Q/PM's Strategy
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 12:45 AM PDT
130 comments
This is complete, unfounded speculation, but, I think, well rationalized. This is what I think they are doing, and will do. I don't endorse it. I am substantially disappointed by it. This has been a surreal evening for me, and just feel compelled to put it in words.
What do I think Carroll and Schneider are doing, in trading Tapp?
Liquifying capital to facililtate the Whitehurst trade, should it materialize. That's an easy dot to connect, and has already been done. But what will we be doing with the hole Tapp leaves?
Curry will be moved up. Which is a net detriment to this season, but a net upgrade at the position. And it doesn't mitigate the net downgrade of the roster.
To fill the Curry hole? Matt McCoy's been signed. David Hawthorne is a good tackler. And Chris Clemons is 240 pounds, linebacker size. Linebacker is certainly easier to replace, and had a lower impact, than DE or QB. It was another easy dot to connect, and also already made. But the McCoy signing supports it.
So what of that QB? Don't ask me; wait for John to give an assessment after it happens. And I believe it is going to.
Here's where my speculation gets thinner. Implications on the draft. Previously I didn't think Whitehurst pursuit had any substantiated implications on QB prospects for us in the draft. I do, now.
I think the view is Hasselbeck provides the best chance at success for this year. And he's not being moved. And unlikely to be usurped. Clausen's seeming pro-readiness wouldn't change this. The implications on the draft really is in the form of the "win now" concept.
Now, it may be hard to consider after trading Tapp for what we received, but I think the mentality is not simply win now, it's improving for this year as much as possible without significantly impairing the longer-term strength of the franchise.
If you would counter that trading Tapp for what we received runs counter to that goal, I would agree with you. But I still think that is what is being attempted here. Leiweke said 2-year plan, and the consensus of the fanbase is Hasselbeck can still play. Turning things around in the short-term, winning hearts, while still building some kind of core for the team moving forward wins political capital. Acquiring an expected franchise QB heir also wins capital, job security -- but it's temporal. Winning or losing this year can complicate the capital and security that Clausen, Tebow or McCoy could bring this year, if the opportunity even arose for them to bring anything in this regard. And further, Hasselbeck not lasting the season does not cost nearly any capital or security at all. There is the open question of why a QB was not acquired, but 1) that question would have already been answered by grabbing Whitehurst and 2) would subsequently be alleviated by drafting a QB next year.
I will connect no dots to Jake Locker. But assuming the above is accurate, I will speculate, it enables the process of elimination. at 6th overall. Tackle or a safety, or, unlikely, a DT should one fall. Ultimately I think the pursuit of Brandon Marshall is unrelated. I simply think we'll be going after him. But with some restraint.
And ultimately I think the net impact to the team, with Tapp's absence, will be much less than I initially thought. Because of the upgrade with Curry and the lesser impact of Curry's prior position. This justifies nothing, mind. Process still bad, return still poor. I just think this is what's going on. Thanks for letting me get this out.
A place to bury strangers.
0 recs |
130 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Were you just thinking they would move Curry to DE, or a rush OLB in a 3-4?
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with your deductions, but your logic is sound. Thanks for posting.
Cushing played Elephant End at USC, right?
It does seem to be less of a stretch to convert from rush linebacker to elephant-style DE than traditional DE, but even so, converting a player from one position to another is never as easy as people make it sound.
Still, interesting post.
Moving to a 3-4 wouldn't work
Because we have no able NT. That’s the crux of a 3-4, and ours would basically suck at status quo.
6/14/40. Sweet.
I like the idea of Curry at DE
he had problems positioning himself and making plays on the ball at NFL speed. DE would simplify things for him I should think.
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
I didn't think they were using Curry effectively last year
The always said he could get into the back field quickly but it looked like he was in coverage a lot.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Well written
Its obviously a gamble, but I think they look at Curry as their future Elephant and getting another OLB who can cover is easier than a really good pass rushing Elephant type. Everybody loved Tapp, but if he wouldn’t be utilized well in the new system, therfore lowering his value, it makes sense.
I think your QB prediction is correct also. They want to fill in as many pieces as possible and hope that Hass and Whitehurst provide a year or so stop gap at the QB position. In that time you find out if you need to draft next year.
I think the anger over Tapp (not to restart it here) was that they could have gotten more
I agree that the old system hasn’t exactly worked well and we needed to really start over.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
That's not why I was angry.
I got angry, because Tapp was the kind of young talent you add to your team, not subtract. It was a senseless trade that had no necessity and it created another necessity in the process.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 17, 2010 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
This also might be a lot about cash
They have made several moves that are cash based. It makes me think that they will trade out of at least one of the 6th and 14th picks. It would give them more picks at a cheaper price and also let them draft some higher priced guys, ie QB, next year when there might be a rookie salary cap in place. Just a thought. Some of the moves are definitely geared toward making our need positions in places where there is lots of depth in the draft. RB, DL etc.
This is the truth.
I dunno if strategy was the right word to use, here. But it was past midnight and I was in mourning.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
Ruskell always had us guessing about his draft picks
By filling in (or at least spackling) the roster holes.
Carroll has us guessing about his draft choices by creating as many holes as possible.
That’s strategery at its finest.
To put this more succinctly
without making all these connections to the moves, I think they committed to pursuing Whitehurst (evident by the offer sheet, of course) and I speculate that Seattle and San Diego did not come to Seahawk player compensation. Which make sense, because who would want our shit? We have two handfuls of players who are valuable, and they are significantly more valuable than Whitehurst.
Like Tapp. So it’s kind of like breaking a 20 to pay for the $8 lamp on Craigslist. They couldn’t get the return for Tapp in one piece. He’s worth more than they’d give to San Diego. Had to be 2 pieces, one being comparable to the cost of Whitehurst.
They needed to get a pick to pay for Whitehurst, like now. So they had to liquify in a down market. Not many of our assets are liquifiable right now.
We’ve talked about whether it’s because Tapp didn’t fit into Carroll’s “Plans.” This is wrong; he’s a pass rusher, and he could easily, easily fit into the plans. I think it’s more accurate to say, Carroll’s plan to move Curry up made Tapp expendable. That didn’t create an objective to get rid of him, and we didn’t have such a dearth of pass rushers or ends that we had to move something.
But I think of the marketable assets we had, Tapp’s loss would be most absorbed, least impacted, and probably matched up the best with the options they had given such a short window. Philly’s 4th and another player, and an interested party.
They painted themselves into a corner. Stupid. They broke a $20 to pay for a $8 lamp on Craigslist, and used an ATM that took a $6 transaction fee. They now have a lamp and $6.
OK, I don't hate lamp. I'm still intrigued by Whitehurst.
But I hate the process.
by jacobstevens on Mar 17, 2010 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions
T the P of the Q/PM!
Your reasons are sound, and this sounds like the possible strategery of the new regime. Bravo! We don’t have to Trust the Process, but you may have identified it.
You know, I don't think Q/PM even have a strategy.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
It think they do
Carroll doesn’t strike me as the type to float through life. I don’t know what it is and haven’t been impressed with it being carried out so far but there seems to be a plan in place.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Fuck Pete Carroll,
Fuck John Schneider, Fuck the new Seahawks F.O., Fuck Paul Allen.
Maybe it’s cause the Mariners F.O. is so good, but I’m ready to quit on the PC era already. Goddammit if things don’t turn around quickly I’m going to say fuck the Seahawks.
TouchMyIchiro
let them go 0 - 6 first
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I'm already at that point...
but I think I need to see some real progress before I get excited about the near future again. So far I’ve been disappointed in the hiring of PC (especially before the GM), mildly intrigued by the idea that he might have learned something while he was away from the NFL, and now back to a little annoyed.
But let’s see exactly what their plan is first. I think it’s a little premature to write them off, even if this was a pretty bad trade.
One bad trade doesn't ruin a franchise
but 4 or 5 of them and few bad drafts do. It depends on the draft, if that doesn’t go well
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions
hence the freak out
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions
God this is painful to read...
We haven’t even played a pre-season game yet and it’s “fuck everybody”? Why?
I suppose your afraid he’s ruining the success we’ve enjoyed the last few years?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
And my point is...
Why would anyone think that the decisions being made are bad ones? … and so much so that we need to “fuck” every member of the organization. We have absolutely no frame of reference by which to judge what the intent is, or what the outcomes will be. I can see critiquing…. but “fuck everyone”?
If we were dismantling a SB team in order to make these moves then one might have a leg to stand on. Were not. The Seahawks are completely changing directions from a team that was terrible.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
The team as a whole was terrible.
