come off just as condescending as those of us who are more on the glass half empty tip.
    seanmatt
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:31 am


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:02 am
  • seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    seanmatt wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:

    What utter nonsense.

    Being negative doesnt make you objective. Doesnt make you clearer or right.

    Its your perspective. Suggesting those that don't see it your way as blinded by fealty is ignorant and concending. Its also a clear indication of your hypocritical approach to others points and inability to engage in dissenting dialogue.

    The board has changed?

    Get over yourself


    I was responding to the comment "good grief, what an awful way to treat the gang that got you a Super Bowl." That is feality, bro dawg. You can totally disagree with me about the state of the Seahawks franchise but telling me that I have to "treat the gang" in a specific way is creepy and weird. I think a part of this is that different folks have different ideas about what it means to be a fan. Wanna disagree with me on the merits of my argument? Totes fine. Telling me that I owe some sort of alligence to this regime is a different story. My response was sensical.



    Your premise is sensical. No argument, and id think most agree with most your points. I do.

    Your approach is condescending and incorrect. I didn't tell you how to "treat the gang" (dumb premise). I disagreed that the team is failing.

    Your choice on how you want it to be received.


    The OP made a point that goes against the common wisdom of this board and got a lot of negative feedback. I made a comment of support of the OP and got lambasted. You didn't talk about how to "treat the gang" but someone else did. I responded. The truth is, I am being received the way that I am being received because I have an unpopular opinion. I feel like this board has become a place where practicing "wrong think" gets one slammed. The first couple years of this regime was one where they found market inefficiencies and picked players that were passed over by other teams. I think the league has caught up but Pete/John still think they can find diamonds in the rough. Disagree with me all you want, man. But don't selectively tone police based on the viewpoint of the poster. Pete/John optimists come off just as condescending as those of us who are more on the glass half empty tip.


    By what virtue is the glass half empty based on record?
    Relative to other teams you don't root for?
    Or in absolute terms of what your ideal is for them?
    Last edited by mrt144 on Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3678
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Is it arrogance?
Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:08 am
  • Being an optimist makes someone condescending? Ok then :roll:
    Screw hope, everything sucks. :?
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11590
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:29 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online