Quick News And Amateur Editorial Hour
by BrianL on Dec 30, 2009 7:40 PM PST
Email
PrintJust a few brief hits concerning some changes to the roster. Also a little bit of replacement-level commentary from me.
O'Neil at the Times with the moves
WR Mike Hass is placed on the IR and OG Trevor Canfield is signed from Arizona's practice squad placed onto Seattle's 53-man roster. Also added to the Seahawks practice squad is WR Patrick Carter, who takes the place of CB Trae Williams (who was signed by Pittsburgh).
Real quick, I want to touch on why Mike Hass was brought onto the active roster to begin with and how it could have been handled better. Prior to last Sunday's game, Hass was signed from the practice squad as insurance because Ben Obomanu suffered an injury against the Buccaneers and would be inactive against the Packers. Now, that's fine. The team probably needed more than T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Deion Branch, and Deon Butler active. To clear room for Hass, DE Derek Walker was released.
Yesterday, Walker was claimed by the San Francisco 49ers.
You might recall that prior to the game in Green Bay, we had two players on the active roster who had injuries they were dealing with: Aaron Curry and Nate Burleson. Of those two, it was possible Curry could play again this season and highly doubtful that Burleson would have taken the field again (and already Burleson has been ruled out for the season finale). Let's stop and think about this for a moment. Despite the fact that we had two players on the active roster who could have easily been placed onto the injured reserve list with virtually no consequences, the organization instead chose to expose Derek Walker to waivers in order to make room for Mike Hass.
That is terrible personnel management. I don't know if it was Mora and the coaching staff pushing to keep Curry and Burleson off the IR or if it was interim GM Ruston Webster acting on his own, but it reflects poorly on whoever was involved. This late into the season, there is little or no excuse for not placing one or both players on the IR to spare Walker from waivers.
Walker may never develop into anything useful, but that's not why this move is so troubling. The entire process that led to this unfortunate result was poor. If we were applying the Russo and Schoemaker Success Matrix to this decision, the outcome falls squarely into the "poetic justice" box. The Seahawks just lost a young and cheap player to a division rival in a situation that was entirely avoidable.
Frustrated? You should be.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Gonzaga VS UW
Hope to see them in March madness .
Shattered backboard tonight made Zag / Sooner game 50 minutes longer
MISSED dunk to boot...
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2009 11:36 PM PST up reply actions
But enough about losing Michael Bennett....
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
by SSreporters on Dec 30, 2009 8:15 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Let's be clear
I don’t know if Walker will ever amount to anything useful, but the process that led to this result was terrible. The team gave up talent that it didn’t need to lose and could have easily retained.
If we had IRed Burly or Curry that would be throwing in the towel.
We fight to the finish!!!
FIRE JIM MORA NOW!
It's amazing the spill over effect GMZ is having.
He makes it so much easier to look at small moves like this and say, “This is simply what winning franchises don’t do.” It doesn’t matter that this move probably won’t affect anything, it’s still something that good franchises don’t do.
I think this is being blown out of proportion.
I suppose this appears like a sloppy roster move, but perhaps Dan Quinn simply gave up on the idea that Walker will ever develop enough to help the team.
More importantly, I think we waste a lot of effort grieving over a practice squad guy like this one.
The Seahawks defensive line corps needs upgrades. The coaches have watched Walker practice for awhile and they still don’t want him on the field. If the coaches see no chance for Walker to take Nick Reed’s or Lawrence Jackson’s roster spot, then why worry about where he plays next? This reminds me of all the grief I read when we let Michael Bennett walk. As if this undersized undrafted DT was going to lead us to the promised land after he failed to out-compete Craig Terrill.
Walker will likely be soon forgotten. We need better players, not more Derek Walkers.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
This post isn't so much about Walker as it is about roster construction.
The team gave up a young and cheap project player that they did not have to give up. Good organizations maximize their roster flexibility. Exposing Walker to waivers instead of doing something significantly easier and safer such as putting Curry or Burleson on the IR is bad roster management no matter how you slice it.
Walker may not amount to much, but the process that led to him being claimed by the 49ers was poor.
`
Walker may never develop into anything useful, but that’s not why this move is so troubling. The entire process that led to this unfortunate result was poor. If we were applying the Russo and Schoemaker Success Matrix to this decision, the outcome falls squarely into the “poetic justice” box. The Seahawks just lost a young and cheap player to a division rival in a situation that was entirely avoidable.
To clarify, I’m talking about the macro here. Replace Walker with any other young member of the 53-man roster and you get the same post from me.
I agree
Regardless of the player released, there wasn’t any point releasing him when you’ve got a player that 1. likely won’t come back and 2. likely wouldn’t have any impact even if he did come back (considering we’re out of the playoff race, who cares?)
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
Then why,
…, but perhaps Dan Quinn simply gave up on the idea that Walker will ever develop enough to help the team
was he on the 53 man roster at all, then.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
maybe they had seen enough of Walker by now and they know what he can do
I think Ruston Webster knew very well that he could free up that roster spot without exposing Walker. He does this stuff for a living. We’ve seen GMs make mistakes, to be sure, but those mistakes are usually well-considered gambles that don’t work out, not absent-minded mistakes such as accidentally exposing a player to the waiver wire.
