Matt Flynn, the Seahawks, and the NFL Rumor Mill
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 7:00 AM PST
in Seahawks News & Rumors
Email
PrintFree agent QB Matt Flynn seems to be a lightning rod when it comes to sparking conversation among not only Seahawks faithful, but all NFL fans these days. It's no surprise, given the number of teams reportedly seeking a QB this offseason, that a player like Flynn conjures up such strong opinions and generates so much discussion.
Earlier in the week, I tweeted that the Seattle Seahawks had no interest in pursuing Matt Flynn. That news received mixed reaction. Some 12's were delighted by it. Others were disappointed that the front office is in some way missing the boat on Flynn. And then there were the skeptics. "How do you know? I'm not buying it. Why isn't anyone else reporting this?", etc. That can be expected.
Now, Thursday, Green Bay Packers QB Aaron Rodgers went on ESPN Radio in Milwaukee and said, among other things, this about Flynn's potential landing spot:
So, I think you have to look at Miami obviously, Seattle. John Schneider knows Matt and he's pulling some strings up there with them.
I was immediately bombarded with tweets by 12's addressing this contradicting report. So, I wanted elaborate a little bit on the info I received, and also talk a little bit about the how the NFL media rumor mill works for those who aren't familiar with things "behind the curtain", because it's not something written about too often.
I'm not writing this to be pretentious or to stroke my own ego, so hopefully that's not the impression you get. Danny, Davis, and those around here who know me personally, will tell you how far that is from the truth. But if you're interested in this whole Matt Flynn situation you can read more after the jump.
Although I have addressed this question a few times this week, I think it's worth being addressed again. "Where did you get your info and why isn't anyone else reporting this? It sounds like nothing more than an educated guess." That's an understandable reaction and it's all part of the deal. I don't write here enough (yet) for most of you guys/gals to know me well, (especially if you aren't on Twitter, where I interact with a lot of 12's), as most of my time is invested in covering the USC and the Pac-12.
So, for reference, my info on Flynn came directly from people within the Seahawks organization. As I have shared before, I have personal relationships with members of this coaching staff and front office and through these relationships I become aware of some things going on in the organization, much of which goes unreported. The things I share in reports and stories are selective things I feel comfortable sharing/reporting.
Of course, people want names, they want more details. Unfortunately that's all I can tell you. All I can really say is that I am not gonna share something on twitter or on this site that is an unfounded rumor, and I do realize maybe that wasn't so clear earlier to some.
Ok, so the next question I've usually heard is, "Fine, then who do the Seahawks plan on acquiring as their quarterback?" Simply put, I don't know.
I do know that there is a lot of interest in Michigan State QB Kirk Cousins. I pointed this out last week and it is now well documented by many outlets after the Seahawks spent time with Cousins after Senior Bowl practices. But, nothing that was expressed to me divulged a concrete answer about specific plans. Which is why I never shared anything beyond the lack of interest in Flynn.
And I do know that the Seahawks will likely be tied to, talk to and evaluate thoroughly every QB on the market. So when reports of the Seahawks being interested in a prospect you don't like start to circulate, keep calm, it's all part of the process... maybe. More on that later.
So now, here we are a few days later, and Aaron Rodgers is "reporting" that Seahawks GM John Schneider is "pulling strings" to get Matt Flynn in Seattle.
"Wouldn't Aaron Rodgers know better than you where Flynn is going?"
That's up for you to decide. I don't know how often Flynn and Schneider have Skype dates. I just know what I was told. But, let's pull the curtain back a little bit. Some of this (perhaps all of it) you already know, some of it might be something you're hearing for the first time. Hopefully it's informative to someone, because that's really my only goal.
This time of year is FULL of lies and misdirection, and it's by design. Not just by teams, but by players, and agents too. For whatever reason, there were many reports in the '10 draft that the Seahawks were highly interested in Jimmy Clausen and that turned out to be completely false. Not sure where that started or how it made the rounds but that's just one example. Another example would be a rumor like we're hearing these days - "John Schneider is pulling strings to get Matt Flynn to Seattle," and this could have many origins, depending on who is saying it.
The most common people who plant information are agents. That's where Schefter, Mort, and the like get most of their stuff. Sometimes the agent is being honest, other times the agent is trying to generate interest in his client.
ie: "Crap, people are starting to waver on liking my client Matt Flynn, so I need to plant some rumors that teams are seriously interested him so a bidding war will start, thus getting my client and me more money." --- or something along those lines.
Sometimes players will talk up their free agent teammates too. Maybe that's the case here. But I can't say definitively.
Franchises are equally as guilty this time of year of the smoke and mirrors. This is pretty well known, but for some reason, we all seem to forget it happens. Teams seek to protect their own interests. If the Seahawks only talked to defensive ends at the Senior Bowl, and I was a team drafting behind the Seahawks who just so happened to need a DE, I might look to move ahead of them in the draft so they couldn't take the player I want.
It would all be too obvious wouldn't it? No team would ever be dumb enough to play their hand like that.
Unless of course a team couldn't find a trade partner and they were looking to trade down, or you wanted to try and force a team's hand to not take a player that you want so you decide to play that hand on purpose. In that case you'd try to manipulate a team to trade in front of you. A prime example of this is when Denver traded back in to the first round to get Tim Tebow in the 2010 NFL Draft due to fears another team would take him.
This is starting to get long winded, and I am a fat kid. It doesn't get pretty when I get the whole fat-kid-weezing thing going on.
But the point is this: There will be lots of rumors we hear in the next couple of months. Some will be true, some will be agenda-driven, and some will just be wrong. All I can do is report on the things I believe to be legitimate.
Hopefully this was somewhat informative to you.
247 comments
|
6 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Smoke and mirrors
Thanks for clarifying the rumor mill this time of year. I really love what this organization is doing and trust in their PLAN.
So to summarize...
You reported what you heard from the front office and everything we hear out of front offices this time of year may or may not be misinformation. Glad we got that cleared up.
Need an inhaler? I’ve got a few you can borrow
I think these past two years have shown us that the PCJS Regime will not leave a stone un-turned in their search for talent. That’s why it seemed ridiculous that they would have no interest in a QB who has flashed a few moments of greatness UNLESS… PCJS have already evaluated him and made up their minds. I interpreted “PCJS have no interest in Matt Flynn,” as “PCJS are not interested in evaluating Matt Flynn,” which to me seems non-sensical.
I would also like to propose, in the spirit of our HATERS GONNA HATE water walking osprey, that when someone posts content which seems patently absurd, we throw a flag on the play and post Thomas Beeker’s Green Jersey’d version of Hater Eagle from yesterday’s post.
There is a difference
Between what was shared with me as a friend, as a opposed to what is leaked to reporters.
The evaluation of Matt Flynn is complete, and there is no interest in pursuing him.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 7:26 AM PST up reply actions
And as one can conclude from this piece, that in turn doesn't mean they won't make a show of interest in Flynn
Because they have no reason not to.
I don’t think anyone (including Scott) would advocate blind faith in any NFL source. But there are still better sources, worse sources, and people who just throw shit at the wall or repost existing rumors and go “confirmed!” Lot of leeches in this industry. I can take it on good faith that Scott’s sources belong to the better one because of his specific situation, and have no reason to doubt it here because “the evaluation is completely and they have no interest” just makes sense to me from what I know of our QB/FA preferences and Matt Flynn.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 7:46 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Great point about making a show of interest in Flynn.
That is something that may be reported elsewhere as we near closer to the time free agents can be signed.
And thanks thanks for the kind words TB.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 7:52 AM PST up reply actions
sorry if I came off harsh
just wanted to emphasize that my initial BS flag was tripped by making assumption about your statement. And you know what they say about making assumptions… it makes an “ass” out of “u” and “mption”
And mainly I just want to see more of Hater Eagle.
by Crominator56 on Jan 27, 2012 8:43 AM PST up reply actions
All Good
If everyone agrees with everything 100% of the time, this would be a boring site. Got no problem with objective discussion.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 8:49 AM PST up reply actions
Outside of the obvious Packer ties,
what Rodgers did was suggest Flynn for the 2 best QB options for a FA. So we know where Flynn would like to play. Heck, we’ve also heard that Seattle is a spot that even Manning would like to land. It’s the best open QB job in the league.
I’m a little perplexed on the interest in Cousins. Why would they waste a year on TJ when they could have drafted essentially the same (and probably better) QB last year in Dalton? So have you heard of any interest in Osweiler?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Because their plan was to first get the line depth down before getting their QB.
And they may not feel like it was a waste of a year. If we had Dalton and he struggled behind a line of Polumbus and Gallery and whatever other scrubs, we would be in panic mode trying to avoid a Sam Bradford situation.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Jan 27, 2012 8:15 AM PST up reply actions
Him or Carpenter.
The line would have been better with Carpenter not on it at the start of the season. I’m pretty sure Dalton could have held up as well as TJ did for the first 8 games.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Not At All
the one thing T Jack showed especially in the first 5 games is he could take a hit.
Carpenter
Is a going to be a good linemen. People forget that he was a Rookie playing next to another Rookie with no training camp and to top it off he was transition from LT to RT. al things considered he showed moments of why he was drafted in the first round.
by Southhill Seahawk on Jan 27, 2012 10:02 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions 2 recs
He's gonna be a good lineman, yes.
And I wasn’t against the pick. But a good right tackle is nowhere near as valuable or important as a QB.
So it makes no sense to pass on a QB because he’s not the type you want and then go ahead next year and pick up a guy of the same type.
Except Cousins failed to show up for about half the games, unlike Ginger who was clutch for years every game.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
and carpenter will turn only 23 this march, he was just a wee li'l lad as a rookie
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Interest in Cousins may mean as a 1st round pick, or a 4th round pick.
and maybe their stated interest in Gabbert and Dalton last year were as 2nd or 3rd round picks…
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Simple answer: they don't think he's essentially the same as Dalton
That’s your evaluation, not theirs.
And frankly, it’s pretty silly to say they’re basically the same.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 27, 2012 3:00 PM PST up reply actions
I know they're not the same.
Dalton is/was a far superior prospect. And Cousins is still going to cost a second rounder most likely.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Eh, Dalton's a mediocre prospect. They may see something in Cousins that they didn't see in Dalton
I think Carol’s comments on Dalton around the Cincy game pretty much summed their view up about him. He’ll be an ok system quarterback, but not a franchise guy. Not a guy who’s going to win you the game when it needs won.
They might be completely wrong of course, but that was their view.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2012 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
Dalton was projected late first/early second
in QB heavy draft. Cousins has been projected 3rd-4th round in a QB light class. He’ll rise, but he’s nowhere near the prospect Dalton was.
It’s just a theory of mine, but I believe they realized that they missed on Dalton and that a guy like that can start and carry a team, and that’s why they’re interested in Cousins.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
That's about the only thing that makes any sense really.
Either that or Pete watched Dalton this year and now thinks we could win with a guy like that.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Thanks for your explanation on this subject.
I also enjoyed your podcast last week were you explained why certain QB’s would not want/ or be a good fit to play in Pete’s offense. It was a very good listen if anyone missed it.
Accuracy aside, and I agree Scott has established himself as reliable here,
assuming the FO has decided Flynn is insufficient, at what point should we be concerned about their quarterback evaluation process?
So far they’ve brought in Whitehurst and Tarvaris, two bottom-barrel passers, and let Hasselbeck walk. It’s unreasonable to deny them the benefit of the doubt completely given their consistent success at evaluating other positions, but at what point should we be concerned that they don’t know how to find quarterbacking talent?
Football Outsiders had a great take on Flynn’s performance, arguing that no QB to play such a good game has gone on to have a poor career. Flynn is going to be a player in this league, in the right system. I’m not arguing he’s going to be great, or that we should get him, just… at what point should we be nervous that this FO is simply incapable of finding a QB? Hasselbeck, Dalton, Mallett, Flynn, and others have fallen by the wayside. What positive evidence do we have?
Flynn being dismissed is no real concern to me
Nor is signing Whitehurst and Tarvaris to mid-tier contracts. Really, the only concern is draft stock we gave up for Charlie. Hasselbeck wasn’t going to last behind this line, so they got someone who is good at getting punched in the face. Good fit.
Man that Football Outsiders take gets around doesn’t it? Their argument is a non-argument because it tries to prove the specific from the general, and it ignores how many QBs who had such a good game enjoyed most of their success playing in the same system and usually the same team. It’s too easy an argument for my tastes.
Will Flynn be good in a more traditional WCO offense, like the Browns and – presumably – the Dolphins will run? Sure. Is he a talent worth changing your system and scheme that you have been gathering coaching and player talent for? Nope!
Positive evidence? Nothing.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I don't even think the draft capital used on Whitehurst is intrinsically a matter of concern.
Partly there was a bidding war, and partly the cost of trading for a QB is going to be about that. A guy who would be all-but-certain to be a backup, who you’d be pursuing for plans as a backup, would be worth less, of course, but really wouldn’t happen. You’d get a free agent or draft prospect. If there are plans to see if he can develop as a starter, that’s about the kind of cost I think is expected.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have heard this too often not to comment...
…about PC/JS’s track record with QBs.
First point, they didn’t ‘let Hasslebeck walk’. They said at the time he was their number one priority to re-sign. What they did is not overpay for his services. In my mind, that was a responsible decision.
Second point, because they didn’t overpay for Hasslebeck, and due to the lockout, they made the best possible decision in signing TJax, based on his availability, cost, and famiarity with the offense. Instead of overpaying for Kolb (another good decision) or reaching for Dalton (another good decision) or drafting a guy they didn’t like (Mallett), the made the most of the opportunities available.
Final point: people forget that CW was traded to replace Seneca Wallace as the back-up. Hasslebeck was the starter, and would remain the starter given his health and contract demands. I would assert that CW fulfilled his back-up role just fine. He was never going to be the starter (despite many of us thinking he might). He was an upgrade, in PC/JS’s mind over Wallace, and I think they were right.
If Hasslebeck had accepted Seattle’s offer, he would have been the starter in 2011, and TJax would likely not be playing. If the lockout hadn’t occurred, and Hasslebeck left the team, Leinart would likely have been the starter, given the mutual interest in the two parties, and an opportunity to go through a full camp. Would Leinart have been effective? Who knows, but TJax as an understandable option given the circumstances, an option that turned out better than many of us thought at the beginning of the season (myself being one of the foremost critics of his play).
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
by Hawksince77 on Jan 27, 2012 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I appreciate the arguments here by both you and Beekers above,
and they amount to the best available arguments that the FO’s decisionmaking on QBs has been based on circumstance rather than preference. Categorically, I agree, excepting one small point: the idea that Whitehurst was acquired as a backup. They openly stated that they intended for him to compete to start. Their actual expectations, admittedly, are unknown.
Certainly, re: Beekers, the FO article isn’t determinative, just one take, and in no way am I disagreeing with a decision not to pursue Flynn, simply stating that it’s one of many indicators of preference.
On the whole, I think we’re all on the same page. That said, nobody offered an answer to my initial question:
at what point should we be concerned about their quarterback evaluation process?
One more bad quarterback brought in? Two? Ten? I understand you’re not worried yet, and neither am I, but at what point would you be?
by pacificsands on Jan 27, 2012 9:03 AM PST up reply actions
To answer your question, not yet.
To me, this year was always the year to make the effort to get the QBotF, for many of the reasons I posted. I wanted Mallett last year – I thought he was a potential franchise guy, and of course PC/JS thought different. I trust their judgment, and believe Mallett would have had a difficult time in Seattle, whereas in NE he likely becomes a winner (based on what kind of QB they like).
Josh Portis is still a question mark. What if he turned out to be the guy (and he was)? Wouldn’t that settle the question?
What if they manage a trade for Luck or RGIII? That would do it.
What if they signed Manning for 2 years and drafted their guy in the second round? That would be something.
Point is, this is the year. I don’t think PC could/should wait for Barkley, especially given the likelyhood he goes far higher than Seattle will be drafting next year. If they ever trade up, now’s the time.
