Brock Huard and Michael Bennett Twitter interaction

rcaido

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
2,212
Reaction score
488
Sgt. Largent":txu11smx said:
rcaido":txu11smx said:
Its all about the money and if it makes sense to keep them. Do you think Seahawks wanted to take a chance on Sherman after that injury? .

Yes, we would have done what many teams do with big contract players who got hurt or skills have diminished, yet still are valuable leaders and can contribute...........they're offer the chance to re-do their contracts to a lower value so they can stay.

When a player is just flat out cut? Yep, it's about the money, but it's also a sign that there is absolutely NO interest in working things out.

Guarantee you Pete and John will try and work something out with KJ in the off season for him to come back on a prove it deal, or a deal more team friendly. Doesn't mean he'll take it if he can get more money elsewhere, but the good relationship is still there.

Richard made sure to burn that bridge, which is why he signed with SF on a terrible incentive heavy deal and only 7M guaranteed.

Explain Earl then? Why was he not dealt during the offseason? If Seahawks wanted the whole new fresh young defense, why not trade Earl too who had the most distraction of the team last season. Trade him before the draft to build that new young defense.

Again its Sherman's injury & Bennett was too old. As much as you want to blame their attitude its not the case with these two. Also why would Bennett take a paycut if the Eagles are willing to pay his contract. If anything they did Bennett a solid at the time, trading him to a Superbowl team. With Kam & Avril injuries, i dont think they wanted to chance Sherman either. I bet if they can do it all over again they would take Sherman's contract right now since he seem to have recovered from his injury.
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
You are wasting your time Sarge, good luck. This is beyond a common sense issue. Some just want to believe their superstar hero can do no wrong. :roll:
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,612
rcaido":18lkm1du said:
Sgt. Largent":18lkm1du said:
rcaido":18lkm1du said:
Its all about the money and if it makes sense to keep them. Do you think Seahawks wanted to take a chance on Sherman after that injury? .

Yes, we would have done what many teams do with big contract players who got hurt or skills have diminished, yet still are valuable leaders and can contribute...........they're offer the chance to re-do their contracts to a lower value so they can stay.

When a player is just flat out cut? Yep, it's about the money, but it's also a sign that there is absolutely NO interest in working things out.

Guarantee you Pete and John will try and work something out with KJ in the off season for him to come back on a prove it deal, or a deal more team friendly. Doesn't mean he'll take it if he can get more money elsewhere, but the good relationship is still there.

Richard made sure to burn that bridge, which is why he signed with SF on a terrible incentive heavy deal and only 7M guaranteed.

Explain Earl then? Why was he not dealt during the offseason? If Seahawks wanted the whole new fresh young defense, why not trade Earl too who had the most distraction of the team last season. Trade him before the draft to build that new young defense.

Again its Sherman's injury & Bennett was too old. As much as you want to blame their attitude its not the case with these two. Also why would Bennett take a paycut if the Eagles are willing to pay his contract. If anything they did Bennett a solid at the time, trading him to a Superbowl team. With Kam & Avril injuries, i dont think they wanted to chance Sherman either. I bet if they can do it all over again they would take Sherman's contract right now since he seem to have recovered from his injury.


You and I have been around this track before. All you have to do is a quick google search for Earl Thomas trade and you'd find dozens of articles and reports that Earl's trade was imminent, even up to the very weekend he got hurt with reports of Earl being traded to KC.

Not sure why you're clinging to this opinion. We jettisoned every player causing problems last year, and were working on Earl's trade. He was gone.

Why'd it take so long? Because he was the one player that had serious value, so it took longer to find a team that'd give us what he was worth (or close).
 

Seymour

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
7,459
Reaction score
22
Sgt. Largent":2npzx6ck said:
rcaido":2npzx6ck said:
Sgt. Largent":2npzx6ck said:
rcaido":2npzx6ck said:
Its all about the money and if it makes sense to keep them. Do you think Seahawks wanted to take a chance on Sherman after that injury? .

Yes, we would have done what many teams do with big contract players who got hurt or skills have diminished, yet still are valuable leaders and can contribute...........they're offer the chance to re-do their contracts to a lower value so they can stay.

When a player is just flat out cut? Yep, it's about the money, but it's also a sign that there is absolutely NO interest in working things out.

Guarantee you Pete and John will try and work something out with KJ in the off season for him to come back on a prove it deal, or a deal more team friendly. Doesn't mean he'll take it if he can get more money elsewhere, but the good relationship is still there.

Richard made sure to burn that bridge, which is why he signed with SF on a terrible incentive heavy deal and only 7M guaranteed.

Explain Earl then? Why was he not dealt during the offseason? If Seahawks wanted the whole new fresh young defense, why not trade Earl too who had the most distraction of the team last season. Trade him before the draft to build that new young defense.

