Chris Clemons: The Perennially Injured, Formerly Undrafted, Situational Pass Rusher Signed to an $18 Million Contract
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 5:06 PM PDT
313 comments
Chris Clemons played linebacker at Georgia for the David Greene Bulldogs. He started his freshman season, but suffered a shoulder injury that cost him action and knocked him down to reserve status. Clemons started three games his sophomore season and then ten as a junior before declaring for the NFL draft. His career line was very unimpressive: 97 total tackles, 4.5 tackles for a loss, one sack and two passes defended.
Clemons predictably was not drafted. Describing why he declared early, despite a lukewarm at best junior season, Clemons told the Washington Post "a bunch of reasons. The grades weren't going well, and I feel like I had a pretty good year, good enough to get drafted. Of course that didn't happen, so I've just got to stick with what I'm doing and try to make the team." Let's see if I can translate: "I was flunking out of school and about as likely to be drafted as I ever would be."
Clemons earned a spot with the Redskins. The defensive coordinator at the time was Greg Edwards, most recently of Florida and now a Buffalo Bill. Edwards has spent most of his career as a linebackers coach. Something about Clemons caught his eye, briefly. He was invited to camp, underwent an emergency appendectomy, and suffered a lucky injury. A sprained shoulder* forestalled his inevitable cut, and the Redskins stashed him away on injury reserve.
Washington cut Clemons prior to the 2004 season and he was eventually signed to the Cleveland Browns practice squad. Gregg Williams took over as the defensive coordinator, and Williams blitzes his linebackers with abandon. Washington signed Clemons after losing Mike Barrow. Clemons very first regular season play ended with him sacking Ben Roethlisberger. He finished out the season as a situational pass rusher, and recorded three sacks.
He was re-signed prior to the 2005 season and made the team as a situational pass rusher. He had nine tackles and two sacks before again landing on IR, this time with a partially torn MCL. He recovered in time to make Redskins camp, where he sprained his MCL, and was subsequently waived. He did not play in the 2006 season.
Clemons signed to the Lane Kiffen Raiders prior to the 2007 season. He had his best season, and maybe his only fully healthy season as a pro. If you are looking for an upside for Clemons, this it: He made two starts, played in all 16 games and had eight sacks. Eight sacks, 20 tackles.
The Eagles signed Clemons to a five-year $18.5 million contract in March of 2008. In July, he was hospitalized for dehydration. He then missed much of the preseason with a calf injury. For the next two seasons, Clemons played as a situational pass rusher. The Eagles signed Clemons to a contract that does not get expensive until 2011, when his cap number balloons first to $3.9 million and then to $4.2 million. [Edit: Seattle is not on the hook for Clemons signing bonus, which could impact these cap numbers.] The Eagles got him for cheap. They just needed a sucker to unload him on before 2011. Seattle stepped up.
So, if anyone tells you that Seattle traded Darryl Tapp for a fourth round pick and a 30-year old defensive end, you can counter, Seattle traded Darryl Tapp for a fourth-round pick, a 28-year old situational pass rusher with a morbid injury history, and the right to pay that former undrafted player's utterly ridiculous salary. That, ladies and gentleman, is the kind of roster move that makes me fear for the future of this franchise.
*Both a shoulder injury and a torn ACL are listed as reasons Clemons landed on injured reserve. Maybe he had both.
0 recs |
313 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I did not want to rush to judge, but when enough obviously stupid moves stack up
we reach a point where incompetence is the simplest and therefore most likely possible explanation.
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is that Occam's Razor?
So, we’ve got Devil’s Advocate, Occam’s Razor…now we just need Murphy’s Law. Oh, wait…
Well.. we have the Prime Minister's Law..
The Queen bows down to him
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 8:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Curious.
How are any of these moves “obviously” stupid? PC and Schneider are just getting “their” guys and getting rid of the guys on their inherited roster that they don’t see as a fit. That’s all man. Wait and see what happens before you shoot down their moves.
by TannerHoffman on Mar 18, 2010 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I disagree.
I don’t think you change your philosophy to accommodate a player who isn’t efficient in your scheme. Carroll has made it clear. If you aren’t going to compete, if you’re not the best player at your position, you ain’t gonna play.
by TannerHoffman on Mar 18, 2010 7:08 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
I’ve advocated all along that we shouldn’t bash these signings yet. John Schneider and Pete Carroll believe are committed to a philosophy they believe in and if these players don’t fit that philosophy they’re out of here. Let’s not forget this is the front office and they are doing the best they can to make this a super bowl winning roster. If we finish terrible next year then fine go ahead and bash all you want just like we did with Jim Mora but untill then we sit patiently till game day.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 18, 2010 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions
See, and I am completely different.
I understand your trust, but I have never been that person. I need to dig in and see how things work.
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
And I completely understand John
I respect the hell out of you and i understand it’s your job to do so. But I’m a type of guy that let’s things work out first before jumping the gun. Pete Carroll has a philosophy he strongly believes in then I believe it too. Heck I believed in Mora/Ruskell philosophy last season and that didn’t do so well.
by Seahawksfan23 on Mar 18, 2010 11:12 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think Tapp is a guy you build around
He’s a productive player, but not and impact player at the level where you change your scheme to suit him.
Whether he deserves it or not, they do seem willing to change the scheme for Aaron Curry.
Carroll has stated he wants to get faster on defense
and at edge rusher in particular.
Tapp is many things, but fast is not one of them.
Kinda reminds me of what Erickson did
bringing in the likes of Springs, Jones, Simmons, Galloway
maybe he will get DUI so we can get rid of him to
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 6:21 PM PDT up reply actions
The emphasis on speed, I mean
Not necessarily the moves thus far in that direction
Although swapping out Tapp for Curry and Hass for Touchdown Jesus certainly increases the speed.
Grant was pretty fast though, so I guess that one doesn’t make sense.
I can't take credit
someone else said it long before me
Letting go of good players because they don't fit a new coach's plans is bad decision-making.
See Leonard Weaver
True
But Weaver was perfect for that scheme, which is what made letting him go double ridiculous.
by DJ C-Raig on Mar 18, 2010 8:36 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Every time Justin Griffith was targetted with a pass I got angry all over again last year.
Every.. single… time…
Every.. single… time…For that I wanted Ruskell fired.
Last preseason he chased down Eddie Royal 20 yards downfield.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Well, they are moving Sims, I hope, because they have locked him out.
Tapp for Clemons and fourth is stupid, Whitehurst for a worse second round pick and a third in 2011 is stupid, and I actually think Whitehurst has some, small potential. I am not sure I would say the team has made many other truly stupid moves, just moves that do not forward the future.
I would say simply, I have not been happy with a single move they have made
and now they have made some that seem outright foolish.
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, that's pretty much how I'm feeling.
I was unsettled coming into this week, now I’m disturbed and discouraged.
It's like they got antsy
and decided activity, even foolish activity, is better than sitting on their butts.
Carroll and Schneider have not established any credibility yet
The fans are going to be skeptical until they see results. I personally am excited by the moves.
Not sure my stomach can sink anymore.
I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop w/ Sims.
6/14/40. Sweet.
The painful part about Sims is going to be trying to explain to the average Hawk fan why he was not worthless.
Because I’m sure the crappy return we get for him is going to validate in their minds that he was a horrible failure, when all he’s guilty of is not being Hutch. I don’t even mind losing Sims if Gibbs doesn’t think he fits his scheme, it just sucks that the Seahawks only seem to look at how valuable a player is to them, and not their trading partner when working out compensation for any trade.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 18, 2010 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Losing Sims doesn't bug me
if we get a decent return for him. But that’s kinda impossible since we tendered him for a 4th. I’m expecting a 5th rounder as a return to be honest. Which is a lot less value then what Sims should be worth.
Now with more lemon bars!
If there's one thing the last week should have taught you...
is that there are some teams willing to pay double the tender amount. It only takes one…
So be optimistic!
There's nothing intelligent or insightful to say about this move.
I feel like I can only hang my head in shame and point at this headline in order to tell people how dumb the move is.
Yeah
it’s a wrap gentlemen. I wonder what atrocities we’re gonna draft now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDUh9yboqI
Your culture is primitive; yet so funky!
That is a scary thought.
I was really happy when Carroll said that he thought a lot of USC players were over valued coming out of the draft, because I thought that ment that we would not be reaching in the draft to get all his former players.
Now I’m honestly wondering if that was a smokescreen to keep Al Davis from trading up to the #5 spot to get Mays first.
by Mind of no mind on Mar 18, 2010 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, gentemen and gentlewomen, the sky is falling in Seattle...
…as if the Kingdome still stood and quaked and shuddered while full of rabid Seahawk fans terrified as one piece of concrete after another fell among them and squashed a fellow fan.
My goodness its over…
The recent past of course being a perfect indicator of how well run a franchise is.
Seattle collapsed in 2007-2008 because of the Holmgren-Whitsitt drafts that produced virtually no talent.
Quite right...
…by trading away one first rounder for Branch so as I recall Wilson was the first Seahawk drafted that year late in the second, right? And another first rounder (31?) on Jennings, and another first rounder (late, traded back for, as I recall) on Jackson.
So my question is this: how much of this is based on Seattle’s relatively poor draft position (as a result of a successful run of play-off appearances) have to do with the present state of talent on the team?
Players like Wilson and Jackson are too young to be expected to contribute
Teams like Pittsburgh would have barely let either see a snap. The team did not lose in 2008-2009 because of Tim Ruskell’s draft. They lost because the drafts that produced talent for the 2008-2009 season, the 2000-2004, yielded very little talent.
Seattle went to the playoffs, what five years in a row?
And during that time, they would have drafted mid-late to late in every round, not just the first.
That’s a lot of years getting the least amount of talent in every round, so much so that I would think that only the best organization could possibly maintain a high level of excellence without having access to more talent on an annual basis.
Of course, I haven’t done or seen the analysis, but it might pertain to Seattle.
They mostly had mid-first, etc in 2000-2004
but were killed by Koren Robinson, Jerramy Stevens and Marcus Tubbs essentially busting into nothing. Those three players should have been a core part of the 2008-2009 seasons.
That is why the rule of thumb on evaluating a draft is five years
At that point, the players should have matured and formed the core of your team, but when you draft Chris McIntosh, Ike Charlton, Anton Palepoi, Ken Hamlin, Wayne Hunter, Solomon Bates, Marcus Tubbs, Michael Boulware etc, then instead of forming the core, you pay the piper. Ruskell lost his job because Holmgren and Whitsitt left him a complete mess.
I would say other than LB and a few key players this team is a mess
Carroll inherited a mess so he is going to have a few years of excuses.
Just saying…I hope he can draft way better than he can trade because it could be his only saving grace.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Let's see
Chris Spencer is a good to above average center, Rob Sims is a good to above average left guard, Sean Locklear is a good to above average right tackle, Housh is a good to above average receiver, John Carlson is a good to great tight end, Josh Wilson is an average to good corner, Brandon Mebane is a very good to great defensive tackle, Lawrence Jackson looks like a competent starter, though it’s early…
Justin Forsett is a very good to great part time rusher
The linebackers are four deep and three are potentially pro bow quality.
I agree... we haven't played to the level of our talent
Injuries have clearly been a factor, and the coaching changes probably haven’t helped either.
I think Carroll could turn things around quickly with a few key moves.
Well, and the talent is young.
And the older talent Seattle relies on is disappearing. Even very good players in their early twenties are not typically ready to shoulder a franchise.
I'm starting to agree with you on this.
The line for example was stronger as a whole even with obvious weak spots like Chris Gray.
Gray was a liability but made the line as a whole stronger it seems.
Otherwise what really changed when we had a dominate pass blocking line in 2007 to 2008?
It really sucked losing Hutch, Tobeck, Gray and Walt
that’s a lot of leadership gone… the young guys kinda got thrown to the wolves with no veteran guidance
I consider all of those guys you mentioned as the key players
it was a good nucleus to build off of I think Carroll is pissing that away – not being an apologist.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I really felt all we needed was a quarterback
And one more playmaker on offense (runningback or receiver)
Granted, finding that quarterback ain’t easy.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 6:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I would argue that the DL has been worse since Tubbs was injured...
He was not a bad or weak pick— just unlucky that he got hurt and his career ended.
The skyfalling requires that it will never be back
we will be back but most likely not until this regime is gone.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Pessimists and surrender monkeys.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 18, 2010 5:31 PM PDT up reply actions
I surrender nothing
It’s those that stay quite while their leaders lead them into hell that surrender.
Well at least leave one last post before the mass suicide.
That way the authorities know where to collect the bodies of the entire Field Gulls commentariat.
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 18, 2010 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions
And people blame the rain...
All The Way, AIRBORNE!!!
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Mar 18, 2010 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Or are we picking up his contract from the Eagles?
Sorry, I don’t know all the offseason rules
I'm almost beginning
to think this whole offseason is one big joke. Does Carroll have absolutely no clue what he is doing? He’s big on competition but mark me down as being against a QB competition whereby the starter is consistently looking over his shoulder at the backup, and then when the backup emerges he stinks and is constantly feeling the pressure from the 34 year old former starter. Personally I think its time to trade Hasselbeck. Holmgren would probably give Carroll a 6th rounder and a bottle of fine Lake Erie water for him. So f’ing frustrated.
We aren't obligated to pay his salary beyond 2010, right?
And Philly is responsible for his signing bonus, not us… I see him as a throw-in who if he stays healthy can compete for the backup Elephant position behind Curry. P.S. First post.
Actually we don't even have to pay him in 2010
we can cut him and not pay anything… unless I’m missing something.
paid - as in charged to their cap
doesn’t the signing bonus accelerate in to the current year when a player is traded (and charged to the team he is traded from)? That’s how I always understood it but I could be wrong.
No, you are correct
the bonus hits the Eagles and the Seahawks are on the hook for $2.3 and $2.6 million if he stays.
So his deal's not going to be restructured?
I was hoping that would be a condition of the trade, otherwise, why the fuck?
So it's 3 years 6.5 million in base Salaries
The rest is the signing bonus? Wonder how much the total and total per year is. Still seems a lot for a scrub.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 5:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought he still had three years left?
1.2 million in 2010, then 2.3 in 2011 and 3.0 in 2012?
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions
This is what I have, via Rotoworld
3/1/2008: Signed a five-year, $12.6 million contract. The deal included a $4 million signing bonus. Another $5.9 million is available through incentives, including an annual $50,000 Pro Bowl clause. 2009: $1 million, 2010: $1.2 million, 2011: $2.3 million, 2012: $3 million, 2013: Free Agent. Cap charges: $1.9 million (2009), $2.1 million (2010), $3.885 million (2011), $4.2 million (2012).
If those numbers reflect the original contract, you can subtract $660,000 from each for his signing bonus and that should give us his new cap number: so about 1.5, 3.2 and 3.5.
Yeah well, just wait till he hits those incentives and pro bowl clause
So I see a 1.5 million as a try out year, don’t think he’ll be back after that. Still, why trade for a player you probably can’t use? Especially when the other team was just eager to unload him.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions
There's no risk to taking him
We can cut him in training camp and pay nothing. He’s shown some pass-rush ability in the past… throw him in the mix with Foley and Reed in the competition to back up Curry at Elephant.
Because I am an idiot
and attempting to do too much at once. Yeah, it would be 800k like I thought originally.
So....
The headline that reads:
Perennially Injured, Formerly Undrafted, Situational Pass Rusher Signed to an $18 Million Contract
Is actually 33% off? 12.6 – 18 million.
Should he collect the full 18 million, it would mean the oft injured, formerly un-drafted portion was irrelevant. Should he suck, it wouldn’t be anywhere near 18 million.
I normally think you ride a fairly pragmatic line John, but this seems a bit to sensationalistic.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
John, that is one of the things I like about your blog
You call them like you see them, and you are confident enough and don’t let your ego get in the way of admitting you (like everyone) make an occasional mistake. It just adds to your credibility.
I wouldn't call it a mistake at all...
It served it’s intended purpose (over 200 replies so far in less than a day). John’s a smart guy, and took a sharp jab at a potentially ugly deal, by creating a fairly misleading headline. It happens. It certainly isn’t the end of the world.
Actually I wouldn’t have even pointed it out except I got slightly annoyed with all the “end of mankind” talk from others revolving around the deals that have been made. John is a very influential writer in this community and I was afraid that the headline/tone of the piece was creating a mob mentality.
Very well could be a dumb set of moves in retrospect, but I just don’t see Tapp, or 4th round picks making or breaking the team. Pick Taylor Mays at #6 and were talking a different story.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Thats not entirely fair
The contract was reported by ESPN to be worth 18.5 million. If you follow that link it says this about Clemons’ contract:
The Eagles have signed free-agent defensive end Chris Clemons to a five-year contract. ESPN.com’s Len Pasquarelli reports that the deal is worth $18.5 million.
You’re right that there are different scenarios that could lead to him earning less than the full value of the contract but that doesn’t mean the headline is intentionally misleading.
As far as that number leading to replies, check the other threads since the Tapp trade. They’re all in the hundreds of comments, the first of which is over 1,700.
That headline is as misleading as the media quoting Burleson's contract as 49m
Not in dollars but in sense. Unless I’m missing something, Clemons counts all of 2.1m against the cap in 2010. If he sucks or is injured, that will be his only year. If he’s good enough to keep then we will have gotten a serviceable player and whatever the 4th becomes in exchange for your folk hero Tapp.
With all due respect (I say that sincerely): a headline that inaccurate and your “this team is going down the toilet” caption just further darkens the mood around here. Not only are Carroll and Schneider idiots who are fucking everything up, but anyone who doesn’t share that absolutism is beat over the head with it. It’s a toxic atmosphere.
by lemonverbena on Mar 18, 2010 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Nate... I think we aren't going to see eye to eye today...
For you to say this…
there are different scenarios that could lead to him earning less than the full value of the contract but that doesn’t mean the headline is intentionally misleading.
Is misleading in and of itself. There aren’t scenarios that lead to him earning LESS than 18 million…. There are scenarios that lead to him earning MORE than 12.6. There is a big difference in this phraseology.
Also, there is no way John takes Len Pasquarelli word for it. He even did the long-hand math in his write up.
Besides, John already admitted it was a fair critique and got past it. Why can’t you.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Saying the number isn't accurate and saying the number is intentionally misleading are different things.
I had no problem with your first comment but I thought you took your second one too far. But whatever, this isn’t really my issue.
Well... hell
It got me to look (insert annoying smiley face of your choosing here)
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
This is alot of bold moves
the past couple of days for a bunch of people who have yet to prove themselves in the NFL…
It depends on how they work out
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions
I am not saying I am optimistic that they will
It is like the Belichick 4th down play, if it worked he would have been a genius, if it doesn’t he’s losing his touch.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions
That is not true though.
The decision must be evaluated before the outcome, not from the outcome backwards. This is a classic blunder in logic. It is what convinces drunken drivers they are ok to drive, because they have never had a problem before. Surviving a stupid decision does not make that decision less stupid, nor does having a smart decision blow up make that decision less smart.
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
So, I take it you disagree with this school of thought?
2) Each trade should be evaluated on the results of the trade. If a trade looks like it’s an amazing rip-off, even if at the time everyone acknowledges it as such, but the victim turns out the winner due to unforseen circumstances, the victim’s still the victor.
I do, because it is not repeatable and smacks of dumb luck
The race doesn’t always go to the swift and the strong, but you will lose money consistently betting against them. In other words, I personally value a repeatable, methodical, analytical process, with an occasional high risk, high return gamble. As an example “gamble”, I don’t necessarily dislike picking up Whitehurst (although the deal seemed somewhat needlessly expensive), but am puzzled if you are going to gamble like that, why only sign him for two years?
That whole school of thought leans on a faulty premise
which is that there is a generally accepted objective measure of a player’s value. In baseball there is one – WAR. In football, it’s nothing but subjective opinions.
For draft picks, there is the value board which, although imperfect, is at least objective.
But for players like Clemons and Tapp, there is not reliable objective measure.
by A-Dog on Mar 18, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
also dumb lock can impose itself on your team with injuries
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Agreed-- seems like we've had more than our share of bad luck the past few years
For example, I feel like drafting Tubbs was a good move. The fact that his career ended much too early was misfortune that doesn’t invalidate choosing him. (Unless it could be reasonably determined at draft time that he was prone to such devastating injury).