I simply can’t fault what the team has done yet at the position. They passed on Clausen – at one time a top QB guy. They couldn’t get Stafford or Bradford if they wanted to (or Cam Newton, for that matter).
As far as CW goes, yes, they wanted competition for Hass, but CW was never (and I paid close attention because I was hoping he was more than he was) considered as a starting option, from the moment he joined the team. They kept Hass (and TJax) on the field as much as possible.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
When you are worried, then you know what the point is
I’m not going to worry until they bring in a young FA or draft a guy higher than 4th round and it doesn’t work out within a year or two. So I am waiting at least another year to worry.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
When they invest heavily in a QB and name him starter.
They overpaid for Charlie, but they haven’t invested heavily in any QB in the last two years and they didn’t miss out on any opportunity that they should have jumped on. You could argue Dalton, but the Bengals weren’t a bad team around Dalton either. Not that Seattle could put a bad team around a QB in 2011, but there is no guarantee that Dalton would have done any more than Tarvaris or that we wouldn’t be looking for a new QB in three years if he never improves (like Sanchez hasn’t.)
We did however pass up on guys like Derek Anderson and Kevin Kolb, so it’s not like this front office has just made bad decisions on finding a QB. You can’t hate on them for what you disagree with and then ignore the good things that they did NOT do.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 9:40 AM PST up reply actions
The trade may have been an overpay for CW
But I still don’t think you can call it a heavy investment.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
No, it's not a heavy investment. You can pay 30% over cost for something, but if it's a pizza, who cares?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 9:43 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
The investment isn't only the money and the draft pick, it's the space on the roster.
Maybe we could have, you know, attempted to develop someone good?
Whom the Patriots snatched up right after we ditched him, so CLEARLY
We should’ve drafted Ryan Mallet.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 28, 2012 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
That's a question that'll have a different answer for everyone
Personally, I’m not seeing too many bad decisions, but more due to a lack of taking any real risks. That’s sustainable for a while, but if this off-season passes with the position still left unaddressed, I’ll probably start worrying too.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 9:59 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think the Earth is going to spin into the sun tomorrow. Or in the next 2 days. Or 10.
But when should I be worried that it’s going to happen?
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
I agree with you in that I'm nervous.
Partially because of the reasons you’ve given and partially because of Pete’s comments regarding the QB position in general.
But I’m hopeful.
by djafrot on Jan 27, 2012 8:39 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'm sorry, but did Ryan Mallett play a game and I missed it?
Why are so many people focused on the third string QB in NE? We didn’t draft him and neither did 31 other teams. In fact, the only team that did had perhaps the best QB in the league and one of the better backup QBs in the league. I just don’t get it.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
Because at one time last year prior to the draft several of us considered him a possible franchise guy, one likely to fall to Seattle.
Lots of mockers (not that that much matters) thought the same, and several had Mallett going to Seattle in the first.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
I remember and am aware of this, but as of yet there's no proof that Seattle made a wrong decision and I just don't get why people still bring him up.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 9:41 AM PST up reply actions
I see your point - yes, anyone regretting that non-pick by Seattle deserves to be questioned.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
The fact that every team passed him up and that he was taken by a team that knew he'd sit for a couple of years at minimum tells me that teams had a shitload of questions about him.
Sure, if Mallett becomes the next Matt Schaub or something, then fine – damn you Seattle! But that doesn’t even seem like a possibility on the horizon. And if he came to the Hawks this year, he would have had much less development time and maybe not worked out anyway.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 9:46 AM PST up reply actions
Just say what you want to say.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
"Sure, if Mallett becomes the next Matt Schaub or something, then fine – damn you Seattle!"
Ryan Mallett was a guy with first round talent that Seattle passed on twice. It’s not hard to see why people keep bringing him up as Seattle continues to look for a quarterback.z
So if Seattle made a mistake, then the Patriots are the only team in the NFL to have good talent evaluators at the QB position?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Not every team was as desperate for a quarterback.
Seattle is in a pinch this year because they passed on Mallett and Dalton last year. That’s why so many people are focusing on the third string QB in New England, because all of these arguments stem from them passing on guys with legitimate shots to be starting quarterbacks in last years draft.
"Not every team was as desperate for a quarterback."
New England is?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Why?
Why not Baltimore, Pittsburgh, the Giants, Eagles, Redskins, Colts, any other team?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Tom Brady is 34. They had a great opportunity to pick up a potentially elite player for little cost at the most important position.
You can say the Colts should have, and I wouldn’t disagree. Mallett is a very poor fit in Shanahan offense, far more so than Seattle. The Ravens, Steelers, Giants and to some degree the Eagles all have their quarterback situation locked up for a good while, why would they be interested in a quarterback that high?
by Nate Dogg on Jan 27, 2012 10:38 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Brian Hoyer is also a pretty solid backup and they knew they were probably drafting a third-string QB in the third round.
It’s a risky move which does make it a perfectly normal Belicheck move. I don’t really think they saw him as the future QB of the Patriots, as much as they saw him as a future trade chip. Apparently, they did have them as their top rated QB (over Cam Newton though? Maybe for their system.) but I would not personally think that Brady has less than three years left. That’s just my humble opinion.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
Fair to say that Mallett's ceiling is far higher than Hoyer's though, wouldn't you agree?
I think the pick was virtually a no-brainer and I can’t believe Mallett fell that far. Also, the Patriots’ 3rd round pick is like their sixth pick in most drafts, right?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Digression, but 31 teams also passed on Brady, and the Patriots picked him.
Anything anyone says about Mallet right now is conclusory, but don’t dismiss him just because he as passed on.
by pacificsands on Jan 27, 2012 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
What the heck is 1st-round talent?
Does it mean being drafted in the 1st? Or does it mean that some people (but not 32 FOs) think he should have been?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Come on, this is a pretty silly argument to pick.
First round talent doesn’t need an explanation. Every year guys with first round talent fall out of the first round because of various issues. Bowers was another guy with top ten talent but big question marks. What’s frustrating about Mallett is that Seattle had the opportunity to take a chance on a big time talent in the second round and passed.
We’ve gone over all the reasons a million times, but it’s not hard to see why people bring him up as the team is still searching for their next long term starter and don’t have any obvious solutions.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 27, 2012 10:27 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'll understand people being upset that Seattle didn't take a chance, but nobody should assert that they made an actual mistake.
If anyone here has more knowledge on Ryan Mallet than Schneider and Carroll do, please share your knowledge. You’ll be the most valuable commenter on Field Gulls. Because I highly doubt that those two didn’t spend days or weeks researching him.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
The old "the FO knows best" argument?
Let’s say we did, and then not.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:31 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
How can I argue with this logic?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
That's kind of the point
According to your logic, none of these discussions we have on Field Gulls serve any purpose, because we don’t know have the knowledge on any player that Schneider and Carroll do. It’s a copout that only serves to kill debate.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
There's a big difference between a player we have NFL tape on than one who hasn't played in a game.
We have a couple of pre-season games. College tape. Which is fine.
Look, if someone wants to love Mallett or say that it was a mistake, then that’s fine… everyone has a right to their opinion. I will just withhold judgment on him until he plays.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
But Mallett could be a massive success with the Patriots
And that wouldn’t prove he’d have been the right pick for us either. That was Nate’s point, I think. You can’t really analyse draft picks exclusively by result, ignoring the process. Sure it’s a complex debate, and you’re not going to have people who are simply wrong or right, or end up seeing eye to eye, but that doesn’t mean it’s a debate we need to kill by bringing in heavy hitters like “the FO knows more than us”.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I wasn't trying to kill any debate and I think I'll just step out now.
Not because I can’t continue the discussion, but I don’t take any personal stabs at anyone Thomas or put people down.
It’s just not how I like to have these conversations so I will leave it at that.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Well. Now I'm confused.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:52 AM PST up reply actions
We started veering off from the topic at hand to discussing how bad each others arguments are and making it personal.
I take responsibility. No reason for it to continue.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
I was trying to cut through bad arguments
With the exact purpose of moving beyond passive aggressive sniping that dotted this thread. Sorry if I offended in that course.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Not a copout at all.