(Am I the last Hawk fan giving our management the benefit of the doubt? lol, probably!)
Something that we might also be missing here is that by releasing Walker to free up this extra roster spot, they brought in a 6’5" 307 pound OG and a 6’3" WR. The practice squad is all about player development for the future, so maybe there will be more value in one of these guys than in Walker. That’s my hope, anyway.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
It makes no sense to drop him now.
Hang on to him through training camp and pre-season and see if he makes any further strides. There’s no penalty to keep him through the end of this season.
And if you had read the post
you would see that keeping Walker and adding Canfield are not mutually exclusive. The easy and safe option was to IR Burleson or Curry and bring on Canfield.
Webster knows this too. That's why I am assuming they are done spending time coaching Walker.
I get your point. And I hope you post more comments on roster management through the offseason Brian. I’ll appreciate reading them. But I think a lot of players we had hopes for will be cut from this team soon. We may as well get used to it.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
There is no benefit to exposing someone like Walker to waivers this point in the season when there are alternatives.
Even if you believe that players getting cut is inevitable, that doesn’t mean a bad process leading to the cut is excusable.
Again, this isn’t about Walker. This is about the process that led to Walker being claimed by the 49ers. Good teams don’t make these decisions.
okay
you’re right.
but I’m more interested in hearing about what Canfield or Carter can bring to practice in the offseason.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
actually, I was disagreeing with the central premise of the article
that this is an example of “terrible personnel management” is, I think, unfounded. I think it is more likely that Webster simply let a player go whom the coaches were no longer interested in trying to develop.
I’m not interested in arguing this to death, however. We just have a difference of opinion.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Is this considered an appeal to authority?
Just wondering, not trying to be critical. The argument that the management knew better and did it anyway (in a calculated, thoughtful way) because they are the management shouldn’t shield roster moves that don’t make sense from being called into question. Plus, this is the 2nd such move (Bennett) that left us saying WTF?
This.
"the 2nd such move (Bennett) that left us saying WTF?"
I remember fans screaming bloody murder when Michael Bennett was allowed to walk and get picked up by Tampa Bay. The ranting was unfounded.
Bennett went to Tampa and sat on the bench for four games, then played sparingly and had zero tackles in five out of the six games he played in. Then they put him back on the bench. What’s will all the concern about players like these? Perhaps our coaches looked at Bennett, honestly assessed that he could not help improve our team, and they wished him luck in catching on somewhere else. I don’t see it as a tragic failure of management.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
You're looking at results.
I’m looking at process. The process in both of these decisions was bad.
Take a look at the link and read the success matrix, that's why Brian is talking about.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 31, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
The point isn't whether these guys are going to be stars.
It’s that they were lost for absolutely no reason. That’s the point of this editorial.
I screamed bloody murder. I still do.
I would still rather have Michael Bennett on this team than that scrub Craig Terrill.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
"I never met a llama I didn't like." - TJ Duckett
All I want for Christmas is Joe Haden, Eric Berry, and Nandamukong Suh in Seahawks blue.
by Wayward Llama on Dec 31, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions
hilarious
but seriously folks, I hope our next GM does not go down the road of signing expensive FAs, or working trades, or bundling draft picks to trade up for impact players. These kinds of personnel deals usually sound great at first and then stink like heck three years later.
This is going to sound really boring… but I want a GM who knows how to find players in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th round of the draft who have not been discovered by every scout in the country. Guys from small schools, guys who haven’t had the right coaching yet, guys who may take a few years to develop. These are guys Tim Ruskell did not generally target. But look at the way John Butler and Bill Polian built the great Buffalo Bills super bowl teams and then went on to build the San Diego Chargers and Colts.
We need to go deep into the draft for a few years to find the gems and develop them. That means we need to avoid spending too much money, or too many draft picks, on the guys that make Mel Kiper’s lists.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Well, I was joshing around, but
I would like to see the Seahawks F.O. be willing and ready to jettison redundant, ageing, and/or overpriced talent in exchange for picks and/or more complementary pieces. I’m very rarely a fan of paying too much in the F.A. market, but I’m all in favor of exploiting other teams’ needs in exchange for draft picks and/or players who fit our needs.
In uncapped year FA signing is more difficult
1. 8 playoff teams all restricted on number of FAs they can sign
2. 4 year minimum NFL to go UFA extended to 6 years ( So Spenser , Ryan ,Tapp and Simms are not UFA but RFA this year )
3. Additional tag can be placed on UFA
Does anyone know what restrictions being on IR places on a player?
I know that IR’d players can attend meetings, train at the facility, and travel with the team, but they aren’t allowed to practice. So when does a player’s time on IR officially “end”? Is it immediately after the season, or at some point in the offseason when the new League year starts?
I’m not trying to defend the move. I agree totally with what BrianL is saying – taken on it’s face it’s a sign of poor process in roster management. I’m just wondering if there’s some behind the scenes policy reason that may influence the decision – i.e., impacts to a player’s contract/cap, restrictions on offseason workouts, etc.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
From my understanding the limits apply only to the season in which a player is placed on injured reserve.
