Sando gives a blurb on Mora

My favorite line is "I told Mora during a conversation between radio appearances was that his firing, however unfair after only one season, wasn't personal so much as it was a product of a toxic environment around him."

Sando's developed some hatred.

about 1 month ago DJ C-Raig 6 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

And by toxic environment he means Chris Spencer

by B.B.Finnegan on Feb 2, 2010 2:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

What I'm really curious about

Is whether or not these people who defend Mora, or claim that it was all organizational deficiency, actually believe that. It almost makes me question whether some of Mora’s HC decisions were really as blatantly self-destructive as I remember. Why does no one just come out and say “Mora was generally a dip-shit who couldn’t play the part”?

by DJ C-Raig on Feb 2, 2010 3:18 PM PST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

was that a crack at tim ruskell?

or leiweke? or holmgren? i’m not sure what sando is blaming for the seahawks failure. if he’s laying blame and not just trying to be polite then he has to dump a heaping helping on mora instead of kissing his ass because his “leadership” consisted of throwing his players under the bus.

by bitterguy on Feb 4, 2010 11:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

This time I agree with him.

I don’t think the statement is off.

He talked about the dysfunction before, and inflated it. I think you guys are taking this simply as a further extension of that, and that’s fine. And I know Sando’s been hard on the Hawks in his new digs.

But even if the team didn’t know what kind of org structure it was moving to when they let him go, and even if some things are lip service and they really were pursuing Carroll no matter what the structure would look like, I think Mora’s firing really was part of a larger movement to a new chapter. A new approach, new management. A clean break from the past, eliminating awkward political dynamics by forcing the next GM to retain the coach.

Mora could have saved his job with more wins, in the end. But it’s clear to me the judgment wasn’t just about wins, but coaching, leadership and composure. The same issues we had with him. Despite it maybe feeling like he’d lost the team at the end and we only won 5 games, if Leiweke and Allen felt better about the direction the team was headed in, structure and new management prospects and everything, Mora could have been retained, in spite of himself.

So yeah, I don’t think he was fired because they were convinced he was the wrong choice, after one year. I think he was fired because he sure wasn’t proving himself to be a part of the solution, and as an impediment to the solution, he just had to go.

Sando might be using it to take another jab at the team, but I don’t think it’s off the mark.

by jacobstevens on Feb 4, 2010 11:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

This seems contradictory to me:

So yeah, I don’t think he was fired because they were convinced he was the wrong choice, after one year. I think he was fired because he sure wasn’t proving himself to be a part of the solution, and as an impediment to the solution, he just had to go.

If he’s not part of the solution, wouldn’t that convince Allen and Leiweke that he was the wrong choice?

by John Morgan on Feb 5, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What I mean by that is

was not proving himself to be a part of the solution, juxtaposed against also not proving himself to be a part of the problem. Usually that means the jury’s still out, one year is too early.

I think in this case, they needed a new direction. He could stay if he had demonstrated in some way he would be a part of the solution. And I’m saying it’s more of a case of a lack of poof, or confidence, that he would be, than any conclusion that he wasn’t, why they went another way.

Sounds like a lot of splitting hairs when I spell it out like this. It’s fairly trivial.

by jacobstevens on Feb 5, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs