Sorry Sando, but this is insane: A Brief Rebuttal to "Seahawks facing credibility crisis"

it seems that Sando has been going out of his way to be negative about the hawks since he joined ESPN, almost as if by now writing for the entire NFC West he is trying to counterbalance his being a fan of the Seahawks.

But with that negativity seems to come lower quality reporting. His blog was better than his writing since he joined ESPN.

But it was funny how many people were offended by this article. Fans from other teams were confused by the ridiculousness of his claims. When you can confuse an ESPN commenter by being ridiculous, you know you’ve struck gold.

Shit was dysfuncitonal before.

(Do you feel there has been dysfunction the last two years?) "Well, I think some of that really led us to this idea of what if you had a clean sweep because you bridged the Mike Holmgren era with Tim coming in. Mike used to have that job so somebody on the outside would say, ‘hey isn’t that going to be a challenge?’ and it was. You then had Jimmy Mora sort of hanging around coach while he finished his so there were a lot of reasons for things not to work here and it’s kind of interesting because you get to a day like today and you look back and you say there were opportunities for this not to function. This could have worked in a much more harmonious way and a unified way and I think that a house divided is sure to fail and so what we’re doing here is a clean slate and it’s a new era for Seahawks football.

http://blog.thenewstribune.com/seahawks/2010/01/11/leiweke-unplugged/#more-2058

I’m sure he’s just saying whatever at the time though.

It appears the hand clear everything out has been a bit forced, not so sure this is what Leiweke had in mind, but I think it’s working out for the best. I like the clean slate idea, sorry Mora/Ruskell (ok not really). Of course, now everybody’s complaining about this.

The fact that Leiweke either did not know this or could not fix this reflects poorly on him and owner Paul Allen.

Try wrapping your head around that last point. I disregard as absurd the notion that he was not aware of the issue. So how exactly does a CEO repair an inharmonious relationship between a GM and Head Coach? Call them into a meeting and tell them to play nice? Threaten them? Hire counselors and consultants? Go on a team-building field trip to the Pacific Science Center? The personalities in questions are both Alpha Males of the highest order. One of which was occupying the job that the other had been demoted from. If they get into a power struggle, no amount of hand-holding is likely to repair that.

As for “the organization has very little credibility” statement: with this, he seems to be settling an old score. As a beat writer he developed relationships with the coaches and GM, and he apparently doesn’t like how the team handled the transition. Yes, Mora was double-crossed and left hanging out to dry. But he has $12 million to keep him company. Mora doesn’t need writers to get his back by slagging the organization.

Organizations always put the best face on whatever move or situation they are in at a given time. Sando seems to be taking it personally that the front office told him that “everything’s fine” when behind closed doors, it actually wasn’t! Surprise, dude.

On the old TNT blog I asked Sando on multiple occasions to give his opinion on the dynamic between Ruskell and Holmgren. He never addressed it. So either he wasn’t aware of the problems, or he wasn’t willing to talk frankly about it either.

I’ve been surprised by the tone of Sando’s entries regarding the recent coaching change. I usually respect his reporting and his style of writing, but he seems to have a real negative viewpoint on the firing of Mora and hiring of Carroll, without expressed reason.

among certain individuals in the sports media, that Ruskell’s resignation, Holmgren rejecting Seattle’s offer, Carroll’s hiring (with the associated Rooney Rule speculation) and Mora’s firing all point toward some kind of malfeasance in the organization. It’s like some people want to see the recent moves as something sinister, as opposed to the typical upheaval that comes when unsuccessful teams are looking to right the ship. My impression from Sando’s piece is that he’s looking to latch on to that meme.

It didn’t feel like such a mess before a week ago. So that’s revisionist. But it sure felt like a mess. But this is a great rebuttal, I didn’t feel the way you did John but I can’t help but thoroughly agree with you.

Then I decided it was another piece slamming the Seahawks and just didn’t feel up to reading it. I’m glad I stopped.

This article is about as intelligent as the one written by the jilted LA Times writer who spent several hundred words trying to defame our lovely city.