It serves to temper the debate as it should.
Like Brando in Apocalypse Now, Lombardi said,,,"The knee, the knee."
Sure, if someone had actually said "this FO completely messed up by passing on Mallett"
No one did. Pacificsands brought him up as one example in several. All Nate did was expand on this viewpoint to note why it makes sense to at least bring him up.
Mallett is presented here as a single part of a larger picture, which is fine, and not really a statement that is in need of tempering, in my view.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Also, if someone had said "completely messed up"
I think a more accurate and less dismissive counterpoint would be “we do not really have the info to determine that with any sufficient amount of accuracy”, which Kenneth brought up as well. Citing an authority none of us can double-check or even discover the details or process of doesn’t really add anything.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Were you not refering to copout,
in the sense of PC/JS knowing more than us? Sure seemed so.
Truth is they do and truth always tempers any debate.
Like Brando in Apocalypse Now, Lombardi said,,,"The knee, the knee."
Nate did say
“Seattle is in a pinch this year because they passed on Mallett and Dalton”
I don’t think it is fair to include Mallett in that because no one knows what he is. He has not proven a thing in the NFL. The Seahawks could be in the same situation had they drafted him.
by bigtrain21 on Jan 27, 2012 12:14 PM PST via Android app up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, what I meant by that was that a lot of the pressure would be off with those guys on the team.
Not that they’re the answer, but with a young quarterback on the roster a lot of these questions don’t come up.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 27, 2012 12:43 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
If they didn't pass, they'd have a QB prospect.
Either might have been good or bad, or not played a snap, for Seattle, but they’d have a QB prospect in hand.
But they didn’t so yes, they are in a situation where they still need to get another QB prospect.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I take it you prefer the:
“Nate Dogg knows better than the 32 FOs, each of which has more expertise, more experience and more information at their disposal”
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:37 AM PST up reply actions
No one is point to Mallett and screaming mistake.
The comment you replied to was this:
Flynn is going to be a player in this league, in the right system. I’m not arguing he’s going to be great, or that we should get him, just… at what point should we be nervous that this FO is simply incapable of finding a QB? Hasselbeck, Dalton, Mallett, Flynn, and others have fallen by the wayside. What positive evidence do we have?
He pointed to a handful of players that Seattle has passed on or look to be passing on. I think the point is that you’d hope they’d be able to find one guy in the list that can get the job done, but instead they just keep passing on players.
Are Sherman and Baldwin 1st-round talents?
Is Aaron Curry a 1st-round talent? Ryan Leaf? Drew Brees? Colt McCoy?
You can’t just declare a guy “good” (by whatever metrics) and expect everyone else to share that same evaluation.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
Man, you guys are talking around the topic a lot
Rather than discussing who Mallett actually was, why he was passed on, and why his talent level could be considered high level, we’re just going to talk about these peripheral, general concepts, avoiding the actual topic for vagaries, and then passively-agressively snipe at one another?
Sounds very useful.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Because this fanbase is frustrated on this topic
And it has every right to be. Did you know only the Saints and Cowboys top us in years since they spent a 1st round pick on a quarterback? We did get Hasselbeck in the interim so sweet, but still…
That said, going “Yeah, results based analysis is definitely the way to go.” and "Nate Dogg knows better than the 32 FOs, each of which has more expertise, more experience and more information at their disposal" at one another in no way helps engender a good conversation.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, let's analyze the situation based on no evidence. Much better.
There is no factual argument that Mallett is or isn’t an NFL QB.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Really, none?
That’s a bit much.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
I know wiki is a questionable source,
but they say he’s a QB and is on the Patriots.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Jan 27, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Beautifully done.
Was funnier than the response in my head.
Mallet is an NFL QB
by virtue of being a QB in the NFL.
"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan
"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"
I think people are still talking about that non draft because he looks like a great QB prospect.
He also played well in the preseason. I think what turned the FO off to him is his lack of mobility.
And there's a handful of "Ryan Mallets" in this years draft too. And probably one that Pete and John like more than Mallett.
We can’t call them shitty QB evaluators though until they actually make a big mistake. And seriously, we’re not going to give benefit of the doubt to Pete Carroll (and his how many Heisman-winning QBs?) and a former executive of Green Bay?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
Why would we give them the benefit of the doubt?
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
I'm not calling them good QB evaluators.
The OP’s question is when we can start questioning their ability to do so. My answer is: When they actually make an investment. Whitehurst was low-risk (though admittedly higher than it should have been) and some level of high-reward. The QBs they missed out on, I don’t see any franchise QBs there.
I admit that they only guy I’m even remotely curious about is Colin Kaepernick, but how can I call him or Mallett a missed opportunity until they prove something? I can’t.
I’m not calling them good, but I see no reason to call them bad.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
I certantly wouldn't call them shitty QB evaluators
I don’t think there is a handful of malletts out there in this draft. This was a guy who was talked about as the number one pick all through the season until after the bowl games ended then he had “character concerns.” He played in a pro-style offense, has a great arm, is accurate and according to his former team mates is leader.
I'll only say it one more time: He was passed on 73 times for a reason.
GM’s miss out on players all the time, but here was a guy that wasn’t under the radar but was on the top of the heap as far as “names” go. And teams still elected not to take him. Of COURSE, they could be wrong, but he has never even been active for an NFL game. Let’s not anoint him anything yet.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
Mallett fell to the third round
because of cocaine rumors and allaw-gations. BOOGER SUGAR.
He was drafted by a team that didn’t need a QB and always has a ton of extra picks to burn. “Like, hey, look what fell in our laps. We can afford to burn a pick, in fact we’ve got two picks in a row. Let’s pick him with the second one just to let him know. Bargain”
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He also had a cocky attitude an horrible mobility.
He wasn’t that good then, and not that good now either. So I don’t see why we’re crying over this.
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
Nobody knows how good he is.
Outside of the Patriots org. Marino had no wheels either, but went a whole season without getting sacked once.
and BTW: QB’s are supposed to be cocky.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Marino not being sack once in a whole season is not really a good way to measure his mobility, but I digress.
And there’s a difference between confidence and cocky. Confidence in a QB is necessary because he leads the team. Dan Marino and John Elway were confident. Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady is confident.
Cockiness is different in that it antagonizes the whole team. Ryan Leaf, Cade McNown, now those are Cocky QBs.
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
You missed the point. It's not a measuring stick.
Marino had zero mobility. Yet he still never got sacked.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Ultimately everyone passed on Aaron Rodgers, too.
By the time he fell into the 20s, the cost of a trade became rather minor for all remaining teams.
But also, everyone passed on Romo. Warner. Hasselbeck & Brady. That he slipped, is a very notable thing, but it can indicate several different possibilities, when considered with other factors. It really can’t indicate anything at all, on its own.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:30 PM PST up reply actions
I have barely looked at the draft this year,
but I don’t think there’s a single prospect that’s similar to Mallett.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
Foles is as close as it gets.
Except that Foles is terrible.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Byron Leftwhich was probably the most similar.
But his throwing motion takes a lot longer than Mallett’s. I like Mallett a lot, but don’t think he fits into the offense this organization wants due to mobility. And I think that was the end of that. I’m guessing they still might have taken a flyer on his arm in the 5th-7th if he somehow went that far, but by then so would a lot of other teams. A pocket passer just doesn’t seem to be what this organization wants.
is Matt Schaub actually good?
I mean he has been better than Tarvaris, and TJ Yates. And he’s had decent yardage and touchdown numbers, but he is throwing to Andre Johnson, has two damn good TEs, one of the best OLs in the game, and this is the first year they make it to the playoffs (behind two of the top 20 RBs in the league).
I hope Carroll has his sites set higher than Schaub, although I guess if that’s what you end up with after a third round pick you would be pretty happy.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
He is good. I'm not going to say "Well look at how TJ Yates performed with the same team" because its TJ Yates, but we can't discount every QB just because he has good weapons around him.
