The annual bone-headed FO/FA move

TwistedHusky · Feb 3, 2016

So what is the chance we can avoid one of those next season?

Since we had two this season, do you think we avoid it?

Sac · Feb 3, 2016

The FO trades Russell for Joe Thomas and Johnny Football.

^
That would qualify.

2_0_6 · Feb 3, 2016

Everyone is allowed a hiccup or two when you have draft classes like Lockett, Rawls, Clark, and trade a 5th for McCray your allowed some rope.

Cary Williams was one, but what was the second? Keeping Nowak?

stang233 · Feb 3, 2016

What boned headed move have they made in the past that you are making such claim about. So far everything they have touched has turned to gold.

I saw Cary William might be the only one. But the great news is this team cuts bait so quickly.

mrt144 · Feb 3, 2016

stang233":2nuk9684 said:
What boned headed move have they made in the past that you are making such claim about. So far everything they have touched has turned to gold.

I saw Cary William might be the only one. But the great news is this team cuts bait so quickly.

When I say Percy you say?

TwistedHusky · Feb 3, 2016

What was the 2nd one?

Cutting the center on a run first team stuck with a line consisting of unskilled or inexperienced (ex-DL) still trying to learn the positions/play....

And I don't care about the trade Mc.SoWhat that we got from the Chiefs...but the guys we load down with big contracts that come from outside the team, Harvin and that idiot from Philly come to mind.

It guts the cohesion in the lockerroom when guys that are outperforming their contracts see guys some in and get big change without really being much more than capable or healthy enough to compete/play. It also constantly bites us in the *ss on keeping guys that we need to keep.

The reason that teams that lose the SB often fail to even make the playoffs the next year is that instead of making minor changes, the team often goes "all in" (* this is know as being reckless/stupid in English) and makes a big FA move or trade. They feel pressured to make big changes to "get over the hump" when often they got to the big game and lost by one or two drives, maybe even a few yards or seconds. But they ramrod some new player in, tearing holes in other areas to fit them or afford them.

Invariably, it does not work out, disturbs the core group and things start to collapse shortly thereafter. Usually the more heralded the FA, less likely it is to work out.

Also, as fans of Jimmy Graham and our last CB, Byron Maxwell, can attest: Your ability to perform is dependent on the framework in which you are asked to contribute. So a person with high #s often is working within a framework that works well for them, often switching to a new team leads to fall-off because they don't work within the new framework as well.

So it is always a better risk to either shoot for someone like Walter Thurmond, who is gifted but cheap because of injury risk, or get someone from an unheralded team that you can get for less because they get less attention. Either way, you cannot afford to commit big $ to outside FAs because the risk is too great and the #s not uniform. You cannot trust them.

But our FO has a tendency to bring in one high cost guy repeatedly that does not work out. Almost annually. This year they compounded that by trading away a strength (Run blocking and center) to focus on building off a weakness (our OL and pass blocking).

TDOTSEAHAWK · Feb 3, 2016

Addressing the offensive line with 2 late round picks.

Missing_Clink · Feb 3, 2016

Letting Tom Cable hand pick the O line draft choices. Almost guaranteed to be a terrible pick

chris98251 · Feb 3, 2016

Making a deal for Megatron, signing Arian Foster would qualify.

Osprey12 · Feb 3, 2016

stang233":m51b2sh3 said:
What boned headed move have they made in the past that you are making such claim about. So far everything they have touched has turned to gold.

I saw Cary William might be the only one. But the great news is this team cuts bait so quickly.

I love our front office, but to say that everything they touch turns to gold is a little far fetched. Charlie whitehurst, Matt Flynn, Percy harvin, Cary Williams, and the jury is still out on graham. I'm sure I'm forgetting a couple more too.

AgentDib · Feb 4, 2016

This thread falls into the common trap of judging decisions based on outcomes. Deterministic thinking is the wrong way to evaluate things because it fails to take into account the role that fortune plays in our lives.

If I bet you even odds that a fair dice will roll a six then it is a good decision for you to take that bet regardless of what I end up actually rolling. So what happens if I do roll sixes after all? You would lose the bet, plenty of people would make posts labeling it a bone-headed move on your part, and some of them could even leverage that sort of analysis into a job in sports talk radio.