That doesn’t mean all the players on it were terrible and devoid of talent. Tapp had potential. That’s valuable. Clemons has no potential.
Personally I’m waiting until after the draft before I decide to hate the current regime or not. But I can see why people arn’t waiting; this start has left most of us with a strong sense of foreboding.
Now with more lemon bars!
overall we're a bad team
I hate to think about us getting worse.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 17, 2010 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
If I could see a process at least I could understand what they're trying to do.
When the new M’s F.O. took over, nobody had any idea what they would do. They didn’t come out and tell anyone, and I’m not expecting the Seahawks to either. But you could see through the moves that they were making that there was a process to it all. Here, these moves just seem random. And not good random.
TouchMyIchiro
And I should add
that with the new M’s F.O./manager we had no idea what to expect. With the Seahawks, I felt like they had something to prove. Carroll was mediocre as a head coach, and Schneider seems more like a figurehead than a true GM. Although that can’t really be known to an outsider.
What really pisses me off is I feel like I could do at least the same quality of work they’ve done. I rarely feel like this, I didn’t even feel like this with Bavasi (well probably when he made the Vidro trade, but I don’t specifically remember feeling that). We’ve been getting bent over a lot recently.
Maybe I’m wrong, and I’d like to be wrong. I don’t want the Seahawks to suck, I just feel like the process is terrible.
TouchMyIchiro
If that's the case, don't start crawling back to the Seahawks when they're good again.
Personally, I stick to my loyalties.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 17, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Well yeah... that's exactly the point I was making too.
I don’t know.
I guess I have been building a freedom-of-speech-pet-peev thing up for awhile now. I open up this site and see the f’bomb dropped so often that it has no impact for me anymore. Regardless of the context, when I see “fuck this and fuck that”… I automatically find myself rooting for the exact opposite to happen (ie Whitehurst rocks and Tapp has a career bad year).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 17, 2010 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
fuck is just another word for sex
and we all like sex
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions
So were "Fuck Pete Carroll! Fuck John Schneider! Fuck Paul Allen!"
But the second part of my statement does not seem so unnecessary at all when you realize it’s merely my own preference of remaining loyal to the team instead of quitting compared to your self-proclaimed near-abdication of your own loyalties. I stick to my loyalties, and I don’t quit. That’s just me.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 18, 2010 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Sure.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
You know what you were saying when you wrote the second part, and
if you don’t, then you’re an idiot. You don’t have to be an asshole to get your point across. Leaving it at “Don’t come crawling back when the Seahawks get good again” would have sufficed.
TouchMyIchiro
I think you are overreacting to my post.
You are the one who said that you were near ready to quit on the team. I just said basically that I’d keep trooping on, but that’s just me. Seems to me that you took my post personally, which I don’t think you need have. The reason why I say that I’d keep trooping on is that I went through the 90’s with the Seahawks; if I can get through that, then I can sure as hell get through this.
I didn’t even say anything inflammatory, and yet you seemingly challenge me to say that I stick to my loyalties to your face, but on the other hand, you seemingly ignore your own standards and throw name-calling at me? Doesn’t that seem contradictory?
And for your information, I wasn’t being an asshole. Really, I wasn’t. I apologize if you took it that way.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes I took your post personally.
Nobody asked you about your loyalties. And what you wrote is blatantly condescending. I’m not going to believe that you don’t realize this.
Where did I challenge you to say you stick to your loyalties? I mean really, was I saying eff Allen, eff Carroll, eff Schneider and eff Carl? I challenged you to say it to my face, but that was in response to you being an ass. You just were.
TouchMyIchiro
I just was an ass?
Convincing argument. You are seriously taking my post the wrong way. Nobody asked me what my opinion/loyalties were, but then, to be fair, nobody asked you how you felt about the current situation or whether you were to consider abdication of your fanhood of the Seahawks.
Believe what you want, but I was not being condescending. I merely offered my own approach, which if you remember, was based on a hypothetical: (If that’s the case, then…). I was actually being respectful. I am quite amazed that you took it so personally, and even interpreted it as condescending. I honestly wasn’t trying to be or act superior. Of course, being that it was said over the internet, you can’t always accurately gauge the tone. In person, if we were having a one-on-one conversation I seriously doubt that from my tone, you’d react to my comment like you’ve done.