Matt Schaub is an above-average quarterback in a great system. Also Andre Johnson missed 9 games this year.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
He's good
He’s not great, his production is definitely inflated, but he’s good.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2012 2:15 AM PST up reply actions
Letting Hasselbeck walk was the right call.
Not to be rude, but I thought we had settled this.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
The biggest context
for issues like this has to do with the fact that there often is no decision yet, therefore it doesn’t matter how good of source you have or how high up they are, they simply don’t know and when pressed by friends or relatives will give them their best guess, which isn’t much better than your own.
Yes for the most part
what they like or think is still a fluid situation. What ends up being the results isn’t always exactly according to plan. But they do remove some people from consideration, so yeah the disinterest in Flynn has always been pretty feasible. I think what Scott was told adds weight, but nothing else.
But then, what I am hopeful for I often look for possibilities of remaining validity in the face of challenge.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:37 PM PST up reply actions
It makes total sense that the Seahawks would not be interested in Flynn.
He just doesn’t jive with the type of QBs Pete likes to roll with – athletic, big armed guys. Flynn is not athletic, and he doesn’t have a big arm.
This doesn’t surprise me. But then again, I’m not a knee-jerk Hawks fan (or at least I’d like to think so).
Regardless, great post, Scott.
Always up for some Twitter action @nandron. I only talk NW sports, though.
Jibe with.
But jive with is also cool.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Jive with is one of those mis-statements that is used so often it'll probably become "correct."
If it isn’t already. The meaning of the word is close enough to working in context that it may already be acceptable.
Kind of sucks, but that’s our language.
This song kinda summaries my thoughts on the NFL Rumor Mill:
Nice to hear from you Scott.
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
Great post Scott
Everybody brings up good points and my take on it is they have done what they needed to do this far. No way you give Hass a 3 year deal. Now lets see what they do next. If nothing then I will start to worry.
by spokahawk on Jan 27, 2012 9:23 AM PST via Android app reply actions
I can fully understand if Flynn just isn't what they're looking for in a QB
But gambling that you’re going to get the guy you eye in the draft is a risky gamble. Someone could trade up/draft high on the guy you like because they like them that much more. I know that PCJS have/will have a Plan B, C, D, Etc in case they run into a speed bump. I don’t really know where I’m going with this. I just hope they and everyone down on Flynn are right that he isn’t a great fit for what we are building.
Twitter- @GriffinNW
by GriffinNW on Jan 27, 2012 9:30 AM PST via Android app reply actions
But it's always a crapshoot
it just comes down to your judgement of risk vs. reward – whoever does pay Flynn will be rolling the dice one way – if he turns out elite they look like a genius, if he flames out they probably get fired – If it is true that PC/JS arn’t in for Flynn then will be rolling their dice some other way.
There is always opportunity for second guessing by us armchair coaches/GMs, and I in no way believe PC/JS are infallible, but they got to go with their process – win or lose they are in a privileged position where they control their own destiny – we just get to watch the results
Kevin Kolb
Weren’t this many people saying the FO were crazy and questioning their methods for not selling everything for him last offseason? How is that looking now? How is Flynn not a bigger gamble?
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Yes he will be less cost for more risk than Kolb
Doesn’t mean that the method the front office used on that evaluation won’t work this time too though.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Why more of a risk that Kolb?
Kolb costed draft picks and a big salary.
Draft picks and salary are the cost
The risk is that he has played two NFL games and everyone is basing evaluation on that limited sample while on an excellent team. Kolb had about a season of starts to base evaluation on. It is a lot harded to predict how Flynn will play over a longer stretch on a lesser team.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Thats exactly what I said
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
He is a bigger risk as far as talent evaluation goes
You might be risking less money, but he is still a bigger risk of being a bust based on limited data.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
To be clear
Why isn’t anyone else reporting this?
All the “real” “journalists” have been saying this for months. The only guys that weren’t were the radio guys (who have a stake in being sensationalist).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 9:32 AM PST reply actions
Which category does Aaron Rodgers fall under?
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 9:34 AM PST up reply actions
Neither
If you read the actual quote all he was saying was that Schneider (like Philbin) has a GB connection to Flynn and has some pull. He called Seattle and Miami likely landing places (because of the QB situation and connections) but didn’t say that either was actively pursuing him.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
ah I see
I can’t believe I didn’t read the actual quote before writing an article about it. ;)
Jokes aside, he didn’t say “has some pull”, he said “he’s pulling strings”. There’s a difference.
But, we can agree to disagree
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
This is why I said you need to read the context. This is what he actually said:
"John Schneider knows Matt and he’s pulling some strings up there with them," Rodgers said. "I think that would be an opportunity for him up there. Those are probably, in my opinion, the two top dogs that would go after him. There’s got to be at least five or six teams who legitimately should take a look at Matt and see him being an immediate improvement over what they have at quarterback."
He’s not saying that Schneider is pulling strings to bring in Flynn, he’s saying that Schneider (a) has some authority, (b) knows Flynn and © needs to upgrade the QB position. That’s all.
I’m not sure why you’re pushing this other interpretation. It directly contradicts what your friends in the FO have told you.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:27 AM PST up reply actions
That ( c ) looks funky.
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
It's the copyright symbol
Apparently SBN thinks it would get used commonly-enough here that the c gets auto-formatted into it.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Not "pushing" anything, and obviously read the context.
We can agree to disagree on interpretation
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, it seems vague enough to read either way
Like Humongous, I read it more like him saying “Schneider is pulling some strings and knows Matt”.
But in any case, like you kind of indicated, I suspect this is largely Rodgers helping to expand the market for Flynn.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
yeah
In fact, when I first read it, I initially read it as Flynn was pulling strings with JS. Can be taken many different ways.
At the same time, the interpretation of the particular quote isn’t really the foundation of this article
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I dont think the point was to interpret what Rodgers was saying.
Scott reported on this before the Rodgers quote came out. He’s simply explaining things because he got a lot of pushback when people possibly misinterpreted what AR is saying. Many people are obviously going to hang on those words and Scott is simply reinforcing the information he was given.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 27, 2012 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
I actually hadn't seen this reported anywhere else.
Maybe they’re saying that’s their opinion or speculating on the matter based on what the Seahawks have done in the past two seasons (not that this matters really, because going for a trade and signing a free agent are two totally different ideas), but I hadn’t seen anyone say their sources in the organization say there’s no interest in Flynn. You don’t have to believe Scott but it seems like a weird bone to pick on one sentence.
If Sando and all these “real journalists” had been reporting this as fact I don’t think it would be such a hot discussion topic. I might have missed it though, it’s true.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 27, 2012 10:51 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Every week O'Neil, Sando and Williams have online chats
Flynn gets mentioned with some frequency. For the most part, these guys have been relatively skeptical of a move for him because of a lack of demonstrated interest in the last couple of years.
There’s nothing to “report,” really or definitive at all, it’s just a gut feeling these guys have been pushing for a while. This, to me, seems more reflective of the mood of the beat reporters than the rumor-mongering of the radio guys.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, that's what I thought I'd seen.
I think the word ‘reporting’ is the key term. Those guys, on the surface anyway, are going off of gut feelings, whereas Scott is going off of, what he feels to be, legitimate information. Skepticism is natural and I don’t blame anyone for that, and neither would Scott.
It just seemed like you were implying Scott was just piggybacking on their supposed hunches and trying to pretend it’s new, and that’s just not the case. I just object to the implication that he’s pulling an Incarcerated Bob style ‘report’ on this one, choosing a side, throwing shit against the wall and hoping it sticks – though I may have completely misinterpreted your point, obviously, but that’s sort of what you were implying on the fanshot by Beekers the other day. But, I’ll tell you, he’s not just guessing based on the prevailing opinion of the beat writers.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 27, 2012 11:37 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
And to be clear -
I’m defending Scott – not his sources or the information therein. I don’t know them, wasn’t there for the conversation and don’t have a relationship with any of them. But I do trust that Scott wouldn’t just make up stuff.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 27, 2012 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
It's all baloney at this point
The Super Bowl hasnt even been played yet. I’ll believe the Seahawks are interested in Flynn when they bring him in for a visit, and I’ll believe they’re not interested in him when he signs with another team. There really isnt much point in debating it right now.
