Some Tom Cable Stories

Largent80 · Aug 14, 2014

About his weight loss......Once an absolute mountain of a man, Cable told 710 ESPN Seattle's "Bob and Groz" that he's lost a staggering 138 pounds. The photos atop this post illustrate how different the 49-year-old Cable looks now compared to 2011, which was his first season in Seattle.

http://mynorthwest.com/719/2586735/Seah ... eight-loss

And the claiming of Bowie......When the Seahawks waived right tackle Michael Bowie with an injury designation earlier this month, their hope was that he would clear waivers and become eligible to be placed on injured reserve.

http://mynorthwest.com/719/2587144/Tom- ... be-claimed

kpak76 · Aug 14, 2014

He says that making waiver claims on injured players goes against "unwritten rules". Well if 4 other teams other than the Browns made a claim on Bowie than it certainly isn't followed league wide. Which makes this rule pointless and useless. I think if Cable wanted his man, the Hawks should have waited for the first cutdown to put him on IR. It's not like another camp body would be the difference maker for another SB run.

The orginization clearly didn't care if they lost Bowie so thats why he was on waivers.

hawknation2014 · Aug 14, 2014

kpak76":1nc5klo2 said:
He says that making waiver claims on injured players goes against "unwritten rules". Well if 4 other teams other than the Browns made a claim on Bowie than it certainly isn't followed league wide. Which makes this rule pointless and useless. I think if Cable wanted his man, the Hawks should have waited for the first cutdown to put him on IR. It's not like another camp body would be the difference maker for another SB run.

The orginization clearly didn't care if they lost Bowie so thats why he was on waivers.

+1

Sorry, love Cable and the rest of the organization but that was a shortsighted decision. :34853_doh:

Jville · Aug 14, 2014

The CBA required the Seahawks to place Michael Bowie on waivers before moving him to injured reserve. The organization has been clear about that procedural requirement. Pete Carroll has mentioned it. Tom Cable has mentioned it. I'm good with that explanation and have moved on ..... as have they.

kpak76 · Aug 14, 2014

Jville":3up1l3d6 said:
The CBA required the Seahawks to place Michael Bowie on waivers before moving him to injured reserve. The organization has been clear about that procedural requirement. Pete Carroll has mentioned it. Tom Cable has mentioned it. I'm good with that explanation and have moved on ..... as have they.

Yes we know this. Its been explained many times over. But Cable also said he got a little peaved when the Browns made the claim. If this was the case, why not hold on to him for another couple of weeks where you wont have to expose him to waivers? I'm sure he has moved on but he is chirping about it still.

Jville · Aug 14, 2014

kpak76":1dci8ex6 said:
Jville":1dci8ex6 said:

The CBA required the Seahawks to place Michael Bowie on waivers before moving him to injured reserve. The organization has been clear about that procedural requirement. Pete Carroll has mentioned it. Tom Cable has mentioned it. I'm good with that explanation and have moved on ..... as have they.

Click to expand...

Yes we know this. Its been explained many times over. But Cable also said he got a little peaved when the Browns made the claim. If this was the case, why not hold on to him for another couple of weeks where you wont have to expose him to waivers? I'm sure he has moved on but he is chirping about it still.

They made a business decision. The only chirping I hear is on this forum.

kpak76 · Aug 14, 2014

Jville":1aylnqic said:
kpak76":1aylnqic said:

Jville":1aylnqic said:

The CBA required the Seahawks to place Michael Bowie on waivers before moving him to injured reserve. The organization has been clear about that procedural requirement. Pete Carroll has mentioned it. Tom Cable has mentioned it. I'm good with that explanation and have moved on ..... as have they.

Click to expand...

Yes we know this. Its been explained many times over. But Cable also said he got a little peaved when the Browns made the claim. If this was the case, why not hold on to him for another couple of weeks where you wont have to expose him to waivers? I'm sure he has moved on but he is chirping about it still.

Click to expand...

They made a business decision. The only chirping I hear is on this forum.

And fans are more than welcome to chirp all they want. But when a team member gets rankled by another teams act it makes you wonder why didn't you hold onto him for a couple more weeks to IR him and not expose him. I have no problem with the move personally, especially if Bowie came into camp overweight.

Barthawk · Aug 14, 2014

hawknation2014":21xswfo9 said:
kpak76":21xswfo9 said:

He says that making waiver claims on injured players goes against "unwritten rules". Well if 4 other teams other than the Browns made a claim on Bowie than it certainly isn't followed league wide. Which makes this rule pointless and useless. I think if Cable wanted his man, the Hawks should have waited for the first cutdown to put him on IR. It's not like another camp body would be the difference maker for another SB run.