Again, I apologize that you took it that way.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 1:42 AM PDT up reply actions
What is this, the Red Army?
It’s just a game.
And if brayden wants to have sex with Carroll, Schneider, the new Seahawks F.O., and Paul Allen, then best of luck to him and his endeavors.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 19, 2010 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions
I hope he does it with more swagger.
And less juice.
But as you said, it’s his choice. Use protection!
This is so stupid
It just is. You’re saying we should never be critical of the team, even when they make moves that are downright bad? That’s a surefire way to get a team that stays bad for a long, long time. The primary impetus for firing bad management is fan outrage and fan disillusionment, it’s completely retarded to suggest people should not be mad about bad moves.
I’m not going to stop being a fan of the Seahawks no matter what happens, but I sure as hell will stop being a fan of Pete Carroll and this front office if they keep making stupid moves, because that’s how they get replaced with people who can actually make the team good again. And I want the Seahawks to win, if Pete Carroll can’t deliver on that because he’s bad at this, then fuck him, he doesn’t deserve our loyalty, because we deserve a winning team.
Sounds fair to me.
I think the initial problem was hearing the F-bomb dropped a million times. For me, it’s less the sentiment than the way it is delivered. But that might not be what the others were saying. Apparently, I’m a little “slow” on the internet.
Never said that we shouldn't be critical of the team.
You have completely miscontrued my post.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions
You pretty much suggested everyone was a traitor or fairweather fan for being pissed about these moves
Don’t see what I misconstrued there.
And I'm not just picking on you
This seems to be a common suggestion around here recently, and it’s really insulting. It seems like there are a lot of people suggesting we should not try to infer anything about this team and direction it’s heading by these moves out of pure loyalty, and that just strikes me as advocating ignorance out of unflinching loyalty to people who haven’t really earned it. Maybe they turn things around with the draft, I would be pleased as punch if that happened, but it sure doesn’t seem to be stacking up that way right now because these have been really bad decisions so far, and the more evidence you have of bad decisions, the angrier you should get, it’s your responsibility as an educated fan. Because in a small way you make this team better by getting angry over incompetence. Every angry person is another step to getting the guys who are making this team lose fired as quickly as possible.
Re-read my statement again.
That’s not what I said, and that’s not what I suggested.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 20, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
You were saying?
If that’s the case, don’t start crawling back to the Seahawks when they’re good again.
Personally, I stick to my loyalties.
Like I said on one of the other threads
“LOUD ANGRY NOISES”
Everyone hated Ruskell’s moves because they were ridiculously conservative and didn’t lead to winning. These are ballsy moves that are tough to understand. No one on this site is qualified to evaluate the talent necessary to execute the O and D systems that PC will implement. No one on this site really knows what those systems are.
Rash emotional resposes point at someone who is not capable of intelligent rational thought. Its possible that the actual professionals decided that Whitehurst is good enough to be a starter and that Tapp, while talented and possessing a lot of skill, won’t work in our new system.
It would be more productive if people were to try and figure out what is going on instead of knee jerk irational reactions.
Thats an reactionary post based completely on emotion and no fact
Its a moderately high risk move with a comprable return associated with it. PC could be a goat or a genius in a couple of years. Even if he is just pretty good, a low second/high 3rd round pick might be a steal. If thats what we spend for a replacement level starting QB then we have done well. If he is a backup only then its a bad deal. If he is a future pro bowler, then PC is a genius. Saying it is stupid does not provide any insight or thinking into what the FO is trying to do.
Even if whoever is drafted with that pick turns out to be a hall of famer, the deal itself is still bad.
It would be a bad process that leads to a flukey good outcome, or dumb luck.
You just made a huge assumtion
You can’t possibly judge which players talent will fit the new D better. Its not possible because you don’t even know how they will use their players. You are assuming that Tapp would be better in the new D. Bad assumtion.
arguing that he didn't fit the scheme is an assumption
when it’s entirely possible that Pete Carroll and John Schneider just fucked up and made a bad move. We aren’t assuming when we state the facts that Tapp is younger, seen more playing time, and produced more then what we got for him. We are judging the move based on these factors and it stinks.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 18, 2010 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions
It is incredibly unlikely that Tapp would not fit the scheme.
In football, on defense, you need to rush the passer or they get touchdowns.
I can accept that they decided Tapp wasn’t an integral piece. Other circumstances led to the ability to move him, and for whatever reason, they did.
