Do Not Sell My Personal Information

In hindsight, should we have resigned Earl and Sherm?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • I hated to see them both go, but it was time. Sherman had become a real problem in the locker room after the Super Bowl loss (I heard this first-hand from someone on the team) and was causing division. Being on the wrong side of 30, in the last year of his deal, and coming off a major injury that many players do not come back from 100%, I completely understand why the Seahawks let him go and think they did what they had to do. Sherman beat the odds and bought in to his new team so he is flourishing. I don't think that would have happened if he remained on the Seahawks. He may have recovered physically, but I don't think think he would have stopped causing issues.

    The Seahawks needed a refresh to get back to the culture Pete brought when he was hired. They could not do that with Sherman and Earl on the team.
    HawkFan72
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 16540
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


  • Sherm's SB coverage is all over the place, and his latest fixation is blaming Jim Harbaugh for taking him off the draft board. Of course Jed had said something to him. Sherm psychologically needs to have an enemy he can prevail over. It's just that now, he's made that about enemies outside his current team.
    SantaClaraHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1868
    Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:17 am


  • Seems like Sherman has kept his mouth halfway shut this season. Of course they are headed to the owl so maybe that’s it. He had turned into a heck of a distraction here though.
    brimsalabim
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4358
    Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:50 am


  • brimsalabim wrote:Seems like Sherman has kept his mouth halfway shut this season. Of course they are headed to the owl so maybe that’s it. He had turned into a heck of a distraction here though.


    He has?

    - Baker Mayfield handshake gate
    - Hey look at how amazing I am with weekly PFF cornerback grades
    - Twitter war with Revis
    - Patting himself on the back for hitting all his incentives in his contract
    - Complaining this week about being drug tested right before the SB

    Sherman hasn't changed. Maybe he's toned it down a little because he's trying his hardest to not be too big of a distraction before the SB...........but make no mistake it's taking EVERY ounce of his self control.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16424
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sherman won so far. I know we are all bitter or some are but he won so far. His team is in the superbowl and the hawks aren't. I don't need to hear opinions. He and his NEW team are playing for a chip. Our team hasnt been back since NE broke us.
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3145
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm


  • Shanegotyou11 wrote:Sherman won so far. I know we are all bitter or some are but he won so far. His team is in the superbowl and the hawks aren't. I don't need to hear opinions. He and his NEW team are playing for a chip. Our team hasnt been back since NE broke us.


    To make a correlation between Sherman leaving and us not getting back to the SB is a pretty big stretch don't you think?

    Like HE'S the reason we aren't in the SB?

    Good for Sherm. Love the guy as a player, hate his mouth. But I have no ill will towards him, other than when he plays us.

    But in no world would he have been able to stay here and play under Pete and not be a pain in the ass undermining leadership and Russell.......even with a new contract. That relationship soured and it was time for him to move on.

    Can't just look at his production in SF in a vacuum and think that's how he'd play here, or that's how he'd act here. It's not, goes for Earl too. All their friends left, they were pissed at Pete and the organization, and that bridge was burned.

    It happens.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16424
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • HawkFan72 wrote:The Seahawks needed a refresh to get back to the culture Pete brought when he was hired. They could not do that with Sherman and Earl on the team.


    I hate quoting things just to quote things, but this is probably the most accurate statement I have seen on this board since returning to the forum. The culture of I'm In is essential to Carroll and the way he runs the team. After Bevell´s stupidity cost us a Super Bowl and Pete did not fire him, Sherman was no longer all in. A lot of fans have checked out of the all in mentality as well since that moment. You can not have a vocal leader on your team be against the all in mentality and Sherman made it abundantly clear in public that he was no longer all in. Earl ended up doing the same thing, but money was his motivation.
    Last edited by BASF on Sat Feb 01, 2020 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
    BASF
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1840
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:07 pm


  • I think most people are missing the boat on this. We shouldn't have kept them, BUT we should've gotten proper compensation for them! They should've been traded when they were most valuable on the market, like in 2016/2017. That D was old and done in 2017. We knew going in we shouldn't give these guys their third contract. It's tough when you have four or five HOF players to pay. You can't keep them all. We kept Bobby and Russ. BTW that DVOA #1 defense was never the same when Bobby wasn't out there. So we kept the right players we just magificently bungled the compensation end. What did we get for the LOB? a 7th and a 3rd?! Not enough.
    evergreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 662
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:56 pm


  • BASF wrote:
    HawkFan72 wrote:The Seahawks needed a refresh to get back to the culture Pete brought when he was hired. They could not do that with Sherman and Earl on the team.


    I hate quoting things just to quote things, but this is probably the most accurate statement I have seen on this board since returning to the forum. The culture of I'm In is essential to Carroll and the way he runs the team. After Bevell´s stupidity cost us a Super Bowl and Pete did not fire him, Sherman was no longer all in. A lot of fans have checked out of the all in mentality as well since that moment. You can not have a vocal leader on your team be against the all in mentality and Sherman made it abundantly clear in public that he was no longer all in. Earl ended up doing the same thing, but money was his motivation.


    Its hard for some players to buy into the 'all in' mantra when the person preaching it doesnt act in kind. A call so horrendous, that cost the team a Super Bowl, should be grounds for some type of action, but nothing was ever done. That coach even went as far as throwing the players under the bus and taking no responsibility for the outcome, yet Pete sided with him. Immediately after that play, I said that Pete needs to get rid of Bevell right away or he would lose the locker room. Lo and behold,,,,,
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1382
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • they needed to go. Pete lost the locker room, both Sherman and Thomas didn't respect Carroll. Bennett, Sherman, and Thomas were very outspoken, and they definitely threw shades at the HC. Thomas and Sherman were both in their 30s and coming off of bad injuries along with this extra baggage. Carroll had no choice but to get rid of them.

    Thomas in particular wasn't that good this year, in fact in some stretches he was bad. Sherman recovered but signing him at his age with the achilles injury and baggage was a non-starter. I think it was best for both parties to go different ways. Sherman and Giffin paired with Diggs and McDougald is fun to think about --- but I don't think it would have worked out as well as things did in San Francisco due to disregard and sometimes even contempt Sherman showed for Carroll towards the end of his tenure here.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3268
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 2:31 am


  • @7:06

    Marshall says losing big egos who cause turmoil like Sherman and Baldwin helped Wilson

    massari
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1503
    Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:58 am


  • Sherm pretty much had that entire portion of the field shut down to the Chiefs last night. Until it came to the point the Chiefs were desperate for a big play to get back in it. That's when Sherm got toasted. Chiefs cashed in and were on their way.
    Appyhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 505
    Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:43 pm
    Location: Ranch in Flint Hills of Kansas, formerly NW Montana.


  • evergreen wrote:I think most people are missing the boat on this. We shouldn't have kept them, BUT we should've gotten proper compensation for them! They should've been traded when they were most valuable on the market, like in 2016/2017. That D was old and done in 2017. We knew going in we shouldn't give these guys their third contract. It's tough when you have four or five HOF players to pay. You can't keep them all. We kept Bobby and Russ. BTW that DVOA #1 defense was never the same when Bobby wasn't out there. So we kept the right players we just magificently bungled the compensation end. What did we get for the LOB? a 7th and a 3rd?! Not enough.


    This is most definitely true, and led directly to Frank being traded when he was.

    Pete and John learned their lesson with star players that aren't in the team's long range plans.........you trade them at the top of the market, not at the bottom after they get hurt.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 16424
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • IN hindsight, I think what hurt us even more is squandering away our draft capital in the early rounds with questionable picks, a lot who could have been had in later rounds. Perhaps the Hawks were afraid those later picks we did take wouln't be available had we gone with someone else earlier.
    Bobblehead
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2711
    Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:52 pm


  • BASF wrote:
    HawkFan72 wrote:The Seahawks needed a refresh to get back to the culture Pete brought when he was hired. They could not do that with Sherman and Earl on the team.


    I hate quoting things just to quote things, but this is probably the most accurate statement I have seen on this board since returning to the forum. The culture of I'm In is essential to Carroll and the way he runs the team. After Bevell´s stupidity cost us a Super Bowl and Pete did not fire him, Sherman was no longer all in. A lot of fans have checked out of the all in mentality as well since that moment. You can not have a vocal leader on your team be against the all in mentality and Sherman made it abundantly clear in public that he was no longer all in. Earl ended up doing the same thing, but money was his motivation.


    I agree with these comments.

    I shall add one thing. Sherman is a leader on their team. He has melded them into what we had with the players they have acquired during the last several years into a force. They are not Elite per se, but they are good enough to win.

    One more thing, you dont start off the year with all the issues we started with and go thru the season with the injuries we have had and win 11 or more games....Oh WAIT. :twisted: :stirthepot:
    Seahawkfan80
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 9394
    Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:20 pm
    Location: A little ways from Boise.


Previous


It is currently Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:13 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online