Maybe it's the FO

After all the hype on trading Sherman, and see how this is being disruptive before the season starts, maybe the FO needs to have a look in the mirror to see if they're the one who's causing the chaos maybe the coaches.

For a team whom likes to stay out of the Chaos they've seemed to create some this year.

The team is built on chaos. That is why their practices are crazy. It's their thing, man.

Not uncommon for star players to cause a stir in the offseason.

I don't think any of this is that big of a deal. Atleast unless he's traded.

onepicknick":1cugeg98 said:

After all the hype on trading Sherman, and see how this is being disruptive before the season starts, maybe the FO needs to have a look in the mirror to see if they're the one who's causing the chaos maybe the coaches.

For a team whom likes to stay out of the Chaos they've seemed to create some this year.

Click to expand...

What chaos? You think that listening to and/or exploring trade options for a player = chaos?

And what exactly do you feel like is being disrupted?

I am actually okay with this chaos. NFL is a sports business that's suppose to entertain all of us. I take this chaos as a part of everything. It doesn't bother me as much.

I take Olympics, World Cup Soccer, and other events like that more seriously because then it's a matter of representing America.

So Sherman apparently didn't report to the voluntary practices for the first time ever. This is a little different type of chaos, but the FO certainly didn't force Sherman not to show up....

Few things:

1. This is kind of part and parcel to how Football as an industry works given the current environment (Salary cap and rookie pay scale). No team is immune to this.

2. This FO is pretty transparent as far as organizations go. So we have more visibility to 'how the sausage is made' so to speak. And they admit openly that they continually look in the mirror at all aspects of how the organization is run. So part of what we see as chaos is actually having some visibility to how the internal reevaluation process goes.

3. On trading Sherman. We don't have any visibility into how that process started. There is a ton of speculation on it; Was it sending a malcontent a message? Was it instigated at Sherman's request? Is there bad blood? Is it just normal chatter that has happened in the past and we just weren't aware of it? Hard to say. Outwardly though, it looks like two parties that have a good relationship and are honest with each other and respect one another. And I don't expect any lingering issues if this doesn't happen. That's part of the value an organization reaps when they choose to have an open/honest channel of communication with their players.

If it happens, it may not necessarily be a good thing for the franchise. It may not be a good thing that happens for Sherman. Or it could work out for either/both. The reality is, Sherman isn't going to be his dominant self forever. Seattle needs to find the next Sherman or something close. That reality exists whether or not we trade him. So the core reason why this is in the news doesn't really matter to me all that much. It's a definite talking point in this lull period before the draft. I am generally an adherent of the "it's better to trade a player a year early than a year late" school of thought. If we keep him till past his pull date like we did with Lynch -- I'm ok with that. If we dump him similar to how the Patriots get recycled value from their stars (Seymour/Jones etc.) -- I'm ok with that too.

sam1313":26xo29nr said:

So Sherman apparently didn't report to the voluntary practices for the first time ever. This is a little different type of chaos, but the FO certainly didn't force Sherman not to show up....

Click to expand...

He also doesn't have any bonuses in his contract for showing up to the voluntary portions like he has had before either. There is literally no financial incentive for him to show up for voluntary stuff this Offseason.

It's already been reported that he will show up when he's supposed to in May.

This is one troll of a thread. The team isn't in chaos. By that logic, the Patriots are in chaos every year. Last year they got rid of two of their best defensive players, during the season.

Eh I don't know but it sure feels all kinda crazy and not very Seahawkish that I'm used to

No chaos just the reality of football being a business as much as it is a sport. Do some reading and you will see many of the opinions out there suggest that Sherm is merely trying to look out for Sherm. He is owed +- 22 mil over the next 2 years, and would be in a better position to negotiate a long term deal with a team trading for him than with us next year or if cut as a free agent. Makes sense, Seattle can cut him for approx. 2 mil cap hit next year, this year it's a whole lot more and easier for the Hawks to get high draft picks with more years on a contract then a potential one year rent a deal. Sherm's no dummy and he knows he isn't getting younger, he isn't getting faster, ect. You gotta strike while you can. Too bad for him no one is gonna pay him what he thinks he's worth or give Seattle what they want.

sam1313":1nv0rc3e said:

So Sherman apparently didn't report to the voluntary practices for the first time ever. This is a little different type of chaos, but the FO certainly didn't force Sherman not to show up....

Click to expand...

Either did Kam or Earl, so maybe they're showing some solidarity for Sherman.

It's not a huge deal for me, it's called voluntary for a reason............but I still would like to see our so called team leaders setting good examples by showing up to everything.

I came across this article regarding the Packer coaches being upset at Thompson for letting Lang go to the Lions. It mentions that Thonpson's philosophy has been not resigning players to big deals. Letting them go. I wonder is JS is using the same strategy in Seattle. After all he did work under Thompson in GB. This may make some sense in not resigning guys like Carp, Breno, Sweezy, etc.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...hompson/ar-BBAcRu8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=uie11msnhp

Gonna hold my tongue on this until after the draft. Word is Seattle wants a first and a third for Sherman. To me, this says the FO thinks it can not only replace Sherman or Kam (Obi) this year or the next but also says a major change is immanent and/or coming while keeping the same philosophy.