A stouter end may not fit in a 3-4. Tapp does not have the kind of limitations to not be a fit in what Carroll does. His defense is very, very well known, actually. It’s one particular variant of the 3-4. It’s the 3-4 Under. Recently he had one wrinkle using Brian Cushing at end, despite his OLB size. He had Cushing play end but in a 2-point stance. I don’t know if his alignment or anything adjusted, but I know that his responsibilities were slightly modified, mostly by the defensive playcalling, compared to the end that Carroll would normally have.
In either case, Tapp was not a non-fit. It’s just not feasible.
But the main point is even if he was somehow not a fit, that makes him less valuable to us but not to the market. It’s not like the Eagles would have given us a 2nd round pick for Tapp if he was a better fit for Carroll.
by jacobstevens on Mar 18, 2010 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions
The real Nugget that I haven't heard anyone comment on yet is...
No mention of Teel. Carroll didn’t say Teel would be in the mix, and clearly they don’t view him as competition for Hasselbeck or Whitehurst. That is dissappointing. Maybe, after Teel looks good in pre-season play for 2 more years, we can trade him for a late 2nd or early 3rd round pick. :)
I also suspect that despite decent production, Tapp just didn’t fit Carroll’s D scheme. With Jackson at one end and Curry in an elephant role on the other, Tapp was going to be reduced to backup/situational role anyway. He may have only agreed to the tender offer with the understanding he was being traded somewhere he could be a starter. While the Eagles wanted him they weren’t willing to give up their 2nd rounder, and without any other obvious suiters we took the best deal we thought we could get.
Here’s a rosterbation for you. Is it possible that in the talks with the Eagles concerning obtaining Kolb, the fact that we didn’t have a developmental QB to offer as part of the trade was a stumbling block? Maybe the press conference about Whitehurst competing with Hass is all bluster. Maybe Whitehurst goes to the Eagles with our #14 (and more?) in a trade for Kolb. Nah! They wouldn’t be that creative, would they?
The Eagles wouldn't take Kolb for Whitehurst
Unless we threw in both first round picks.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 9:59 PM PDT up reply actions
Under NFL rules are you allowed to trade a player so quickly after signing them?
I doubt it, but I don’t know.
TouchMyIchiro
Well in Whitehurt's case
I think he should be ecstatic to be getting 5 million no matter where he plays next year!
TouchMyIchiro
This really torque's my nibblets.....
For many on this site:
If a move you agree with turns out good… it’s great process.
If a move you disagree with turns out good… it’s just pure dumb luck.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I mean, not to be rude, but duh.
I’m not sure what you would expect when a lot of people here love to break this chart out whenever we get the chance.
No offense taken at all Nate...
My contention is that good process and bad process are not defined in this matrix.
Good process does not = popular process.
Good process does not = obvious process
In order to evaluate a process, one must understand the process vision. We don’t. We are not in the board room that conjures the strategy.
I could argue that the Tapp deal, setup the Whitehurst deal … and that the whitehurst deal addresses the most important position in all sports (QB). In this scenario, addressing the most important position in all of sports can certainly be thought of as good process. If Tapp ended up being a casualty in order to facilitate the addressing of our QB situation…. it hurts, but it doesn’t prove poor process.
For me… poor process would be making these deals to acquire former Trojans….. or making these deals to bolster our linebacking core.
Actually.. I just felt a fan post topic moving me.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Instead of hinting at possible arguments can you make an actual one?
In that example I would say you’re stretching at best. Tapp was traded for Clemons and a 4th rounder. Whitehurst was traded for a 3rd round pick next year and the teams swapped second round picks. I fail to see how they were connected and even if they were I wouldn’t agree with sacrificing Tapp for less than he’s worth to trade for a former third round pick who hasn’t played in a game in four years.
As opposed to your last comment, this one is offensive
Maybe you didn’t read the point the first time…. I’ll post it again.
My contention is that good process and bad process are not defined in this matrix.
Good process does not = popular process.
Good process does not = obvious process
In order to evaluate a process, one must understand the process vision. We don’t. We are not in the board room that conjures the strategy.
Nothing hinted at here.
Anyone who has successfully owned and operated a business understands the concept of price averaging. Sometimes you make deals that lose, in order to achieve the deals that don’t. The Tapp deal brought a pick with it that helps to compensate for losing one in the Whitehurst deal. The fact that you fail to see any connection illustrates my point.