The only rational way to evaluate decisions is to look at them probabilistically. Compare the entire distribution of outcomes that we could have gotten from the Percy trade with the price that we paid. We only saw one of the dozens of possibilities (some could have been even worse) and so this isn't an obvious answer. And that's the important point: it's difficult to evaluate single decisions without the benefit of a time machine where you can see what all of the possible outcomes would be. You have to look at the overall body of work. It's easy to say that Percy was a bad outcome but there is a huge amount of guesswork that goes into deciding whether he was a bad decision.

Osprey12":eygw6ijq said:
Charlie whitehurst, Matt Flynn, Percy harvin, Cary Williams, and the jury is still out on graham.

Those go in on one side of the balance sheet and you could throw in a few more: Moffitt, Howard, EJ Wilson, Durham, CMike, etc. However, even with a 90% chance of getting a hit on a player (great decision) there would be one in every ten that just busted out anyway. You can't say that these X players did not work and were therefore bad decisions.

onanygivensunday · Feb 4, 2016

In Pete and John I trust.

Largent80 · Feb 4, 2016

Trading Bennett for Clowney, then starting Clowney at LT.

NJlargent · Feb 4, 2016

I think the jury is still out on Clark too.

Osprey12 · Feb 4, 2016

AgentDib":1ouj2c1g said:
This thread falls into the common trap of judging decisions based on outcomes. Deterministic thinking is the wrong way to evaluate things because it fails to take into account the role that fortune plays in our lives.

If I bet you even odds that a fair dice will roll a six then it is a good decision for you to take that bet regardless of what I end up actually rolling. So what happens if I do roll sixes after all? You would lose the bet, plenty of people would make posts labeling it a bone-headed move on your part, and some of them could even leverage that sort of analysis into a job in sports talk radio.

The only rational way to evaluate decisions is to look at them probabilistically. Compare the entire distribution of outcomes that we could have gotten from the Percy trade with the price that we paid. We only saw one of the dozens of possibilities (some could have been even worse) and so this isn't an obvious answer. And that's the important point: it's difficult to evaluate single decisions without the benefit of a time machine where you can see what all of the possible outcomes would be. You have to look at the overall body of work. It's easy to say that Percy was a bad outcome but there is a huge amount of guesswork that goes into deciding whether he was a bad decision.

Osprey12":1ouj2c1g said:

Charlie whitehurst, Matt Flynn, Percy harvin, Cary Williams, and the jury is still out on graham.

Click to expand...

Those go in on one side of the balance sheet and you could throw in a few more: Moffitt, Howard, EJ Wilson, Durham, CMike, etc. However, even with a 90% chance of getting a hit on a player (great decision) there would be one in every ten that just busted out anyway. You can't say that these X players did not work and were therefore bad decisions.

I understand the concept of expected value, with leaving out half of my post you completely changed the substance of it. The person I was quoting said they believed Cary Williams was the only FA miss they could think of. While I love what this front office has done I was just pointing out the other misses. No front office in the league will have a 100% hit rate in FA and yes, if you are going to throw those names in with the liabilities on the balance sheet then we are obviously loaded in equity.

Scottemojo · Feb 4, 2016

Pete has been true to competition, for the most part.
and sometimes in a competition, the losers become pretty plain to see. calling them boneheaded feels overly critical to me.

Cary Williams for instance. Did it work? Nope. But then again, had they tried to take a veteran player who fit the CB profile they have here in Seattle and make him a cover 3 press corner before? Nope. And I doubt they will try it again. Doing it repeatedly will be boneheaded, doing it once is the learning process.

Though while here I am criticizing the use of the word boneheaded, I have called the lack of a solid plan at center "hubris" a bunch of times this year. Thinking Nowak could play from day one was to me as big a mistake as signing Harvin. One mistake threatened team chemistry off the field and was more than our playcaller could manage on the field, the other was dangerous to the health and evolution of our QB. In fact, by that standard, the Nowak decision was a bigger mistake than the Harvin deal.

But the front office moved on from both mistakes fairly quickly, and lightning fast by NFL standards. Which cannot be overstated as a very awesome thing. Admitting mistakes is one of the most common NFL hindrances to team progress.

I still am not a big fan of the Graham trade, but I understand it. The plan to have superior athletes at all positions on the line is one I still do not get. I get the theory, don't misunderstand me there, I just don't get the practical application. Good linemen communicate well, have intuition as a strength, good centers are a second set of eyes for the QB, and this plan to be uber athletic at the OL seems to ignore those qualities over a love of combine numbers and aggression. Which is why I call it hubris. If in two years Sokoli is kicking ass at center I will regret my words, but I really kind of doubt it happens.

