End of an Era?

D

DomeHawk

Guest
I'm not saying that this is the end of the Seahawks being a winning team, I think that Pete/John can still employ their "winning formula" with new players and coaches. What I am saying that it is looking more and more like the end of the era of personalities that we have become so accustomed to.

From Russell Wilson the so-called choir boy, to the brashness of Richard Sherman, serious (not angry) Doug Baldwin, Bennett the joker/activist, and intense ET, etc., etc., we have been exposed to much more than just their individual styles of football acumen, we have gotten to know them as human beings. This would not have been possible without an organization that not only allowed personal expression, but encouraged it. I, for one, have not only found it interesting but damned entertaining too.

Is it possible to start a thread like this w/o it digressing into a political argument over certain players actions? I certainly don't intend it that way, I'm merely saying that we were lucky enough to have a core group of players for a length of time that allowed us to really get to know them. A couple of them will stay but most will be gone soon. Will the next group of core players be as interesting? Who knows, but I look forward to seeing what happens.

There is no pain in change, there is only pain in resistance to change.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the staff is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

It won't be everyone, some of these contracts (like Kam) are impossible to get off of. But yes, I think many of the vets are gone, except for the core players Pete and John think can still contribute for the next 4-5 years.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Sgt. Largent":4keemy69 said:
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the roster is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

It won't be everyone, some of these contracts (like Kam) are impossible to get off of. But yes, I think many of the vets are gone, except for the core players Pete and John think can still contribute for the next 4-5 years.


While I think there will be roster churn.. I think the Vets that remain are still the ones that have been the character of the team since PC took over (outside Lynch, who was a huge impact)

RW, Baldwin, Sherman, ET, Kam, (and Wagner) will still be here next season. They are and always have been the heart of the team (with Lynch, whose void desperately needs replacing)

Players like Bennett and Avril may be moved along.. but that's not the end of this era, just their role in it.
 
OP
OP
D

DomeHawk

Guest
Uncle Si":femz4zx4 said:
Sgt. Largent":femz4zx4 said:
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the roster is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

It won't be everyone, some of these contracts (like Kam) are impossible to get off of. But yes, I think many of the vets are gone, except for the core players Pete and John think can still contribute for the next 4-5 years.


While I think there will be roster churn.. I think the Vets that remain are still the ones that have been the character of the team since PC took over (outside Lynch, who was a huge impact)

RW, Baldwin, Sherman, ET, Kam, (and Wagner) will still be here next season. They are and always have been the heart of the team (with Lynch, whose void desperately needs replacing)

Players like Bennett and Avril may be moved along.. but that's not the end of this era, just their role in it.

RW, Doug, and Wagner (whose personality has never really been featured) are here for a while but the rest are gone soon, that is what I was referring to. What we will see this year will just be the start of a complete makeover.

Pete and John did this a few years ago. One thing about them, when they get ready to make moves they are not timid.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
Uncle Si":3b86typn said:
Sgt. Largent":3b86typn said:
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the roster is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

It won't be everyone, some of these contracts (like Kam) are impossible to get off of. But yes, I think many of the vets are gone, except for the core players Pete and John think can still contribute for the next 4-5 years.


While I think there will be roster churn.. I think the Vets that remain are still the ones that have been the character of the team since PC took over (outside Lynch, who was a huge impact)

RW, Baldwin, Sherman, ET, Kam, (and Wagner) will still be here next season. They are and always have been the heart of the team (with Lynch, whose void desperately needs replacing)

Players like Bennett and Avril may be moved along.. but that's not the end of this era, just their role in it.

For sure, we can debate on who Pete and John want as their "core."

Definitely Russell, Doug and Bobby..................the interesting players are Bennett, Earl and Sherm. As all three have big contracts that we assume aren't going to be extended. Sherman's not tradeable right now, at least not for fair value. So yes, I think he's back no matter what.

There's a team out clause on Bennett after 2018, so I think he's back for one more year, or traded.

Earl? Honestly have no idea. My guess is it'll be like Sherman last year, if you want him, come get him and give us a 1st rounder. If not? He's back playing out his deal. But I can't see an extension.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,524
Reaction score
1,522
Location
Roy Wa.
Sherman has to get healthy and pass a physical, you may not get 1st rounder's or two first rounder's like was asked and then dropped to a first and a second last year, but 14 million in savings flipped to Maxwell say at 5 million and maybe getting a third for Sherman would have to be considered. Getting something and relief in cap with a body in place that is able to play the position in a year where we have a limited amount of picks may be worth it long term.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,155
Reaction score
1,764
Sgt. Largent":3a81x7uc said:
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the staff is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

I completely agree with this, there will be some reallly significant surprises with the roster changes too.