None of us are in the rooms where decisions are made, and therefore don’t see the big picture….
…or maybe you actually think that the Seahawks FO have zero plan whatsoever? It’s easier for you to believe that the FO are making completely random, non-connected moves by throwing darts at a board?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't understand how acquiring a 4th round pick allows the team to trade their third round pick next year.
I don’t have to be in the rooms where decisions are made to form an opinion of them.
Whitehurst and Tapp are also pieces of that equation...
Seattle didn’t trade a 3rd for a 4th Nate.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Tapp was traded for a fourth round pick. A third round pick next year was traded for Whitehurst.
I don’t understand how you could make an argument that says acquiring the fourth round pick allowed them to trade next years third.
Thats not what I'm saying at all.
What I am saying is that Seattle must feel that Whitehurst, Clemons, and a 4th this year … are more valuable than Tapp and a future 3rd.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously they feel that way. I think they're very wrong. I also don't know why keeping Tapp would have prevented them from acquiring Whitehurst.
I have serious doubts about a team that thinks that Tapp and Whitehurst is worse than Clemons, a 4th and Whitehurst. Or a team that thinks they had to deal Tapp, one of the few truely valuable parts of the team, to acquire a fourth round pick or they would have been unable to have pulled the trigger on Whitehurst. Or a team that felt that Tapp wasn’t going to be part of the plans so they decided they would trade him regardless of what they got in return.
Again... what's the intent?
I also don’t know why keeping Tapp would have prevented them from acquiring Whitehurst.
It doesn’t. But let’s say that PC intends to use Curry on the line more… Tapp becomes a rotational guy (lessening his value in that hypothetical system). My point again becomes… we don’t know what PC would have done with Tapp in his system. We can’t see the master plan yet.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Many would say the same if we were to not utilize 'Heater' this coming year.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions
BTW... Curry at 'elephant' could create some nice advantages.
How many DE’s in the league have the flexibility to drop back into coverage like Curry can? There are some nice exchange blitzes that we could run between Curry and Hill, or Curry and Hawthorne, or (god forbid it happened) Curry and safety (Mays).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions
granted...
but Curry’s presence at ‘elephant’ lessens the value of Tapp in that rotation. Also, Seattle could very well be targeting a guy like Griffen, Morgan, or JPP in the draft.
Obviously the addition of any of these guys would impact Tapps value as well.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
And when I said hinting at arguments I meant your justification of the Tapp trade.
You said you could make the argument, I wasn’t sure if you were actually making.
No. As opposed to throwing out the "we are not in the board room strategy" comment and not supporting it...
I threw out a hypothetical to illustrate there are possibilities that may exist we don’t know about. The actual point, however, was that we simply cannot see the master plan at this point. What may appear to be random, may in fact be part of a process.
Now…. granted the strategy may be flawed, but that doesn’t mean that the process is necessarily flawed.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll just copy something I said earlier that kind of addresses this
We know what situation the Hawks are in, we know how teams historically have pulled themselves out of these situations, we know about Tapps value and we’re aware of what a player like him should be worth in a trade.
Going from there we can assume three things. Pete Carroll is stupid. Pete Carrol doesn’t understand talent evaluation or how to rebuild. Or, Pete Carroll knows something everyone here doesn’t. That last on is more likely in football than baseball but the preponderance of evidence available to us says the middle.
If Carroll keeps making trades over the next few years and I keep looking at them and saying "Buh??" and the team keeps making the playoffs I’ll reevaluate what I think I know. Until then I have very little reason to think he’s the second coming of Belichick.
Your argument really isn’t much more than an appeal to authority. I see no reason to give this FO the benefit of the doubt when they’re doing things so contrary to something resembling a successful process.
Good grief Nate.... I haven't appealed to authority once.
My point is about NOT making assumptions regarding the FO’s, intent when we don’t know what the intent is. None us can see the rationale’s behind the moves.
From my perspective, we addressed the most important position in football (QB) in exchange for one of the better DE’s in a weak DL group. A few picks were exchanged in the process. We all agree that we desperately need a QB, and we got one with as much upside as most in this years draft class (and one that is more game ready).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:06 PM PDT up reply actions
How do you know this?