Over time, a good process will succeed, over time, a bad process will fail. Statistics says that in the meantime, anything can happen due to entropy and chance.
similar discussions have happened re:Branch also
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, another good example
Another deal that “went south” in a somewhat surprising way due to some pretty horrific injury luck. Although in the Branch case, I did feel the price was too rich (1st round) even if he hadn’t gotten injured. But the deal as a whole didn’t seem that crazy at the time to me because we were a superbowl contender, and were so close it could be justified. It remains an enigma to me that Deion and Matt have never developed better chemistry.
I guess your defending the Tapp trade at this point then is pointless
…as you feel there is no reliable objective measure of value; all just subjective opinions. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, as I feel process matters, not just results.
it's not pointless to defend or attack it
as long as people realize they’re basing their view on an opinion. I just don’t like this baseball analogy because football players cannot be statistically analyzed as effectively as baseball players can.
and I may as well state up front that I’m not a fan of Darryl Tapp and I feel like improving at his position should be one of the biggest priorities of the offseason.
I don't concede that talent evaluation is 100% subjective, but clearly you must agree that there is more to deals
…than talent evaluation. Including timing, sequence, method of “shopping” a player, leaks to the media, deal negotiation with other teams, gamemanship, discipline (e.g. walking away from a bad deal), contract negotiation (size, length, structure, bonus). The current FO seems “challenged” in these areas. Again, call it subjective, but “experts” and football boards across the NFL are currently laughing at our management. Go over to Sando’s site at ESPN or somewhere if you don’t believe me.
When people here talk about process issues with the FO, they mean all of the above, not just talent evaluation. For example, getting rid of Grant prior to the draft weakens are position relative to Berry, Thomas, Mays, etc. This has nothing to do with talent evaluation.
And to beat a dead horse, we have not improved our defensive line by getting rid of Darryl Tapp, even if Curry plays the “elephant”, as depth, talent and youth are crucial to a crappy team trying to rebuild and get better over time. Unless you honestly feel Chris Clemons is an upgrade and that his relative age doesn’t matter in the context of our rebuilding phase.
but what makes you think
that Carroll and Schneider have botched the process? Because of the return they got in the trades? Because the media thinks they’re bad deals?
You’re right, Darryl Tapp isn’t exactly addition by subtraction. Even if Curry is the starter, Tapp could certainly be a useful rotation player and/or depth. But you’re ignoring the 4th round pick we got in the trade (in a deep draft), and you’re ignoring the contract we’d have to pay him.
Yes and yes, and timing/sequence has been a curious thing
Again, getting rid of Grant prior to the draft weakens are position relative to Berry, Thomas, Mays, etc.
Getting rid of Seneca prior to obtaining Whitehurst weakens our position. (The reverse is true as well, but we only got a 7th rounder for Seneca so it didn’t matter so much)
I am no salary cap expert, but with Jones on his way out, Kearney, Cole and others (perhaps Hasselbeck, for that matter) might be a better place to start cutting. Of course there is always the school of thought that as long as you are comfortably under the cap, you have an owner that could buy half of the NFL… :) In any case, salary is one of the better arguments I have heard for dealing Tapp, but I feel there is a long line of questionably productive vets that should be ahead of him. It is quite unlikely we are preparing for a realistic superbowl run, so all veterans should be fair game in the ruthless quest to rebuild and get respectable again over time.
The odds of a 4th rounder contributing in a meaningful way (objective statistics!) are low, AFAIK, but I am willing to be educated if you have data to the contrary.
Regarding other details of process issues, they are all over the board if you read the past few days of postings.
I agree, the Grant thing is puzzling
unless there is a roster bonus or something like that involved that we don’t know about.
But consider that we don’t know all the information. Maybe it’s a smokescreen? Maybe they want to draft Clausen and want a team like Cleveland to hold off on trading up for him by making them think we’re going to draft Berry at #6. Or maybe they want to deepen the market at S by throwing Grant out there, potentially removing a FA competitor. Assuming the process has been botched is nothing but conjecture.
And again, your personal valuation of Tapp and the resulting conclusion that we got less than he was worth is are not truths, they are opinions. The same goes for the media’s “opinions” that I often find to be disingenuous and inflammatory.
I personally believe we got what Tapp was worth. I believe way may have very slightly overpaid for Whitehurst (relative to the 3rd rounder that Arizona was set to give up for him), but not to a substantial degree.
We may have Grant coming back too
if we cut him don’t we get to keep the money, I haven’t heard about a lot of people rushing to bring him in.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 19, 2010 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree 100%
Yes to evaluate a trade way after the fact is generally being a Tuesday morning QB. Injuries happen and people seem to forget all the injuries we had at the worst spots. You cannot judge things based on the W/L record alone. Almost all of Ruskell’s moves made good sense at the time they were made regardless if a player was injured after the fact or not. The Tapp and Whitehurst moves made no sense, not because their abilities or talent as a player but because we settled and worked from a position of weakness not strength. Do not be surprised to see Tapp have a very good season.
My adjusted day-planner for Sunday, Sept 12, 2010
looks something like this:
1. rent following movies: Titanic, P.S. I Love You, Bridget Jones’s Diary
2. buy bottle of wine – make that two
3. invite girlfriend over
4. watch movies
5. get drunk
6. cry
7. keep drinking
8. cry some more
At least I’ll earn some serious relationship points out of this mess.
by John Edwards on Mar 18, 2010 5:51 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I'll still watch, I may enjoy the beautiful sunny Sundays that we get in Oregon in September
may not order the Sunday ticket and hope shudder the thought that we don’t have a few Cardinals games on instead of Seahawks games.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah I'm still gonna watch, too.
I’m just doing my best to take advantage of, and even enjoy, the drama of the moment. Come regular season I’ll still throw on the old blue/green, dream of playoff games and do a little Sunday butt-dusting on the couch.
by John Edwards on Mar 18, 2010 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions
being a fan from Oregon
I may not shell out the money for tickets and a baby sitters, etc. this year
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Does this include Rielle Hunter?
…
…
I’m sure you get that all the time.
by Wilder. on Mar 18, 2010 7:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The bad part is, Ruskell added enough talent through the draft, and much of it should be maturing
so Seattle very well could improve this year, while Carroll and Schneider puts the franchise back another five.
The hardest part is that we've identified the disease but are helpless to stop it.
I made a mental list of things they could do to further ruin the present and future of this team and just dread the eventuality.
Im just gonna have to wait
and see what the Hawks do in the draft, and how this next season turns out before i get ready to choke somebody. Im sure Housh is already calling Whitehurst 20 times a day letting him know he’s open.
by Brian Ladd on Mar 18, 2010 6:01 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Hehe -- another ray of sunshine on a dark cloudy day
Maybe Housh should be calling Brandon Marshall because he needs someone else to draw the double team so he can get open.
Hilarious!
Im sure Housh is already calling Whitehurst 20 times a day letting him know he’s open.
That or Housh thinks everyone should already know he’s always open – it’s a given.
as long as he's not telling people
how great we will be this year.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 19, 2010 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Is it unreasonable to think
that if Clemons remained healthy all season, he could have a 2007-like season, or better?