There are only a very few players on the roster who's job is safe.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
404
Probably the end of the winning era, at least for another year.

I'm kind of resigning myself to no playoffs in 2018 at this point. I realize it's crazy premature to do that before the draft and free agency, but Seattle went win-now with the Duane Brown trade and injury replacement signings and it's left them in a pickle. They don't have a lot of collateral to replace all the talent they'll be offloading, and everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

It's much more likely that we'll simply be fielding a less talented team in 2018 - that things will have to get worse before they get better.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
chris98251":1pw94f8v said:
Sherman has to get healthy and pass a physical, you may not get 1st rounder's or two first rounder's like was asked and then dropped to a first and a second last year, but 14 million in savings flipped to Maxwell say at 5 million and maybe getting a third for Sherman would have to be considered. Getting something and relief in cap with a body in place that is able to play the position in a year where we have a limited amount of picks may be worth it long term.

Yep, good point.

Sherman can't go anywhere until he's fully healthy and back on the active roster...........which for an achilles rupture? Who knows, might even start the year on the PUP.

That's why I think Earl might be gone. You can't have almost 20M of the defensive backfield's salary on the IR with Kam and Sherman to start the year, AND hoping Earl can stay healthy soaking up another 10M?

That's pretty damn risky.
 

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
11,207
Reaction score
615
Sgt. Largent":2llflkd1 said:
Yes, I think turning over almost every coach on the staff is a sign that Pete and John are going to turn a LOT of the roster over as well, get young and hungry again and try and get back to another SB.

It won't be everyone, some of these contracts (like Kam) are impossible to get off of. But yes, I think many of the vets are gone, except for the core players Pete and John think can still contribute for the next 4-5 years.

I agree with this but I would consider the timeframe within the next 2-3 years. New CBA will start to take form next year and apply in 2020. We as a fanbase and other fan bases will not know the total affect of that agreement until they slap it to us...and the teams.
 
OP
OP
D

DomeHawk

Guest
MontanaHawk05":3fs3vcpg said:
I'm kind of resigning myself to no playoffs in 2018 at this point. I realize it's crazy premature to do that before the draft and free agency, but Seattle went win-now with the Duane Brown trade and injury replacement signings and it's left them in a pickle. They don't have a lot of collateral to replace all the talent they'll be offloading, and everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

The point about the win-now philosophy that characterized last year is spot-on AND you know, unlike the previous year, I can't fault them for any of the moves they made. I was so excited when we got Sheldon Richardson and then Duane Brown, I really thought they were the missing pieces. In fact, just about all the moves they made last year, Bradley McDougald etc., were excellent, it just didn't work out with all the injuries and disappointing running back play.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
DomeHawk":3fzdw6yz said:
MontanaHawk05":3fzdw6yz said:
I'm kind of resigning myself to no playoffs in 2018 at this point. I realize it's crazy premature to do that before the draft and free agency, but Seattle went win-now with the Duane Brown trade and injury replacement signings and it's left them in a pickle. They don't have a lot of collateral to replace all the talent they'll be offloading, and everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

The point about the win-now philosophy that characterized last year is spot-on AND you know, unlike the previous year, I can't fault them for any of the moves they made. I was so excited when we got Sheldon Richardson and then Duane Brown, I really thought they were the missing pieces. In fact, just about all the moves they made last year, Bradley McDougald etc., were excellent, it just didn't work out with all the injuries and disappointing running back play.

I was fine with the Richardson and Brown moves............but if we're delving into WHY we had to get those two, there's a deeper criticism to be made.

When you're mortgaging your next year or two's draft to fill in VITAL starting positions? It means you didn't adequately address those needs the year(s) before.

So yeah, those are great players, and they both played well. But the negative snowball effect is;

- failure to draft
- straps your cap taking on those massive salaries which means not having that money to address other needs
 

hawk45

Active member
Joined
Sep 27, 2009
Messages
10,009
Reaction score
16
MontanaHawk05":2pfe458y said:
everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.
 
OP
OP
D

DomeHawk

Guest
MontanaHawk05":195biyqm said:
I was fine with the Richardson and Brown moves............but if we're delving into WHY we had to get those two, there's a deeper criticism to be made.

When you're mortgaging your next year or two's draft to fill in VITAL starting positions? It means you didn't adequately address those needs the year(s) before.

So yeah, those are great players, and they both played well. But the negative snowball effect is;

- failure to draft
- straps your cap taking on those massive salaries which means not having that money to address other needs
[/quote][/quote]

Granted, but if those moves w/o the injuries and better production from the RB's had got us to the Super Bowl again you would have said it was well worth it.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
404
hawk45":3h3aalei said:
MontanaHawk05":3h3aalei said:
everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

I don't disagree with the larger point that we lack collateral to replace big pieces if they walk.