Tapp’s presence obviously didn’t generate a meaningful pass rushing presence last year. Why is it that we are valuing Tapp so high?
I highly doubt that the FO thought this before making the trade:
“Hmm. Let’s screw the franchise by trading our best DE for garbage and a 4th”
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:14 PM PDT up reply actions
A fourth round pick is not hard to come by.
Switching spots with San Diego in the second round would likely get them a 4th round pick or more. If they let Sims walk he’s likely to get a 4th round pick. Any number of veterans on the team would likely get more than a 4th round pick (Hill, Trufant, Burleson if they hadn’t made a questionable decision with the franchise tag), dropping a spot in the first round.
Sacks are a team effort. Tapp lead the league in QB hits so he was generating pressure. He is disruptive, 25, coming into his prime, a starter at a position without much depth and affordable. Tapp was at the least very valuable to the Hawks.
Not necessarily Nate
What if the hawks were to draft Griffen, Morgan, or JPP?
Lo-Jack is already entrenched you would think, and any of these guys mentioned are at least 3 down draft picks. I’m just saying that there must be more to this than the face value of the trades.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Then they're locking onto "their guy" at the expense of talent they already have.
They would have lost Tapp and sacrificed drafting someone like Charles Brown or CJ Spiller just so they could draft one of those ends. That doesn’t seem smart to me.
That very well could be...
My point isn’t whether or not the decisions will pan out. My point is that the process isn’t necessarily flawed. If your going to build a winning football team your process should include:
Finding good QB play and getting to the other guys QB.
These are the most important areas in football. Seattle is obviously addressing both. To me that shows that the focus is fine. The actionable strategy within the process may not work out, but the process seems justifiable.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I mean, thats kind of like saying that as long as a company's main goal is to make a profit their leadership is fine.
It’s great that Carroll might have the overarching strategy down but if he’s not capable of enacting it what good is he?
That remains to be seen.
If in fact PC cannot make Seattle winners… he’s gone.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions
That very well could be...
My point isn’t whether or not the decisions will pan out. My point is that the process isn’t necessarily flawed. If your going to build a winning football team your process should include:
Finding good QB play and getting to the other guys QB.
These are the most important areas in football. Seattle is obviously addressing both. To me that shows that the focus is fine. The actionable strategy within the process may not work out, but the process seems justifiable.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions
dammit I didn't post either of these responses in this position....
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions
I think this is where it breaks into an argument about whether the trade actually was good
rather than Iv’s original point. Which is that a lot of us here assume that our understanding of process is the correct oracle to employ to evaluate the process. As a software tester, I’m regularly faced with the reminder to “test the test.” Stable, functional, bug-free test automation can still produce false negatives and false positives.
Search query syntax can skew your results. Not that any of us are into using Google as a scientific tool, but I have seen lazy journalists support an assertion by giving the number of results returned from a particular Google query. Well, what if you were trying to determine whether there were more angry liberal bloggers or angry conservative bloggers? If your oracle included the term “liberal,” it’s something of a conservative’s pejorative, so they’d be included in the results. If you used “progressive,” instead, it’d be a different result set.
Even Google itself, uses an oracle that is not comprehensive but gives a good approximation in most contexts. Like the 40 yard dash times. Google counts pointers to a page, and assumes the higher number indicates greater relevance. A superior oracle would be a greater count of confirmed relevance to a searcher who used that string. But that, itself is skewed by the ordered results that are provided: the results are paged by 10s, and we rarely click the links returned on the 15th page, even if it may be what we were looking for.
I am fascinated by historicity. The Jesus Seminar is fantastic. High criticism, and very, very good methodologies employed with great discernment. But one of their oracles in determining the likelihood of a scripture’s authenticity (as opposed to an interpolation) is establishing that Jesus held a reconciliatory eschatology and not an apocalyptic one. There is some very good reason for this, but also some very criticized reason. Anyway, the result is, what they determined were more likely authentic scriptures and what were more likely interpolations was dramatically influenced by this presumptive criterion.
Anyway we’re using oracles to evaluate process. Oracles can have limited scope or need to account for circumstantial dynamics, sometimes. I still think the process this offseason has been very, very poor. Those of us who think the process has been bad don’t need to refute Iverson’s call for prudence, and what I’ve extended into re-evaluating our oracles before employing them. We should embrace his call to evaluate the evaluation criteria and not just the process under review.