Yes.
20 tackles and 8 sacks? That suggests the sacks were purely luck, him showing up after the defense had already flushed a QB. 20 tackles is incredibly low, he must have been getting knocked out of plays constantly. And when he happened to get in on a tackle, it was a sack. That’s luck.
Now with more lemon bars!
It means he barely took the field and when he did, he had one job.
And I do not think that 240 pound guys that can rush the passer are exceptionally hard to find.
Or that I guess.
Either way, it’s not impressive. His only contribution was sacks. And that suggests to me that he wasn’t do anything to create sacks for his team, just cashing in on other player’s work. And that’s easy to find.
Now with more lemon bars!
I don't think that indicates the sacks were luck
I think it just means he played mostly on passing downs
Agree
There are a number of good players that rack up sacks and not tackles. Freeney had 13.5 sacks with only 24 tackles last year. Umenyiora and Greg Ellis had similar-type numbers.
Yes, it means Clemons is a situational pass rusher.
And the sacks mean he had some success at the position in 2007. The question then is, how hard is it to find a situational pass rusher? I would think Seattle could probably add one as an undrafted free agent.
I think good good ones are hard to find.
The NFL places a lot of value on 3rd down, and these guys can make a big difference there. Also, I miss Rufus Porter.
5-10 sacks with limited opportunities can't be that easy to find.
or else season sack totals would be bigger than they are. Isn’t it possible or even likely that he could be good at what he does, when he’s healthy enough to do it?
I think it is
The list of players that can hit Clemons career norms is long and undistinguished. We shouldn’t assume one season that is completely different than the others represents a skills breakout. He is what he always has been, a middling situational pass rusher, and his skill set is among the most common in the NFL.
That's not what I'm assuming
I’m mostly wondering if Clemons 1) stayed healthy for a full season and, 2) was used like he was in Oakland, could he duplicate that kind of season?
Probably not
Just like signing a great rusher, the stats do not accurately reflect the player. Seattle gets Clemons, not the surprisingly good 2007 Raiders pass defense. Without Nnamdi shutting down the number one wide receiver, then maybe the quarterback doesn’t double clutch, instead of Kirk Morrison shutting down the middle, maybe the quarterback hits his outlet receiver, etc. Signing Clemons does not mean we can add five+ sacks to the Seahawks totals.
Which would lead me to think that his sack totals are like the RBI totals of a middle of the lineup hitter.
More a product of situation than any real indicator of talent.
For some players, the sacks will come anyway, but less of them on a worse team.
They are very similar.
Who had the most sacks for Seattle in 2009 and how many?
Kearny with 5 and a half? And we are collectively putting our noses up at 8? All luck?
Without a detailed analysis, who knows, but listen to yourselves. You give the exactly zero credit for attaining a level of sacks that exceeds the best Seahawk in 2009.
Honestly
the Seahawks DL sucked last year at pass rushing. There was very little opportunity for anyone to get any sacks. Cole more then undid all the positive contributions from Mebane, and allowed our ends to be chip blocked very easily. That’s enough to turn a would be sack into simply a QB pressure.
My point is that if you take a shitty DE and stick him next to a great line, he’ll put up sacks simply because the line will give him lots of opportunities. A great DE will put up terrible numbers next to a line that isn’t helping him. Since Clemons put up decent numbers in only one year of his entire career, I suspect that year was more a product of his line then anything else.
Now with more lemon bars!
That's exactly why I hope McCoy falls to us
I think the only way I’d be happy at #6 is either one of the top two DT’s or one of the top two QB’s
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 9:47 PM PDT up reply actions
That's exactly why I think we should trade up for McCoy
He’s worth it. Perfect synergy between value and need.
We have nothing to trade with anymore.
Our third next year is gone. We already traded back in the 2nd. Giving up our 2nd means we don’t pick again until the 4th round, which means we miss 2 1/2 rounds of picks. We have no ammunition left.
Now with more lemon bars!
#6, our 2nd rounder and a 4th rounder for McCoy
and then we take Charles Brown at #14. If we come out of this draft with McCoy and Brown (and whatever we get in rounds 4-7) I’m happy as a clam.
but now we have major holes at safety and DE
that will need to be addressed.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions
DE becomes the Elephant position which is filled by Curry
hopefully we can find a safety through free agency
so is this new system supposed to have to DE's on the end?
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Curry - McCoy - Mebane - Jackson
That’s what the front four will look like. Curry is essentially a DE but he may play out of a two point stance, like a linebacker does.
so it's different than a 4 -3 under?
does that mean we have Hawthorne, Tatupu, and Hill in the LB spots?
That’s pretty bad ass.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I also like that you included McCoy
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:40 PM PDT up reply actions
It's essentially the same as a 4-3 under but the DE stands up
and yeah, Hawthorne takes Curry’s old spot.
Not to rehash the Tapp issue
If this is the system we are going to – is this a role Tapp could have filled? I loved the guy and I really wish we had gotten more for him.
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 18, 2010 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't know for a fact that we are going to this system
but Carroll has openly discussed the possibility of doing so.
But to answer your question, Tapp could certainly play the position. My theory is that 1) they have a ton invested in Aaron Curry and they needed to maximize his talent – and unfortunately that means giving him Tapp’s old job, and 2) Tapp doesn’t have the athletic traits that Carroll thinks are critical to the role
That's my thoughts as well.
Also, that had they kept Tapp around, they weren’t going to commit the money he is worth to keep him around as a “situational pass rusher” as he would turn out to be, and instead got something out of him now…even at a discount.
This assumes that Curry will receive almost every snap at Elephant
which is a huge burden. It also assumes Curry will take to the position, a position he has never played, because otherwise Seattle is simply short an end. And finally, it assumes Seattle’s linebackers, two of whom, Hill and Tatupu are expensive and have suffered multiple injuries, will stay healthy, because with Hawthorne pressed into action, the Seahawks suddenly have almost no depth.
I can’t think of anything about Curry playing Elephant that would justify Seattle selling low on Tapp. If Seattle still had a young end, it would be better able to weather injury or the possibility that Curry does not take to the position.
Your right about selling low on Tapp...
which leads me to believe (and worries me at the same time) that Seattle could be zeroing in on a DE in the draft as well.
It just seems like such a finite move when there didn’t need to be one.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I hate that
simply because it leaves us with no late round flyers with a decent chance to work. The beauty if the 2nd round is that the players are dirt cheap but generally pretty talented. The third and 4th round are dirt cheap, with a lot less talent. But they at least have a marginal shot at being good. Giving up our 2nd rounder hurts almost as bad as losing a late first round would in my opinion. And the 4th hurts simply because we are in a position where we need to take flyers on people and hope they work. Giving up all those picks leaves us simply with the two first round picks, and if one of them fails the whole draft was a huge failure.
Now with more lemon bars!
True, we give up quality for quantity
But a player like McCoy, with the glaring need that we have at his position, is worth it in my opinion. We need impact players.