The orginization clearly didn't care if they lost Bowie so thats why he was on waivers.

Click to expand...

+1

Sorry, love Cable and the rest of the organization but that was a shortsighted decision. :34853_doh:

Far from shortsighted.. were they supposed to carry him injured on the 53 man roster all season?

DavidSeven · Aug 14, 2014

Barthawk":1h9ty1j2 said:
hawknation2014":1h9ty1j2 said:

kpak76":1h9ty1j2 said:

He says that making waiver claims on injured players goes against "unwritten rules". Well if 4 other teams other than the Browns made a claim on Bowie than it certainly isn't followed league wide. Which makes this rule pointless and useless. I think if Cable wanted his man, the Hawks should have waited for the first cutdown to put him on IR. It's not like another camp body would be the difference maker for another SB run.

The orginization clearly didn't care if they lost Bowie so thats why he was on waivers.

Click to expand...

+1

Sorry, love Cable and the rest of the organization but that was a shortsighted decision. :34853_doh:

Click to expand...

Far from shortsighted.. were they supposed to carry him injured on the 53 man roster all season?

They would've been allowed to put him straight on IR after the first cutdowns.

Anyway, SEA had two options here:

1. Keep Bowie on 90-man roster and then put him straight on IR after first cut-downs.
2. Put Bowie on an injured/waived designation and pick up another camp body right away.

They chose option two. If Bowie develops into a decent OT over the next couple of years, then maybe that will be seen as a mistake. Either way, however, it wouldn't have mattered this year unless they burned their only "IR-designated to return" on him, which is doubtful.

kpak76 · Aug 14, 2014

DavidSeven":p2g3qm58 said:
Barthawk":p2g3qm58 said:

hawknation2014":p2g3qm58 said:

kpak76":p2g3qm58 said:

He says that making waiver claims on injured players goes against "unwritten rules". Well if 4 other teams other than the Browns made a claim on Bowie than it certainly isn't followed league wide. Which makes this rule pointless and useless. I think if Cable wanted his man, the Hawks should have waited for the first cutdown to put him on IR. It's not like another camp body would be the difference maker for another SB run.

The orginization clearly didn't care if they lost Bowie so thats why he was on waivers.

Click to expand...

+1

Sorry, love Cable and the rest of the organization but that was a shortsighted decision. :34853_doh:

Click to expand...

Far from shortsighted.. were they supposed to carry him injured on the 53 man roster all season?

Click to expand...

They would've been allowed to put him straight on IR after the first cutdowns.

Anyway, SEA had two options here:

1. Keep Bowie on 90-man roster and then put him straight on IR after first cut-downs.
2. Put Bowie on an injured/waived designation and pick up another camp body right away.

They chose option two. If Bowie develops into a decent OT over the next couple of years, then maybe that will be seen as a mistake. Either way, however, it wouldn't have mattered this year unless they burned their only "IR-designated to return" on him, which is doubtful.

Highly doubtful because the Browns confirmed he will undergo season ending shoulder surgery.

Jville · Aug 14, 2014

Tom Cable mentioned that Garry Gilliam has seized the opportunity for more snaps with the loss of Scott Garrett and Michael Bowie. He noted Gilliam made visible progress during the Bronco game and followed up with good progress in the following practice.

Gary Gilliam #79 is someone to keep in mind verses the Chargers.

Largent80 · Aug 14, 2014

I hope Gilliam stays on a course of improvement as I have a feeling we may end up needing him by years end.

No one has even mentioned that he lost 138 pounds !!!!!!

That is an amazing accomplishment, and I didn't recognize him on that ESPN broadcast.

kearly · Aug 14, 2014

If they really thought Bowie would clear waivers just days after Belichick broke the unwritten rule, they were being stupid. I don't think that's really what happened though. I think they are just fine with losing Bowie and saving the $500k cap hit he would have had to the team on IR.

Taking the risk of losing him so that they could have one more camp body for 3 weeks is the definition of indifference. Unless Bowie pans out, which IMO is unlikely, this move will go down as a very slight positive for Seattle.

Some Tom Cable Stories

Largent80

New member

kpak76

New member

hawknation2014

New member

Jville

Well-known member

kpak76

New member

Jville

Well-known member

kpak76

New member

Barthawk

New member

DavidSeven

New member

kpak76

New member

Jville

Well-known member

Largent80

New member

kearly

New member

Similar threads

Latest posts