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow, this stemmed a big sub-thread.
Iv, on these points I actually strongly agree with you, and thanks for bringing it up and for explaining it well.
I do have one counter, though. This process, if we can have the tools and information to evaluate it and determine the process wasn’t bad — which is not really a stretch — could still be bad process, if a markedly better process to achieve the same or similarly valuable objectives was undertaken.
Coulda gotten a project QB with this much potential at less cost. Coulda gotten a situational pass rusher with more upside and less downside, at less cost. Didn’t have to move Tapp to do it. Didn’t have to take 50% value of Tapp to liquify capital for the QB pursuit.
But you’re point is well served, and for me, well taken. We could all stand to keep it in mind, that what we think is best process is not always so. I think a lot of us are smart enough and understand sports economics enough, and football, that we’re probably more often right or close to right, than anything else. But it can be mightily prideful to judge these things off the cuff regardless of outcome and be certain that it’s bad process or good process.
So that is good. But this process? Still bad. : )
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
That very well could be...
My point isn’t whether or not the decisions will pan out. My point is that the process isn’t necessarily flawed. If your going to build a winning football team your process should include:
Finding good QB play and getting to the other guys QB.
These are the most important areas in football. Seattle is obviously addressing both. To me that shows that the focus is fine. The actionable strategy within the process may not work out, but the process seems justifiable.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Blog gone wild!! How did these end up here?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 18, 2010 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions
Seattle fans kill another web 2.0 service.
Hey… then if true… you and I were part of the razing of SBN.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
by iverson2169 on Mar 19, 2010 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions
I completely agree with your overall argument
I was working along the same line of logic earlier in the day, but you did a much better job than I did.
This is a simplistic and incomplete chart that leads to a circular argument
Iverson is correct. You can’t evaluate a process unless you understand its vision, establish a set of metrics to messure it, run the process, score the process based on your metrics and then evaluate your process. Once you have completed that cycle you can adjust the process to strength it and re-evaluate your metrics to determine if you are evaluating your process correctly. Once you have done all that, then that chart applies to an individual step in the process.
The problem is that, since we are on the outside looking in, we aren’t even far enough along to have the vision of the process.
I will agree that there have been indiviual steps in the process so far that are troubling and confusing. I will also agree that this better be a good draft that starts to pain the rest of the picture of the process. Once we hit mini camp, we can start to define the vision and see what the whole process was, but it will really take until about halfway through the season to know if the process was good or bad.
He is correct, but it's taking it a little too far to insist on so much, here.
Else in the extreme form, in all life we’d be reduced to ever only doing the Socrates: all we know is we don’t know shit.
That’s not very fun. Nor is it realistic. We’ve been able to figure out immense things while not knowing nearly anything. We should embrace that we could be wrong, and then go ahead and take our best shot. Employ heuristics.
I don’t think we have to be so scientific to evaluate. To insist on it debilitates evaluation, really. We have the tools and the exposed data to evaluate. We can. I took Iverson’s message as a call to re-evaluate our assumptions and criteria and method in evaluating the process. We can do that and still be wrong. We can employ the scientific method and still be wrong. Fear of being wrong can be debilitating. Let’s just give it our best shot, being as humble and honest about it as we can. The best evaluation here still leads me to think, the process has been very very bad.
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Pretty much off topic, but want input
I’m on the clock at #14 for Seattle in the mock draft at Stampede Blue. Took Gerald McCoy at #6 (both QBs, Suh, Berry and Okung were the top 5 picks, so that was an easy easy pick).
Campbell, Bulaga, Morgan, Haden and Thomas are off the board. Do I take…
Anthony Davis (don’t really think he’s a zone blocking lineman)
C.J. Spiller (Skill position picks when you have OL need is cart before the horse imo)
Dez Bryant (same as Spiller, plus the rep as a flake)
Charles Brown (reach, but I love him and he fits the scheme and need)
Brandon Graham (same as Brown)
Trent Williams (don’t think he’s a LT, at least not for another year minimum)
?
Luck is probability taken personally, clutch is probability attributed to individuals.
Brown or Bryant.
Not Spiller. New QB needs someone to protect him, and someone to throw to.
Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.
by whiskey chainsaw on Mar 21, 2010 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Is Spiller any good at pass protection?
Though they sink through the Sea, they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion...
Brown
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Mar 18, 2010 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