I read the title of the piece in question and passed on by. The word ‘crisis’ I identified quickly as a shock-value type of headline. A headline that I couldn’t care less about. I dismissed the piece and declined to read it. I’m still not lending it any attention.

If all the sports writing was as bad/boring as Sando and Bill Simmons it would be a sad, dark, dismal place.

I expect that mudslinging from the hacks in Bristol, but from a guy who was here and saw the same team I saw?

Sando, consider my previous hits a gift. There will be none further.

I read that article earlier today and felt a disconnect between his conclusion and his supporting arguments. Something just didn’t feel right about it. Thanks for hammering it out articulately, now I know it wasn’t just my imagination.

I recall reading with horror an article about how Bob Whitsitt was dividing the Seahawk front office between his people and Holmgren’s people. There was even an quote from a staffer that depicted Whitsitt gleefully proclaiming “we’re winning!” in reference to the power struggle. I searched but couldn’t find the exact piece I was thinking of, but I did find this one that was reminiscent of it and does detail a bit of what Whitsitt would do:

Ultimately, Whitsitt communicated mostly through Bob Ferguson, who replaced Holmgren as general manager but was more of a figurehead. It became worse when Mike Reinfeldt, a much-respected cap expert and friend of Holmgren’s from Green Bay, quit in 2004, reportedly after Whitsitt wanted to reduce his salary. It was all about power, from controlling parking spaces to denying team officials sideline and press box access to keeping Holmgren out of key meetings. Whitsitt also controlled the flow of communication to the owner; not until Tod Leiweke was hired in 2003 from the Minnesota Wild to be chief executive officer did Allen start receiving additional, and different, feedback.

The Sporting News

Perhaps not direct evidence of his being the cause of Holmgren’s failings as a GM, but I can’t imagine it made for a productive work environment.

I was about to do the same.

Not as epic as your Gladwell rebuttal, JM, but definitely good.

nfcwestadmin (1/12/2010 at 4:51 PM)
seattlefan83: I’m not the one sending sensational text messages to Jim Mora. Can’t make up this stuff! No free pass for the Seahawks on this stuff. It should embarrass them.
—Sando

Sensational text messages! No free pass!

Dude is unhinged.

because what he describes in his article with much hysteria and hyperbole is basically what we call office politics. Things can be strained in a work environment that requires collaboration amongst strong personalities, and often are, but this is generally considered acceptable when the ‘bottom line’ is strong. And the Seahawks bottom line was strong for the much of the period discussed in the article: 5 straight playoff appearances and a Superbowl.

Over the last couple years the bottom line was very poor and the organizational infastructure fell apart. This is also fairly normal. It’s also fairly normal for some at the top to be held accountable and for some heads to roll: Mora and Ruskell. Finally, it’s normal and expected that there be some bitterness and finger pointing in the aftermath.

This is not all indicative of some systematic dysfunction and shady backstabbing creeps at all levels of the organization. This is what happens when your fucking football team goes from up 14-0 on the road in the divisional round to 30th in DVOA in 2 years.

There are flaws in every system out there. Journalists pick on them with (usually) no fund of knowledge or experience at things like delegating authority in a business or hiring for important organizational positions. That means they are flying blind and dumb, making opinions based on mostly hot air and conjecture. If they had such experience or knowledge, they wouldn’t be journalists, they would own their own business.

I am sure some problems will arise as things go along. That is normal. This in some ways is a new experiment for not just the Seahawks but for NFL franchises. So that makes it risky. Sando and others who are critical are too scared to take risks. Again, if they ever owned and ran their own business (like I and many others are doing), they would understand that no matter how many looky loos opine from the outside looking in and say it is messed up, they are giving such opinion without any foundation of personal experience and from a complete vacuum of relevant knowledge.

The Hawks hired consultants, we don’t know what they said, but along the way they have sought help when it is needed. They know they need others to help make these decisions and they got the expert help, and have moved forward. I say “GOOD FOR YOU FOLKS!”. This is the right way to do it. No, Tod L. is not a football mind, and I for one am glad because above all this is a business, and thankfully we have a business expert running the show.