But we had more success - measured by playoff appearances - in 2015 and 2016 when Graham's touchdown totals were 2 and 6, respectively. Or prior to that when he was in N.O.

My fear isn't losing Graham. My fear is losing Graham and failing to restore the run game at the same time. We can afford one or the other and perhaps be okay scoring-wise, but not both.

That acknowledgment that the offense has not historically, and need not in future, depend on Graham is a fairer reading of those who believe we can afford to lose Graham IMO.

The correlation you're implying isn't really provable. If you really want to try to convince me that we're better off without ten touchdowns (3rd in the league), honestly, you'd better pack a lunch.

I appreciate the criticisms of Graham. But in 2014, everyone was howling for a big red-zone target. That wasn't for no reason. They'll be howling again in 2018, most likely.
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,887
Reaction score
404
Sgt. Largent":2a4p5wan said:
DomeHawk":2a4p5wan said:
MontanaHawk05":2a4p5wan said:
I'm kind of resigning myself to no playoffs in 2018 at this point. I realize it's crazy premature to do that before the draft and free agency, but Seattle went win-now with the Duane Brown trade and injury replacement signings and it's left them in a pickle. They don't have a lot of collateral to replace all the talent they'll be offloading, and everyone is obsessed with the idea that saved money will run out onto the field by itself and score Jimmy Graham's touchdowns for him.

The point about the win-now philosophy that characterized last year is spot-on AND you know, unlike the previous year, I can't fault them for any of the moves they made. I was so excited when we got Sheldon Richardson and then Duane Brown, I really thought they were the missing pieces. In fact, just about all the moves they made last year, Bradley McDougald etc., were excellent, it just didn't work out with all the injuries and disappointing running back play.

I was fine with the Richardson and Brown moves............but if we're delving into WHY we had to get those two, there's a deeper criticism to be made.

When you're mortgaging your next year or two's draft to fill in VITAL starting positions? It means you didn't adequately address those needs the year(s) before.

So yeah, those are great players, and they both played well. But the negative snowball effect is;

- failure to draft
- straps your cap taking on those massive salaries which means not having that money to address other needs

Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that.

Brown was the kind of move that I was critical of at the time, and still am. We lost two high picks for one player who didn't - couldn't - improve the offense all on his own. It was not a good move and could well go a long ways towards a down year.

Where I'll disagree with Dome was Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings. Those were bad.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
MontanaHawk05":1z4f9g3c said:
Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that..

Maybe, we still might have needed Richardson even if McDowell was healthy, or another veteran expensive interior lineman after we got into the season and saw that Reed and Jefferson weren't going to stay healthy either.

Also if we don't resign Richardson, does that change your opinion on whether it was good deal or not? Cause right now I'm OK with it, but if we don't keep him? Oh man, that's really bad to give up a high pick for a one year rental player.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
MontanaHawk05":1dhfftvv said:
Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that.

Brown was the kind of move that I was critical of at the time, and still am. We lost two high picks for one player who didn't - couldn't - improve the offense all on his own. It was not a good move and could well go a long ways towards a down year.

Where I'll disagree with Dome was Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings. Those were bad.

Maybe not just using tunnel vision on that alone. However it is very easy to criticize using our top pick on a red flag player that ended up costing a chain reaction of another signing and more draft losses because the guy took himself out for somewhere between 1 year and forever. There are many great players we passed on to make this move.

They need to take quality lower risk players in early rounds and save the red flag risks for later rounds IMO.
 

MrThortan

Active member
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
0
In the broad sense, I don't think this era is over until Pete is gone. Ten years from now I think generally people will look back at this time as the Pete Carroll era. Probably be subsets though, like when speaking about defense as the Quinn era etc. Good chance that the era of LOB is over though
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Seymour":6fzy5vp6 said:
MontanaHawk05":6fzy5vp6 said:
Richardson was a response to McDowell's ATV accident. It's hard to criticize them for that.

Brown was the kind of move that I was critical of at the time, and still am. We lost two high picks for one player who didn't - couldn't - improve the offense all on his own. It was not a good move and could well go a long ways towards a down year.

Where I'll disagree with Dome was Lacy, Joeckel, and Walsh signings. Those were bad.

Maybe not just using tunnel vision on that alone. However it is very easy to criticize using our top pick on a red flag player that ended up costing a chain reaction of another signing and more draft losses because the guy took himself out for somewhere between 1 year and forever. There are many great players we passed on to make this move.

They need to take quality lower risk players in early rounds and save the red flag risks for later rounds IMO.

McDowell has been a disaster of a pick. But Frank Clark was not.

Therein lies the dilemma.
 
Top