I’m frankly more interested in free agents at other positions, anyway.
All I know is I can't believe they went with T Jack
Did you ask you FO buddies “really Tavaris Jackson? are you high?”
The QB position needs to get sorted out now, this is the 3rd draft under PS/JC and so far we have T Jack and Josh Portis at qb… fail
I hope PC realizes the expectation, because if the Hawks have a great defense and run game this year but only end up 7 – 9 again, I know fans are gonna be pissed and jobs will be lost! So ride with T Jack at your own risk Pete!
So what would your realistic solution have been
What would you have done differently?
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
The point is that the choices that they have made are logical
You may not like every one of them, but they make sense.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
I appreciate that argument
All I`m saying is now is the time to address this situation, not next year or the year after.
They took a shot with Whitehurst and I don`t blame them for that.
They passed on QBs in the draft and I don`t blame them for that
But right now QB is our biggest concern, and its time to make a choice at the position. Every year there will be prospects and FAs in the off season, but I think this team needs a QB who can win now
by steverolley on Jan 27, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
I think you are going to be disappointed then
If they don’t bring in Manning or maybe Flynn, which I don’t think they will do, they will be drafting someone. With the way that is sorting out it appears, based on JS/PC draft style, that they will trade back and draft in the back of the 1st or a QB later than that. That rookie won’t be ready to “win now” this year. You will most likely watch TJ all year next year.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
I disagree.
The idea that “WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOVE NOW” leads to overreaching and making bad decisions. Do we need to upgrade at that position? Yes. Do we need to do it at all costs? No.
I’m not against a big move to get a QB in the draft, but let’s put it this way: We have so many holes that it would be as valuable to upgrade at multiple positions (DE, LB, DT) as it would to reach for a QB, especially if reaching for a QB leads to a) JS and PC taking a QB that they don’t fully believe fits our system, or b) JS and PC overpaying in draft picks that could be used to fill other holes/shore up depth at the other positions on our team.
I really am not a fan of NOW NOW NOW thinking because it leads to poor decisions more often than not. As a fan of Seattle sports, as I assume you are, you should know that (see: trading for Heathcliff Slocumb).
by Razztopia on Jan 27, 2012 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Hearing the name Bobby Ayala
still makes me want to punch a baby.
"That's funny. I post here all the time and I never see (you) here."
- GreatGoogly, to John Morgan
"John Morgan IS Field Gulls, asshole!"
So many holes?
We need a situational pass rusher, a LB, and a QB. Everything else is added depth and luxury upgrades.
How many holes do the Patriots and Giants have? More than that. Same with the Packers, Saints, Ravens, Niners, Lions, and Steelers.
There are no complete teams. With a QB we are as close to complete as anybody else in the NFL.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I again respectfully disagree.
We need more than one LB. We definitely need at least one DE. Pending whether or not Red Bryant re-signs, we need at least one DT. We definitely need to draft a running back, especially if Lynch and Forsett both leave. I’m not so sure the team is settled at CB, either, but you can argue that picking those would be more of a luxury pick.
I am not sure where the comparison to other teams really comes in here; my point is simply that we may be able to get more, better value from using those picks on multiple positions that we could definitely use improvement at rather than going all in for a QB just because there is a pressing need there.
The comparison to other teams
(all playoff teams) is to point out that there is no perfect team with no holes. The Seahawks have very few. As few or fewer holes than any of the teams I mentioned. We’ve just got the biggest hole. QB.
3 major holes to fill, some depth to add, and some positions that could be upgraded. I’m confident that we can pull three starters out of the draft and FA.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I will just agree to disagree with you.
I understand that every NFL team has holes, but that is sort of at cross-purposes with my point. I am simply saying that if we can get better value out of using our picks this year to work on the D-Line, LBs, and get good depth for RB and CB, it might be better than going all out and trading those picks for a QB. That is especially true if PC and JS aren’t really that excited about RGIII or whoever you have in mind that would be an early round pick.
You've just given up on an interior pass rush?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
The entire front 7 needs to be overhauled
We currently have two legitimate front 7 talents under contract, though some rabbits might be pulled out of the Pete Carroll hat. So that’s 5 holes.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2012 2:17 AM PST up reply actions
I consider those potential upgrades.
We’ve got starter caliber in Clemons, Mebane, Bryant, Branch, KJ, and both Hawthorne and Hill are serviceable.
In terms of need, we only need a rusher opposite Clemons, we can leave the run stuffers alone and carry on with our top ten D. Fact is this D is good enough as it for a super bowl run if we’ve got an offense that can break 24 points a game. You’re underestimating what we’ve got wildly.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Wildly, eh?
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2012 8:13 AM PST up reply actions
eh, maybe a bit stong of word.
But the whole as-is, is serviceable. While I agree upgrades are desirable (2 LBs and 2 DL) only one pass rushing DL is really needed.
With one pass rusher people will start talking about the Hawks having the best secondary in the league, and teams still won’t be able to run on us.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Our Dline was injury free this season.
Which is an anomaly, losing one of the starting 3 big guys would have had us looking a lot like last season’s D.
We added Branch and McDonald
and even Pep saw the field this year and Cole was gone. We had better depth this year. I expect to see at least 5 new faces in camp this year via FA and the draft fighting for front 7 spots. I’m not worried.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Not really
Add a pass-rusher and you still have the problem of whether or not we feel comfortable with them flying through their gaps, potentially unmasking our LBs. Our system was all about protecting our LBs, and they still did a shoddy job. Elite LB talent is pretty unimportant for 4-3s, but they still fell well short.
And then, we have both issues at 3-tech and DE. Upgrade a 3-tech would do more, but that’s not an easy upgrade. Upgrade DE, and interior offensive lines will abuse the hell out of you in pass-blocking.
I mean yeah, if we’re talking about adding, say, a Mario Williams, then yes, that alone could vault this defense into greatness, because Williams is that good. But that type of player is not too common.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
As I stated above
We needed a temporary QB who is good at getting punched behind a leaky offensive line. Tarvaris is cheap, temporary and good at taking punches. The move only makes no sense if you were looking to compete at all costs in the 2011 season.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree
but I do think in 2012 we are looking at competing and I am really worried about T Jack, do I think Flynn is better than T Jack, yes.
by steverolley on Jan 27, 2012 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
Flynn is better than Tarvaris, yes
But that’s not really the only relevant question, especially not for the long term.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 27, 2012 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Flynn being paid 14 mil a year for years is most likely not better then tjack being paid 4 mil for one more year
Flynn is only better if he truly is the long term answer, which he probably isn’t.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 27, 2012 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
Flynn isn't going to make 14 mil a year though
Not unless some NFL FO is run by idiots.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 28, 2012 2:18 AM PST up reply actions
And the Mariners should have given Prince Fielder a majority share of Nintendo...
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Yes they should of
Atleast when I go to M`s games I might see a Home Run. (Not a Mariner`s fan so I really have no idea)
by steverolley on Jan 27, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
Dingers? What dingers?
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
Any chance that the coaching staff and the FO don't see eye to eye on Flynn?
Not that it’s some huge divide or anything, but I’m guessing you have most of your sources in the coaching staff. Is it possible Schneider, a guy involved in drafting Flynn, has a different opinion than the fairly cut and dry one you posted earlier? The Q/PM have said several times that they talk about players a lot, hash things over and eventually come to an agreement. Maybe they’re still in that discussion phase, and thats why there are some differing reports?
Rodger's suggestion is based entirely on the Schneider-GB connection
and all of the local beat reporters have been saying that Schneider appeared to have no interest in Flynn either of the last 2 offseasons.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
So John valued Flynn much lower than Whitehurst
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
That's a really interesting point - never put that together before.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
At that point in time,
he scouted Cholly as better (or at least more prototypical). Tells us more about Jon that it does Flynn.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
And it's possible that something has changed since then
(Pete talks about changing his views on the ability of young QBs to play earlier in the end-of-the-season press conference) but I don’t think anybody in the FO is likely to swayed by a single game.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:16 AM PST up reply actions
Good question Nate
To answer your first question: I know and have talked to people in both the FO and coaching staff. But your question is still valid.