We’ve had success trading up in the draft before – Curt Warner, Cortez Kennedy, Walter Jones.
Is definitely more risky putting all your eggs in one basket, but having another first rounder balances out the risk a little.
We have a bunch of glaring needs is the biggest problem.
Franchises arn’t built off 1st round picks. They are built off 1st round picks not failing and good 2-4th round picks. That and an awesome QB (which we don’t have, and even if Whitehurst works out he’ll still only be good for 2-3 years tops before age kicks in). Also, that process usually takes a good 3-4 years before the initial talent hits its stride age and skills wise.
And please don’t bring up past trade ups. They arn’t relevant simply because it was a totally different administration. Carroll and Schneider had no hand in Curt Warner, Kennedy, or Walter Jones. That’s like saying we should never take a 1st round QB because Mirer failed.
Now with more lemon bars!
I'd rather have one super impact player
than two decent ones. Yes we have a lot of holes, but a) we don’t have to fill them all through the draft, and b) we don’t have to go from the cellar to the superbowl in one year.
What?
We’re talking about moving up a couple spots in the 1st round. The #6 pick is delivering elite talent no matter what. The question is the price we pay to get an elite talent that we prefer (McCoy). If that cost is a 2nd round pick, 2nd round picks consistently turn into good players, and there are a lot of pro bowlers that come out of the 2nd round. There’s a big drop off once you hit the 3rd and 4th rounds, but that 2nd round pick is the killer for me. If it cost us a 4th to move up to get McCoy, I probably wouldn’t mind too much. But throwing in a 2nd (which is quite likely will take) is a huge cost.
Now with more lemon bars!
There is a big dropoff after Suh and McCoy
and 2nd round picks are far from guaranteed to pan out. It’s a big cost, but worth it IMO. That’s just where we’re gonna disagree.
There's a big drop off at DT.
But we have a ton of other needs. QB, LT, DE, S, CB, WR.
Now with more lemon bars!
Exactly. We began this offseason with more holes than picks
While I would be happier with McCoy than any other single prospect in this draft, I feel we would be better served trading down and netting more talent in the top 3 rounds. Really, even the top 5 rounds look good this year.
The 2009 Pass Rush
Yes it did suck but the reason was more from a poor scheme rather than lack of talent. It is a little hard for a 3 and 4 man pass rush to be effective on a regular basis vs 6 blockers. That is just common sense!
He could be a situational pass rusher and give us 5 to 10 sacks
but those gaudy numbers do not accurately reflect his real value, nor is it particularly hard to find a situational pass rusher.
Seems we should have tried a little harder
to find one last year then.
That did not fit the scheme
Seattle wanted to consistently create pressure with its front four. It had few situational players.
I'm just saying
We had situations where we could have used a sack. So a situational pass rusher might have been nice.
I think everyone envisioned Curry would pick up the slack
since he replaced Peterson and Peterson was a great situational end.
I might be alone
But I never saw Curry as a pass rusher. He needs to work on his inside rush, and maybe a swim move. Love his outside burst though.
He's not there yet
but I see promise. He seems to be way more effective playing up on the line and moving forwards.
You MUST be talking about that stud on the right.
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
The Arizona Cardinals' plan for success:
-Lose all talent on team to retirement and free agency.
-Call it a day.
by Wayward Llama on Mar 19, 2010 5:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Did you know he can play the guitar?
At least we aren't the Raiders?
by Generzal Zod on Mar 19, 2010 6:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Just frustrated
With our pass rush last year. The front office either screwed the pooch with evaluating our talent last year, or the coaching staff severely underutilized them.
Well, Cole hurt a lot
and putting Redding at end did not help, but moreover, we can only expect so much from young players like Jackson and Tapp.
Curry - Mebane - McCoy - Jackson
I’d like to see how that front four would work
I would love that
McCoy has a terrific pass rush arsenal.
Redding at end
was baffling. He had success at tackle, and we had a clear need there.
I don't see how the scheme precludes having a sitational rusher
Other than the mixed down player needing to be a good pass rusher too
And Tapp didn't
Hate to say it, and maybe Tapp becomes a sack specialist, but I’m still not sold. I’ve actually always thought he was better against the rush then the pass.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I either suck at reading
or that headline is misleading. I thought we had extended him! Based on his cap numbers, I don’t think he adds anything significant to our team. If he had a monster year (unlikely), we’d have him cheap next year at least.
If it doesn't make sense, it's probably a bad idea
If an organization makes a lots of decisions that don’t make sense, the leadership is probably bad.
I hope these guidelines are wrong in this case.
Seahawks-4-Life
Ah hah, didn't know that.
And Schneider and Whitehurst were born in the same hospital. It all comes down to connections.
by B.B.Finnegan on Mar 18, 2010 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions
It wasn't a straight up trade
Clemons was a throw in; the 4th rounder was the meat of the trade. That said, in terms of speed, Clemons is faster, if you’re going by 40-times.
I don't think getting Clemons is why they gave up Tapp
I think they decided to go with Curry over Tapp (better fits their ideal for the position, and they have a long-term investment in him), and then they got what they could for Tapp in a trade rather than sticking him on the bench for a year and then letting him go in free agency.
By the way that UW - Marquette game was awesome
Pondexter with the winner
I have to think they shopped him around plenty
and that’s all they could get. It makes perfect sense to me but I don’t value Tapp nearly as much as the majority of people here.
Seems like both could have a place.
Seifert rotated his elephant linebackers. Are we sure Seattle is committed to running a Seifert style 3-4?
Caroll talked about it on KJR after he was introduced
Playing with 3-4 personnel (in a 4-3 scheme), having an ‘elephant’ role, and specifically having Curry in that role, rushing the passer 80% of the time.
I seem to recall that conversation being more of a discussion of different roles Curry could hypothetically play
Not any firm commitment to a defensive change like that.
Correct - there was no firm commitment
but it seems like that’s the direction they’re moving in. We’ll know for sure after the draft.
That's not how I heard it at all
He was talking about dramatically changing the way Curry is utilized
Theoretically they could
but my guess is Carroll didn’t feel Tapp had the speed/explosion necessary. Also, he probably didn’t want to invest the money to re-sign Tapp longer-term to play the same position as Curry with Curry already making a ton of money.
Carroll hasn’t fully committed to a scheme, but he has talked about different possibilities they might consider. Trading Tapp makes me think they are considering it more strongly.
Wait a minute - is that Clemons in the picture? The short white guy?
Oh man, you guys are right – we are totally screwed.
Like a lot of contracts....
this one will either be re-structured or terminated before it gets expensive, unless the base salary is vastly different than the cap hit, whereas the signing bonus gets spread over the life of the contract.
Yeah, I am resigned to the fact that Clemons was a throw in, and the trade was for the fourth.
It would not surprise me if Clemons is injured and terminated before the regular season.