Philosophy meaning keeping the roster young and hungry but also rewarding players who have produced. Players who have produced is probably short lived but this is the NFL and I'm not going to argue. All I care about is winning and accepting the punishments of not following the rules while winning.

In 2012 when pundents starting comparing us to the 70's Oakland Raiders, at first I didn't like it. It was the Raiders and they were dirty. After watching the Hawks for 26 years (at that point), I thought to myself, so what! I want to win and I want a goddamn Super Bowl.

I want another one soon (SB) and not in the next decade (I'll take one then but after one soon). Far as I'm concerned, this FO still has some leeway since it seems some logistical change is being made despite some rhetorical drivel spouted to us after our loss to the Falcons. Thank god we still have a team/organization/ownership that doesn't have the "same shit different day" mentality ,,,,, you know, stubborn, it will work eventually (for now). Seems like this at times but I still don't believe it yet.

hawkfan68":qvft1yh7 said:

I came across this article regarding the Packer coaches being upset at Thompson for letting Lang go to the Lions. It mentions that Thonpson's philosophy has been not resigning players to big deals. Letting them go. I wonder is JS is using the same strategy in Seattle. After all he did work under Thompson in GB. This may make some sense in not resigning guys like Carp, Breno, Sweezy, etc.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...hompson/ar-BBAcRu8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=uie11msnhp

Click to expand...

We have resigned plenty of guys, Said another way, we resign our stars. Sherman, ET, RW, Lynch, Kam, Wagz, Wright, it's the middle class that usually doesn't get resigned.

Every FO and owner lay the ground rules for behavior, what's acceptable and what's not.

So in this vein, the OP is right, Pete and John created every facet of this organization........including team culture. For good and bad.

The question for me is............is this philosophy sustainable in the NFL? Sure for 4-5 years it obviously worked, leading to a SB win. But maybe we're seeing why hard ass coaches like Belichick go the opposite direction and demand their players to be robots, and the ones that don't get traded or cut.

It's a valid concern for Pete, he was obviously extremely successful in college because players were only there for 3-4 years. Can he sustain that philosophy in the NFL after those 3-4 years of his players buying in starts to lose it's luster and effectiveness.

HawkFan72":1r0kaczu said:

sam1313":1r0kaczu said:

So Sherman apparently didn't report to the voluntary practices for the first time ever. This is a little different type of chaos, but the FO certainly didn't force Sherman not to show up....

Click to expand...

He also doesn't have any bonuses in his contract for showing up to the voluntary portions like he has had before either. There is literally no financial incentive for him to show up for voluntary stuff this Offseason.

It's already been reported that he will show up when he's supposed to in May.

Click to expand...

This is also part of the business. If there's absolutely no incentives to show up and he goes out there and gets hurt, then it's foolish on his part. Get hurt when you're getting paid.

Sherman hasn't had a problem showing up out of shape or unprepared, ever. Not worried.

gowazzu02":krpgeuvc said:

hawkfan68":krpgeuvc said:

I came across this article regarding the Packer coaches being upset at Thompson for letting Lang go to the Lions. It mentions that Thonpson's philosophy has been not resigning players to big deals. Letting them go. I wonder is JS is using the same strategy in Seattle. After all he did work under Thompson in GB. This may make some sense in not resigning guys like Carp, Breno, Sweezy, etc.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...hompson/ar-BBAcRu8?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=uie11msnhp

Click to expand...

We have resigned plenty of guys, Said another way, we resign our stars. Sherman, ET, RW, Lynch, Kam, Wagz, Wright, it's the middle class that usually doesn't get resigned.

Click to expand...

Sorry should have been more clear...I meant resigning OL guys. Skilled positions seem to be ok.

hawkfan68":23jvxrzy said:

Sorry should have been more clear...I meant resigning OL guys. Skilled positions seem to be ok.

Click to expand...

That doesn't pass muster. Seattle did resign two players (Unger and Giacomini) before. But otherwise, have been judicious about who they resign.

John won't resign mundane talent if he doesn't have to. Seattle has I think the biggest number of 6m+ contracts on it's roster in the league.

Ultimately, when you're in a position like Seattle was -- you have simply far too many worthy players to resign. You can't sign them all. So you choose the ones that provide the biggest value over a replacement.

Seattle resigned recently:

Wright
Wagner
Chancellor
Sherman
Thomas
Baldwin
Kearse
Lynch
Wilson
Lane

And allowed to walk:

Irvin
Sweezy
Okung
Gilliam
Carpenter
Malcom Smith
Byron Maxwell
Tate

Other than Irvin and Tate, I don't think any of those guys were worth resigning. Maxwell was -- but his market was not worth competing in.

Kearse and Lane probably look like mistakes (moreso Kearse than Lane). But those deals were also very modest. And one could have easily made the case that they needed to based on the state of the roster at the time their deals expired.

If Carpenter or Sweezy were even worth the deals they did sign -- I think Seattle would have chose to sign them. Those guys were empirically not worth both the money it would have required to keep them, nor the players we would have had to let go (Wright/Chancellor) to stay under the cap.

So I would reject the theory that John doesn't value or want to pay OL talent. Because I can't fault the organization even a little bit based on the choices they did make in letting them go. It's a bigger cap sin to pay second deals to bad players. The only reason those players even got the money they did get, is because there are many teams out there that don't have enough good players of their own worth resigning.