Meaning that those limitations end at the end of the team’s schedule for that season.
cool, thanks
I was googling it, but couldn’t find an answer in easy to digest form. And there’s no way I’m slogging through the entire CBA right now to pick out 1-2 relevant sentences.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
perhaps because the team intends to rebuild
When a new GM arrives, he might cut the entire practice squad plus a dozen guys we have sitting on the bench, open up those roster spots, and push the scouts to go find young and hungry players to come in and compete. The coaches may have to put up a pretty solid argument for continuing to spend time on any player who failed to contribute to in a significant way this season.
Depending on the new GM, there could be a deep house-cleaning of this roster coming, and Walker may simply be getting his notice a little early.
One cannot argue on one hand that our roster lacks talent, and then also argue that the guys who failed to make the active roster must be kept for the offseason.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
OTOH, you can't always argue that a cut player lacks talent because the rest of the roster does.
Draft/contract status determining playing time, poor management, coaches too conservative to face the occasional rookie mistakes that come with on-field development, etc. There are lots of reasons why lesser talent can stay near the top of the draft chart while higher-upside guys can struggle to stay on the bottom-third of the roster or PS.
Take a case like Terril vs. Walker. Terril’s an average player. Walker could out perform him 9 times out of 10 in practice, but a conservative coach will elect to keep Terril ahead of him because he’s a “proven commodity” or “good locker room guy.” A lot of times for these lower rung guys to climb up the ladder, it’s not enough that they simply perform better in practice – often they have to perform substantially better for a long period of time, or get lucky enough to make some big plays in a game situation before a coach will decide they’ve “earned it” And that’s a pretty high bar to overcome.
"I'm tired of chasing after my dreams. I'll just find out where they're going, and catch up later." - Hedberg
Shouldn't you give the next GM all the possible options?
Dave Cameron expressed this idea of roster management really well after the Morrow trade:
Since Zduriencik got hired, the Mariners have made moves that do not require a specific opinion to be justified in order for the move to work. They’ve added players at prices that are relatively low compared to the potential return, so that even if the move doesn’t work, it was a gamble worth taking. They didn’t know that David Aardsma was going to take a step forward, but they put themselves in a position to let him do so without needing him to in order to justify giving up Fabian Williamson. The cost was so low that he could not work out and it wouldn’t hurt them. They gave themselves an opportunity, but a specific outcome was not necessary.
The cost of finding out what Walker might be able to provide this team next year was placing Curry or Burleson on IR. Thats it. With zero cost to team we may have had a cheap, young rotational defensive lineman next season. Instead we have nothing. The Seahawks are depriving themselves of the opportunity to benefit from whatever Derek Walker becomes in order to have a player they could have had anyways. Thats bad team building.
Sure, that makes sense
I give up. A lot of you guys seem convinced that there is some magical Pro Bowler hiding on Mora’s practice squad. Funny there aren’t any on the active roster, ah well….
The point that I think everyone is missing is that Walker was probably released because the coaches do not want to spend any more time on him and don’t want him in the offseason program.
This is no longer a team worred about managing Jim Mora’s practice squad. This is a team getting ready to cut losses, cut dead wood, and cut prospects that didn’t work out. Get used to it.
I’ll bet dollars to donuts the new GM walks in and cuts every 2009 practice squad player, along with a half dozen from the active roster before they get to the May mini camp. The 2009 practice squad was Coach Mora’s developmental squad, and, as a group, they were a total failure like much of the rest of Mora’s coaching efforts. Our mid-season replacements like Brandon Frye and Mike Gibson, came from other teams not up from Mora’s practice squad.
A lot of familiar names will soon be cut from this team. Derek Walker is just the first and least of them.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
For the last time, just because you view these things as inevitable doesn't make them smart roster moves.
And even if they are inevitable, that’s no reason to excuse bad roster management. That’s what this post is about, and you seem to have a hard time grasping that.
Furthermore no one was suggesting that Walker was Pro Bowl talent, that's a strawman you're setting up.
He was cheap, interesting, young talent that may have proven to eventually be useful and could have been retained at virtually no cost to the team. Good teams don’t cut ties with players like that until they have to, and they didn’t have to until preseason cuts at the earliest.
agreed, but I think you were also being argumentative
I did appreciate your look at strategic decisions re roster management. That was a good post. But its odd you refused to recognize my point. I was just saying I think that decision approach was relevant in Sept-through-December, but its not necessarily relevant in this case. There are new elements to the decision matrix now that cutting former prospects to bring in new prospects will be the new emphasis. We will cut ties with a lot of ‘potential’ players soon, and this one will be moot.
I think it will be very interesting if you revive the decision matrix next August-Sept when it really applies. So, Happy New Year, dude. I won’t comment on your next post, I’ll just enjoy it.
"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank
Reminds me of drawing 4th ace on first card when you ask for two
Does not matter all that much but kind of stupid not to take 5th card when it is there
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