I am in a real tough place as a fan
I never root against the Seahawks, and therefor want more than anything for Carroll and Schneider to turn this around. I mean, though the trend is bad, Seattle has not yet done anything irreversible. But at the same time, I worry that if Carroll continues to screw up, but the team begins to win again, the franchise could be screwed badly and for years. It’s like, what I am really rooting for is evidence of good leadership, because I think good leadership is the only path to winning a Super Bowl. Almost any coach can blunder into the playoffs.
Understood. I hope by the time pre-season rolls around...
…all of us are collectively impressed with the some total of roster moves/draft.
And of course we win games for the right reasons, with a sustainable personnel strategy.
I'm terrified. If I knew the stupidity would stop here, I could live.
It’s not likely to happen. Flawed decisions come from flawed decision-making and that’s not something that will go away.
Carroll will probably make enough moves to assure everyone that this team won't be winning again for a while.
Which, in essence, still leads to your next point about the franchise being screwed badly for years.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I wouldn't be surprised if Carroll makes better use of talent, uses better schemes, and is a better "game/adjustment" coach
…than the Mora (and Holmgren) regimes. Thus, he could get more wins even while they are screwing up the FA market and draft. Also, if the injury bug magically leaves Seattle, having some continuity could also contribute to a few more wins. In hindsight, Ruskell was pretty snakebitten by two years of terrible injury luck, coupled with Mora inexplicably losing the team (e.g. publicly calling out Mare and Spencer)
This is why you should just go ahead and pursue
that national coverage idea you had. Seriously, your talent is being wasted by this crap. You got a lot of responses, but mine was, don’t water it down to increase the coverage. Just widen the scope to the entire league and produce what you can at the quality that has defined you.
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Q-Pon bitches.
You think we can trade him to Dallas for Bobby Carpenter and a 5th round pick?
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I guess Carroll (and his yes-man Schneider)
Believe that an oft-injured player fits our scheme perfectly.
This is only going to get worse and there’s nothing that can be done to stop this. It’s not going to ruin this season, it’s just going to really damage the future of this team. What an indefensible decision by Carroll.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
OF COURSE!
They aren’t changing the scheme, it’s the same scheme we’ve been running for two years now: injured players.
Man, come on now. I think I picked on you in another thread for this.
Criticize them all you want, but I’m sure they don’t literally believe oft-injured players are the way to go. Make it substantive and accurate. This is just pissing and moaning.
Same thing for “this is only going to get worse” — you don’t know what’s going to happen tomorrow. Again, criticize the moves or the apparent strategy, but talk sense and stop reading tarot cards.
Damn it, reply fail.
I’ll do it for you…Sev you idiot, if you’re gonna call someone out for talking BS, at least reply to their actual post!" Yessir, will try to do better sir.
It's a joke.
You see the Seahawks have had a lot of injuries as of late so I figured….you know….
I’ll get my coat. Try the veal.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
If it wasn't for the fact that two of the three men in the picture were clearly past their playing age
I would not be able to tell which is the player and which are the executives.
by Gihyou on Mar 18, 2010 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
For some reason I thought that was Chris Clemons in the middle
And thought we had been fleeced for sure.
Unless Chris Clemons has recently suffered from a skin pigmentation disorder I'm pretty sure that's John Schneider
by BrianL on Mar 18, 2010 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I temporarily forgot he was black
Also, insert joke about Carroll and co. inserting tiny white guys at DE because they aren’t very good at this team-building thing.
You know, this actually reminds me of Mora last year
It seemed like FGs turned on Mora so quickly that we must be rash, but I think it was more like, we did not know much about Mora, and now all we know about Mora is negative. The sample is still really small, but it would be nice to have at least one move to provide hope. An Adrian Beltre signing, if you will.
I feel the same way
At first I wanted to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, to assume they had a grander scheme at hand. But there comes a point where you just have to call a spade a spade, and admit they have no idea what they’re doing.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Wait until September.
That’s probably the last sign of hope/pitchforks.
"BANG!" - Jim Lampley's first word as a child
I think the draft is an important benchmark
this looks pretty grim but I still want to see Carroll go to work there. It’s….conceivable, that’s his talent and we’ll have to endure questionable trades/FA signings in return for a 6-10 win season.
/optimist.
Yeah, I was one of the ones when Carroll was hired saying give the guy a chance before you start crying...
…but his chance ain’t gonna last very long if things keep going this way. Hopefully he hears the baffled voices in the fanbase and the laughter from our rivals and gets his head on straight. The thing you need with a guy like Carroll is a strong counterweight to enthusiasm, and it doesn’t look like anyone is playing that role.
Well, the fears of Carroll are coming true...
A college coach (success-wise) being named (pseudo) president of a NFL team. First under valuing NFL talent (Wallace, Tapp, Sims) or over valuing a player’s ability based on college valuation (Whitehurst). Result; on the losing end of trades. Then who know what on the field…
Hopefully, with the foundation of an Alex Gibbs offense and the luck of two high first round draft picks will overcome any other Carroll shortcomings. Also, if this is any consolation, Holmgren isn’t exactly doing that much better personnel wise in Cleveland.
There's still that Alex Gibbs signing.
Retaining Quinn & Bradley.
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I really wish Leiweke cared about football
or that Paul Allen had the balls to fire him.
If the Carroll regime fails then Leiweke goes with him. Guaranteed.
Paul Allen handed him the reins during this hiring process. If he screwed up as badly as we feared then there’s no doubt he gets his walking papers the same day Carroll/Schneider do.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
It was my understanding that Allen wanted Carroll because he wanted to make a splash.
I know Leiweke has said that it was Allen’s decision to fire Mora.
he won't fire himself
right or wrong Leiweke will be the fall guy if Allen starts cleaning house.
by Hancock.Brett on Mar 18, 2010 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Is it bad that I still like Pete Carroll?
For some reason, I like the guy. I don’t know where this ride is going, but what the hell.
I look forward to watching him on the sidelines
He just has no business having any say in personnel decisions.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
I find him likable as well and expect he will prove to be a better coach than Mora and Holmgren
…but I am quite disappointed with the personnel moves by the regime to date.
Also, if the Sims lockout rumor is true, then he loses a lot of my respect as a leader, as that lacks class and respect.
I think that is down to some trading rule technicality.
It might be that they had no choice. I’m surprised that ever since that rumor surfaced, that nothing has happened since.
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 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I like Pete Carroll the personality and maybe even Pete Carroll the head coach (we'll see about that).
Pete Carroll the puppet-master is taking years off of my life.
It reeks of early Holmgren
Clearing house to get his guys.
by John Morgan on Mar 18, 2010 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions
I couldnt be anymore disappointed with the new administration.
Regardless of how well these players develop, as a general manger the determination of your successes and failures are measured by your manipulations of the incoming and outgoing players’ values. And thus far this new administration, in my mind, has failed miserably, both in the receipt and the expense of the teams value. It’s not even April and I’m already looking forward to the offseason of 2012.
I think a GM is mostly measured on his ability to evaluate talent
and we won’t know the verdict on Carroll/Schneider until we see these players on the field.
Agree 100%
Fans expecting immediate gratification isn’t a surprise, but I didn’t expect to see so much of it on this site.