All indications are that both sides see eye to eye. But it is important to remember in an instance where they don’t see eye to eye, that PC has final say on all roster moves. That was his primary condition for leaving USC.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
do your sources believe in T Jack
do they think he could be an option or is there a sense of we HAVE to upgrade
by steverolley on Jan 27, 2012 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
I am an expert at deflection
So instead of answering your question directly…because it’s not something that I particularly wanna get into, I will say this…
They are in a constant to pursuit to upgrade all aspects of the roster when the right situations present themselves.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 10:24 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
So what you're saying is,
there’s no way Carroll is going to wager his last shot in the NFL on the shoulders of Tarv. Jackson.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
How do you figure that?
I don’t think he said anything of the sort. I think it means that they have a personnel philosophy that considers the whole roster and not just the 1 position that fans freak out about the most.
Tarvaris Jackson.
Your entire career in his hands. Think about it.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
No, if you spend mutliple high picks on a guy,
Your career is in his hands. PC career is in the hands of the defense, that’s the kind of team he’s building.
Thanks for posting, Scott.
I’m sure you’re sensitive to the fact that sports fans, in general, hate unnamed sources. In turn I think we are sensitive to the fact that if you went around blowing up your sources on Twitter and the blogosphere, you would get cut off from those sources in a heartbeat. It’s a conundrum that Seattle fans have become pretty familiar with, especially those of us who follow the Mariners.
So I’ll say this. I’m extremely happy to have you here, and I think your resume speaks for itself, and Danny wouldn’t endorse you if he didn’t have confidence in your input. As long as you are down with this community offering up a healthy dose of skepticism now and again, it’s my hope that you’ll continue to share your unique insights whenever you can.
by jhmg16 on Jan 27, 2012 10:30 AM PST reply actions 10 recs
Maybe we've also become numb to it because people like Peter King always says something rediculous then cites "unnamed sources"
And then he’s always wrong and it was all just to get you to read his crap.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 27, 2012 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
We should be drafting multiple QB's in my opinion
Get one in the second one in say the 5th or 6th and maybe draft more next year. We may not get our guy in one draft pick, it may take several.
Do or do not, there is no try-Yoda
by ironheart777 on Jan 27, 2012 10:33 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Fuck that.
DRAFT QB’S WITH ALL OUR PICKS, THEN SEND THEM TO A PIT WHERE THEY BATTLE GLADIATOR STYLE, LAST MAN STANDING WILL THEN CHALLENGE TJAX, HARBINGER OF THE JUMPPASSERS.
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
by RagingAlot on Jan 27, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 10 recs
Thread closed. You win all the internets.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 27, 2012 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Flynn, Cassel, and Kolb
Be wary of backup quarterbacks that “flash”. Mark Brunell is the exception, AJ Feeley is the norm.
most backups "flash"
The good ones are usually retained.
by Heliocopris Dominus on Jan 27, 2012 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
Have your sources said anything about the rumored uniform change?
Really excited about the possibility of retiring the monochrome dull blue
by Dialectic on Jan 27, 2012 11:25 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Rusty helmuts,
with lichens and moss would be cool!
Like Brando in Apocalypse Now, Lombardi said,,,"The knee, the knee."
Reaching For A Position
Is a waste, and shouldn’t happen in free agency or the draft. The gamble becomes greater, simply because you risk a chance on a player that doesn’t really hold value as his draft position. This seemed to happen with Ruskell, because it seemed like he was just plugging holes, instead of getting the most value for his picks.
Flynn reminds me of Hass-Lite. He is accurate, doesn’t have the strongest arm, and isn’t really that athletic. Above average maybe, but even that is a stretch. He will have success in the league, but as Scott said, the only thing the Seahawks may be doing is driving the price up for him wherever he lands.
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
Living only on what comes to you as a bargain holds risk in & of itself.
Holding the importance of avoiding reaching, or overpaying in one form or another, above the importance of talent acquisition in general, can be detrimental.
I agree with your assessment of Flynn.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Jan 27, 2012 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
This is true, and a move up here and there can be a good choice.
But piling multiple high picks into one player is a recipe for disaster. Every high pick is a chance to roll the dice on some game changing talent. If you package 3 high picks onto one player, 2/3 of those picks are automatic busts and there is still risk in the one guy you take. If that guy is anything short of a superstar, you’re fucked, even if he ends up being very good you’re barely breaking even.
by Fumanchuchu on Jan 28, 2012 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
Pushing things a little further, can we conclude that Enyeart was green-lighted to kill the Flynn rumor?
Or has he shared, as it were, of his own volition?
Considering that we vitally need a QB, there is dearth of quality FAs at the position, and noting the importance of the misinformation game as pointed out by Scott here, I rate it more likely than not he was given the go-ahead.
He would have had to be very sure that it could not compromise the team’s leverage at all, now or in the future, to act on his own.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
There are a million rumors out there.
Some true, some misinformation. This being true or not has no bearing on the team’s leverage.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
That is only true to the extent that Scott Enyeart doesn't have a track record of being right.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
There was no "green-light" given to share this
If there was a green light, names of sources would be attached to the report.
This is information I felt comfortable sharing on my own accord
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 12:16 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Ok then, can you talk about why you felt comfortable with it?
Isn’t it fair to say you risk bleeding away a few drops of the team’s leverage?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
The reason I felt comfortable sharing this is because..
We are dealing with a FA not the draft. There is little-to-no leverage gained by the club in this situation. In a case like this, the player is the one gaining leverage by trying to drive up his value
If this were the draft, and we were talking about this, I likely would have kept things to myself or been less specific.
In terms of naming sources when “green-lit”, that’s just my personal way of doIng things.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 12:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Also, I disagree with your first body sentence.
You could be green-lighted to leak from “unnamed sources”. (Didn’t you mention this in the article anyway?) Green-lighting the leak and attaching a name to it are two different things, to my mind. I’m prepared to listen to you tell me I’m wrong, though.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Carrol and QB's...
I would like to point out that PC knows how to evaluate QB’s… Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, Booty, Sanchez, and Matt Barkley all had great success as QB’s in PC’s program as he had built it for the college game. Unlike college, PC and JS do not have the pick of the litter of QB’s in the NFL like he did in college. I can guarentee you that for every Palmer, Leinart, Barkley recruited he passed on other highly rated recruits because they did not suit the system he was running. What PCJS are showing is a tremendous amount of patience on the “key” position to success in the NFL in a business environment that is all about winning now. The insight I take from this situation is that Paul Allen has tremendous belief in PCJS succeeding with the plan they pitched. Additionally, PCJS will not mortgage the future of the franchise reaching for a QB. A 3rd round pick, letting an over-the-hill franchise legend walk, a modest 2-yr contract for a avg-to-below avg (servicable) starter… We as a fanbase like to overlook inconvenient facts… would Andy Dalton have succeeded in Seattle w/o AJ Green… Mallet had a lot of faults, big glaring character/leadership issues coming to an extremely young team as opposed to the Pats where the Patriot way is well established… patience 12’s, patience… the team PCJS is building will succeed in this league, they are building a long-term contender, assembling all the complimenting pieces before adding the franchise QB. Will it happen this year, one thing’s for certain, we won’t really know until the season starts and we see how the team actually competes in games that count.
DOUG F'N BALDWIN!!! Too bad we can't give him #80!
by oldschoolhawk on Jan 27, 2012 12:13 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Right on, man.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
Question
First of all, thank you for sharing Scott. It is nice to get a bit of insight as to what the FO is thinking.
My question is, do any of your sources read FG, or any other blog sites?
I wonder if there is inside information from other teams that sneak their way onto fan sites. I know of one other Seahawks site that has had an insider drop a few valuable tidbits in regards to the draft in years past.