Mad Dog · Feb 4, 2016

Personally I think the use of the term "bone-headed" in reference to anything the FO has done is, well, bone-headed.
When you cast a wide net, take risks, etc., not all decisions will work out as hoped. That's the price of aggressiveness in this business. But it's hardly "bone-headed" to not know what the future holds.

This isn't Madden where every player has stats set in stone and behaves in a predictable and controllable fashion. You can't always predict how players will respond to Pete's system. Some thrive like Sherm, Bennett, Earl, Wilson, Lynch. Some flounder like Williams, Harvin.

You could have a "play it safe" FO that never takes a risk. Some of you might like that better. But I suspect the outcome would be worse. Let John and Pete be John and Pete. Let them take risks, learn from it and strive to make things better. This is Seahawks football at a higher level than we've ever seen it. The FO is the best we've ever had. There is no perfection in the NFL. Too many variables. Derisive comments like "bone-headedness" is insulting and I'm sure the OP would never say anything like that to John's face.

pehawk · Feb 4, 2016

For all the bluster JS spewed, this offseason will lack splash, IMO.

I'm in the minority here, but I like the line heading into next season. I like Gilliam at LT and Glow adding immediate competence. Sokoli will be a factor as well. This group is going to grow and mature together, something we haven't seen under Pete.

Scottemojo · Feb 4, 2016

Mad Dog":2u0q2moo said:
Personally I think the use of the term "bone-headed" in reference to anything the FO has done is, well, bone-headed.
When you cast a wide net, take risks, etc., not all decisions will work out as hoped. That's the price of aggressiveness in this business. But it's hardly "bone-headed" to not know what the future holds.

This isn't Madden where every player has stats set in stone and behaves in a predictable and controllable fashion. You can't always predict how players will respond to Pete's system. Some thrive like Sherm, Bennett, Earl, Wilson, Lynch. Some flounder like Williams, Harvin.

You could have a "play it safe" FO that never takes a risk. Some of you might like that better. But I suspect the outcome would be worse. Let John and Pete be John and Pete. Let them take risks, learn from it and strive to make things better. This is Seahawks football at a higher level than we've ever seen it. The FO is the best we've ever had. There is no perfection in the NFL. Too many variables. Derisive comments like "bone-headedness" is insulting and I'm sure the OP would never say anything like that to John's face.

Well stated.

Bobblehead · Feb 4, 2016

TwistedHusky":3y16b6n3 said:
What was the 2nd one?

Cutting the center on a run first team stuck with a line consisting of unskilled or inexperienced (ex-DL) still trying to learn the positions/play....

And I don't care about the trade Mc.SoWhat that we got from the Chiefs...but the guys we load down with big contracts that come from outside the team, Harvin and that idiot from Philly come to mind.

It guts the cohesion in the lockerroom when guys that are outperforming their contracts see guys some in and get big change without really being much more than capable or healthy enough to compete/play. It also constantly bites us in the *ss on keeping guys that we need to keep.

The reason that teams that lose the SB often fail to even make the playoffs the next year is that instead of making minor changes, the team often goes "all in" (* this is know as being reckless/stupid in English) and makes a big FA move or trade. They feel pressured to make big changes to "get over the hump" when often they got to the big game and lost by one or two drives, maybe even a few yards or seconds. But they ramrod some new player in, tearing holes in other areas to fit them or afford them.

Invariably, it does not work out, disturbs the core group and things start to collapse shortly thereafter. Usually the more heralded the FA, less likely it is to work out.

Also, as fans of Jimmy Graham and our last CB, Byron Maxwell, can attest: Your ability to perform is dependent on the framework in which you are asked to contribute. So a person with high #s often is working within a framework that works well for them, often switching to a new team leads to fall-off because they don't work within the new framework as well.

So it is always a better risk to either shoot for someone like Walter Thurmond, who is gifted but cheap because of injury risk, or get someone from an unheralded team that you can get for less because they get less attention. Either way, you cannot afford to commit big $ to outside FAs because the risk is too great and the #s not uniform. You cannot trust them.

But our FO has a tendency to bring in one high cost guy repeatedly that does not work out. Almost annually. This year they compounded that by trading away a strength (Run blocking and center) to focus on building off a weakness (our OL and pass blocking).

I take it that this was your real intent on this thread, bash the trade? Perhaps a conference with JS and PC, I bet they wish they had this info when they did the trade.

The annual bone-headed FO/FA move

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Similar threads