Certainly.
An evaluation of talent is inherent in their treatment of the players as commodities, currency. What are they getting in exchange for what they are giving? It would seem they are receiving little to nothing in exchange for virtually nothing. Seneca was a formidable backup who was capable of earning a split over a short stretch of games. Tapp was arguably Seattles best pass rusher. Whitehurst is unproven. What have we gained for their exchange? It would appear to me that the Carroll administration is already operating from a deficit, leaving the team worse off than when they began.
by g0dluvsugly on Mar 18, 2010 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions
"little to nothing in exchange for nothing" - sounds like a fair trade
just kidding
the problem here is that you place a higher value on Tapp than Carroll and Schneider do, and you place a lower value than they do on Whitehurst. Who’s to say you are right and they are wrong?
This how they will be judged – if they are good evaluators of talent they will come out ahead in these moves.
Seneca proved he was anything but formidable this past season
He has some value to Cleveland because he knows the offense they will be implementing this year. If Holmgren was not in the league I would be surprised if we got anything for him.
Seneca was a slow learner
And I’m not saying that to be mean…he admitted it himself, and the Seahawks had him taking classes a few years ago to help with it. Judging by last year’s performance, I’m dubious that they had an effect. But it was going to be tough for him to learn another new system, and his transition to Cleveland will probably be easier.
Still think they should have gotten at least a 6th-rounder for him, however, up to a conditional 4th if he became their starter.
That is a very good point.
Doesn’t make the bad moves less bad, but thank you for the perspective.
by jacobstevens on Mar 19, 2010 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions
"suffered a lucky injury"
I enjoy reading your thoughts most of the time, but this sort of jab is just mean spirited and unnecessary IMO.
I concur with this meaning
A young player who is unlikely to make the final roster actually benefits from being able to go on Injured Reserve and spend the year rehabbing and then training at the team facilities, on the team payroll.
Reading these overly emotional rants and hyperbole laced tirades is disheartening.
Mr. Morgan,
Do you really want to lump Tubbs in with other first round busts. Do you really believe Tubbs was a mistake as a draft selection?
He wasn't exactly a mistake.
But he was a bust. Even if it wasn’t his fault, or the Seahawks fault. It just happens sometimes. Some players just get betrayed by their bodies. It sucks, but every franchise needs to take that into account so they arn’t screwed if a player they need has that problem.
Now with more lemon bars!
Precisely.
It wasn’t anyone’s fault that Tubbs’ body betrayed him, but that was another big blow to the core of players that wound up costing Ruskell his job.
I thought that was a nice simple review of Collins career so far, seemingly contrary to some other opinions. So be it, we're all entitled to our own.
The probablility for failure of the players coming in scares me. Whitehurst and Collins could be decent to good, but there’s a greater chance they aren’t. We’ll see.
Oh, and your translation of Collins reason for entering the draft did make me chuckle.
One thing I've considered is the salary implications of keeping Tapp.
What kind of contract numbers would Tapp have commanded as a FA next year (CBA yes)? Although we haven’t yet shed a few of the more huge contracts, those are likely not players we could get picks for in return (Walt, Kerney, Hass) due to obvious reasons (age, injury). Wouldn’t the team have more leverage in dealing a DE with another one still on the roster? Tapp was a fairly situational pass-rusher in his own right. Though I’ll miss him and do think we could have gotten more, it’s conceivable Clemons can produce what Tapp did or with a slight downgrade in impact. Plus, we’re not shelling out for a monster deal for Tapp, who has not produced like he would be paid. That 4th could turn into a starting offensive lineman from what we seem to think of Gibbs.
I sense that the team is readying to take a step back, drop/lose a considerable amount of salary knowing we aren’t making a playoff run just yet with this team. They are preparing to remake, reshape, and reload mainly via the draft. They avoided spending picks this year at the most important position and have thus far spent what would normally be cap-room/cash on any huge contracts. That could be holding out for Marshall, I don’t know.
I can’t co-sign any of the moves other than the QB we added so far, really. But, one thing is becoming clear: they are reshaping this team into something different. Our team was abysmal in most areas last year. I think there are many of us simply overvaluing our players’ worth. Our offensive line was TERRIBLE, and I do consider other factors, but at what point do we look at players winning their matchups – beating the guy in front of him? Sims, Spencer, Locklear have seen the field enough to get a gauge of how good they are. They are just not as good as fans think. How can we say with a straight face that any lineman was really all that good? Our secondary was also terrible. Grant gone. Lucas gone.
When a team is as bad as ours changes need to be made. Probably more changes to more players than we would like. We haven’t seen the fruits of many changes, yet. I’m holding out hope that the 4th turns into something. I’m holding out hope we field a mostly new offensive line. I’m holding out hope we have a smart, calculated influx of talent obtained through the draft. It sucks to lose players we’re attached to, but the facts will probably be that most of this roster gets turned over before we threaten a playoff run again. Nothing has knocked my socks off, yet, but I’m not waving the white flag in March.
I appreciate the positive attitude
Besides the process issues (see thread above), perhaps people are just seeing players exiting, but not yet seeing better players coming in (Whitehurst possibly excepted). I am placing my hope at this point on a good draft, good coaching, and a turn for the better in our luck (e.g. injuries), but have generally lost faith in the FO in terms of wheeling and dealing in free agency.
I agree with most of this.
Especially your thoughts on the OL. Sure losing those players means we have worse ones right now, but the “Gibbs players” are going to be coming in. If any one coach shows how “scheme-specific” PC is, it is Alex Gibbs. He knows what he wants at every position, and those that don’t fit are being moved out for what he can get.
I wish they were being more patient and getting better value, but sometimes the value is just not there. And sometimes a GM/Coach is being impatient and just taking what he can get right away. I have no idea which it is, but it is obvious that the team is going to start to resemble his vision right away, even if the talent is not going to be at the highest level.
When to evaluate trades and common sense issues
JOHN,You have refreshed my hope for Hawk fans! it is so refreshing to see you say a trade should be evaluated before the results are in and that Ruskell is not to blame for the mess we are in. We have only 4 players on the team that were here before Ruskell arrived -Matt, Lock, Babs, and Trufant. I appreciate discussing how Ruskell always had late picks but still provided us with good talent and such. I am sooo tired of supposed fans only seeing the W/L results and not having a clue how or why things happen as they do.
Ruskell does have to take a good portion of the blame.
Between ignoring the quarterback situation, signing Kerney and Cole and allowing Terrill to hang around and play, Brian Russell, trading up to get Deon Butler, and a habit of picking lower-ceiling but more polished players, the decline of the team is owed in large part to Ruskell.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Five unanswered preseason questions
- Preseason Confidential: Forsett and Seahawks still have concerns
- This is why we don't wear huge diamond earrings to practice
- The Shutdown Eleven: The most interesting footballers of 2010. #10: LaDainian Tomlinson
- Reports: Cardinals now want to trade Leinart; Giants interested
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.