The guy who wrote this article said that this is the time of the year where teams use misdirection and smoke screens alot so who’s to say what’s going on in the front office. Nobody is going to tell some reporter that they are not interested in some player because if they did that they would have to find a new job. Of course teams are going to say they are not interested in a player. A good example would be Seattle says they aren’t interested in Flynn well then Miami lets thier gaurd down and goes after other players thinking they can get Flynn at a later date and then blammo, Seattle signs him to a modest contract and Miami is stuck with the same QB they had before the whole thing started. Seattle is ready to compete now. They are one QB away from having an offense that can put up alot of points. True we need a few minor pieces on defense like another speed rusher to compliment Clemons and maybe a quicker LB and get Max Unger out of here, he is a horrible center, the secondary is set, the receiving corps is set and I think the Hawks have a nice TE combo with Miller and Carlson. Tavaris Jackson has got to go as he nothing more than a backup. I swear if I have to watch him another season I am going to punch somebody. He is incapable of leading a cub scout troop much less an offense and he can’t hit water if he were standing on the bottom of the lake. Bottom line this team is ready to compete now all they need is a leader on offense to bring all together.
And subject lines, and coherency, and staying on topic.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 27, 2012 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
Poster is long-time lurker, new commenter.
There’s stuff in his post we can work with.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Jan 27, 2012 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Unger Was Suprisingly Good This Year
And I don’t agree with the statement of him being a horrible center. Horrible as a guard, yes, but he’s actually well above average as a center. He’s nasty, mobile and smart.
Live work and breathe like an optimist.
by JRock419 on Jan 27, 2012 1:07 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What's wrong with Unger?
I thought he did a great job this year and I expect him to be even better next year.
by bigtrain21 on Jan 27, 2012 1:08 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Point of fact: Carlson is a FA - no knowing where he will play next year.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
As soon as I heard the "pulling strings" on the radio I knew it would get twisted .
It sounded to me as “pulling strings” in general . And not “pulling strings” on a Matt Flynn deal.
Since I can't rec on the phone
I just wanted to say thanks for the post Scott. It is good insight into the workings of the league this time of year when there is lots of (mis)information flying around.
I am worried that if the franchise keeps going in the same direction (up!) we will never have the chance at a top end qb in the draft and will be forced to draft dregs or take a shot in free agency. Definitely a quandary.
by Gabe on Jan 27, 2012 4:58 PM PST via Android app reply actions
We really do have the best qb opening in the league.
And Tarvaris was a much better fit than Hasselbeck in 2010, given that 5 out of 5 opening day starters on the offensive line either were rookies (Carpenter and Moffitt), first year FAs (Gallery), playing a new position after getting ragdolled and IR’d at their old position (Unger), or had missed the previous opening day due to injury (Okung). Add to that all the new receivers he hadn’t played with before, about 1,000 missed snaps and at least that many missed hours of OTAs due to lockout and Our Former Hero would have been carted off to the IR sometime during the shittsburg game.
And all y’all Tarvaris haters might want to consider that the muscle group most responsible for completing throws under pressure was, at one point during the season, nearly half torn off the bone. And he still had a much better year than Hasselbeck did for the last several in this town, so howzabout we all give the we’re screwed because Hasselbeck is gone lament a decent burial.
Superstar QBs are done in by lack of a supporting cast – when they’re getting carted off on a stretcher after taking their zillionth monster hit because of lack of talent in the Oline, run game and receiver corps, their rating goes down. Dalton had a good year because that Bengal line is a bunch of monsters, and, thorough pimpslapping by Browner and Sherman notwithstanding, a couple of good receivers. rapistburger went 15-1 his rookie year and stole a superbowl in his sophomore year because of a stellar supporting cast. Etc. etc. etc. Draft a QB and put him in with a bunch of scrubs and a porous defense that forces him to throw every down, and you’re gonna keep drafting qbs as they retire from being punchdrunk. Peyton has a freaking broken neck for lack of a good Offensive line and running game… Eli is going to the Super Bowl, and is finally looking close to elite (after 6 years and a ring) because he has had time to gel with a good supporting cast and a stellar defense.
by bleedshawkblue on Jan 27, 2012 5:12 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
This post made me realize: I'm sort of surprised we haven't seen a season review post about Jackson.
It was the first full Seahawks season played by a non-Hasselbeck QB in a decade (unless you want to give 2008 to Seneca, I guess, but I recall that being 50/50). Obviously we had our frustrations with him, but I’d be very interested to see how he stacked up, historically speaking.
Hooo boy, that's asking for trouble.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Jan 27, 2012 5:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I wish it wasn't, but you're probably right.
by jhmg16 on Jan 27, 2012 7:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah, sorry.
Historically as pertains to full-season QB play for the Seattle Seahawks.
by jhmg16 on Jan 27, 2012 7:20 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I agree, David Carr and Joey Harrington we as promising as QB prospects get,
Possibly more promise than an RGIII and certainly more than a Dalton or Mallet. And they got crushed playing behind inferior supporting casts to the extent where they ended up being wasted picks more because of circumstance than a deficit in their own skills.
Teams with really bad rosters like the Seahawks had last season, need to make high percentage picks like linemen before they start reaching for coin-flips like QBs. The better the supporting cast, the better the odds your young QB succeeds regardless of his inherent talent. Drafting an exact copy of Dalton in 2012 would hold higher potential and less risk than drafting the actual Dalton in 2011.
In the same vein, RGIII taken at the cost of one 1rst, will actually have more potential and less risk than if he were taken at the cost of two 1rsts because the team he goes to will have one more 1rst round talent around to help him win. The more players you don’t take in order to get a guy, the less potential that guy has.
by Fumanchuchu on Jan 28, 2012 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Gallery was out day game one wasn't he?
He was supposed to start but didn’t make it?
Journalistic integrity
Scott,
It’s hard not to want to retaliate, and prove that what you’ve said is correct, or at least that you received your information from a very reliable source. You could put to rest all the naysayers by stating whom your friends in the Hawks’ organization are, but then you’d be betraying them. There are so many that would do just that. It seems that the average writer would forgo their own morals, and ethics, just to get the scoop on another “journalist”. I’m glad that you’re not one of them.
It speaks volumes about not only yourself, but of the guys that brought you onto fieldgulls.com, that you don’t want to betray your own standards. Once again, actions of a Seahawks’ fan has made me proud to also be a fan. Thank you, and keep up the good work.
Jim Kelly
by neurocell on Jan 27, 2012 5:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Thank You Jim
I really appreciate the kind words and encouragement.
I realize skepticism and these types of reports often times go hand-in-hand. It’s part of the deal.
But at the same time, I do try to be as transparent as possible, because I know people appreciate that.
There is definitely a difference between transparency and being put “on the stand” to defend a report. But generally speaking, I enjoy the discussion that this comment thread has generated.
Thanks again for taking the time to write that comment. And thanks to everyone for reading this piece. If it gets enough views, Danny said he would double my salary. Unfortunately 2×0 is still 0. Haha.
by Scott Enyeart on Jan 27, 2012 9:02 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
It's like an poem I read once
And I may butcher it, but…
One ship drives east and another one west,
with the self same winds that blow.
Tis the set of the sails and not the gales,
which tell the way to go.
by Heliocopris Dominus on Jan 27, 2012 9:52 PM PST reply actions
Ella Wheeler Wilcox.
No, not from the top of my head. I wish.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Nice
I read it about 20 years ago. I thought it very profound. Much about this FO has a sort of steadiness and vision to it that I find it has a very calming effect on me as a fan.
by Heliocopris Dominus on Jan 27, 2012 10:02 PM PST reply actions
That was supposed to be a reply to Ella Wheeler Wilcox.
by Heliocopris Dominus on Jan 27, 2012 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
I'm afraid she passed some time ago, Helio.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
So you don't believe in zombies, then
Heresy grows from idleness.
Why get Matt Flynn?
"Also, for what it’s worth, if we get Flynn, New England and Detroit are on the schedule!" - SSreporters
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Jan 27, 2012 10:50 PM PST up reply actions
If you write here more often I don't give a rats arse...
…about how “pretentious” you could be percieved. Your articles are always welcome over here!
Confuscius say- "Baseball wrong. Man with four balls cannot walk."
by Outside Contain on Jan 28, 2012 3:34 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