Again its Sherman's injury & Bennett was too old. As much as you want to blame their attitude its not the case with these two. Also why would Bennett take a paycut if the Eagles are willing to pay his contract. If anything they did Bennett a solid at the time, trading him to a Superbowl team. With Kam & Avril injuries, i dont think they wanted to chance Sherman either. I bet if they can do it all over again they would take Sherman's contract right now since he seem to have recovered from his injury.


You and I have been around this track before. All you have to do is a quick google search for Earl Thomas trade and you'd find dozens of articles and reports that Earl's trade was imminent, even up to the very weekend he got hurt with reports of Earl being traded to KC.

Not sure why you're clinging to this opinion. We jettisoned every player causing problems last year, and were working on Earl's trade. He was gone.

Why'd it take so long? Because he was the one player that had serious value, so it took longer to find a team that'd give us what he was worth (or close).

Bingo!!
It will fall on deaf ears though.
 

Torc

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
1,124
Reaction score
1,248
Sgt. Largent":1p0y47u0 said:
Why'd it take so long? Because he was the one player that had serious value, so it took longer to find a team that'd give us what he was worth (or close).


He also wasn't making the same kind of comments about the offense and about Carroll's coaching style. He was still 'bought in' (as evidenced by his high level of play before his injury).....he just wanted to 'be paid'. Sherman and Bennett were both actively undermining the coaching staff and the program.
 

jammerhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
10,196
Reaction score
1,801
Sgt. Largent":2zur1emi said:
jammerhawk":2zur1emi said:
I agree, however it is something in the rearview mirror. Brock should let it be..

Why?

I don't get why media members, talk show hosts, fans or anyone that's not directly employed or on the team has to check themselves.

Nothing I hate more from media or sports personalities is boring.

Brock isn't on the team, he's a radio host. He can be as opinionated as he wants.


Why?

Because all it does is re-stoke the fires of negativity. Pete has been careful not to comment except in generalities. They wanted out, they are gone, C-ya, goodbye. Does it truly matter why they left? Does it mater if the team had to pay for them to be gone? Isn't it addition by subtraction? The constant repetition of this negative nonsense doesn't allow the past to remain in the past. Seattle has a media circus around the team that feeds on negativity and blame games. If that isn't boring per se it should be.

To me I think Pete screwed up after XLIX in not canning Bevell and Cable following the debacle, but he has now. Pete ate responsibility for a play call that was in my mind galactically stupid, so did Wilson for his failed execution. The others pointed fingers and ducked and the whole situation festered until it was been exorcized, perhaps Sherman and Bennett may have responded differently if some other actions had occurred back then, but that is speculation. The team is a different team now and perhaps not yet as talented as with the players who left, but their future look bright.

Time to move on, don't care anymore about Sherman or Bennett and not much for Thomas' 'tude either. For him I hope he gets his money, from a team in AFC though, and the team gets a 3rd rd. comp. pick, or there are tag games played that result in an earlier pick. After his middle finger salute he can be gone too.

We can disagree and I'm good with it. My team at present doesn't have Sherman or Bennett on it anymore and save for beating them when we play them I don't care about them anymore.
 

jlwaters1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
2,986
Reaction score
86
sdog1981":13ji1umq said:
AgentDib":13ji1umq said:
No sympathy for Bennett here. He absolutely could have helped us on the field this season but we had to move him for locker room reasons and that's 100% on him.


Bennett is having a huge season with the Eagles.


Frank Clark is having an even bigger year.
 

hawknation2018

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
3,082
Reaction score
0
jlwaters1":2dvg9lzq said:
sdog1981":2dvg9lzq said:
AgentDib":2dvg9lzq said:
No sympathy for Bennett here. He absolutely could have helped us on the field this season but we had to move him for locker room reasons and that's 100% on him.


Bennett is having a huge season with the Eagles.


Frank Clark is having an even bigger year.

:irishdrinkers:
 

semiahmoo

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2016
Messages
2,003
Reaction score
0
Totally support Brock's take because he's right.

There was so much going on behind the scenes that was big-time negative and I imagine Brock had access to some of that as did a lot of other folks.

It's a big organization. Lots of people involved - and people talk.
 

sc85sis

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2010
Messages
8,514
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Houston Suburbs
It speaks volumes to me that Sherm has continued to dog the team even though he’s gone. Bennett did the same after leaving, though not lately. Even Cliff said a few things early on, though mostly just to reiterate what others had said. Earl flipped the bird after his injury and hasn’t been heard from since.

The one guy we still see is Kam. He has had a visible presence on the sidelines. He’s the one true leader of the guys who aren’t playing in Seattle any more—despite his holdout a few years ago.
 

chris98251

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
39,639
Reaction score
1,659
Location
Roy Wa.
sc85sis":2ubdic95 said:
It speaks volumes to me that Sherm has continued to dog the team even though he’s gone. Bennett did the same after leaving, though not lately. Even Cliff said a few things early on, though mostly just to reiterate what others had said. Earl flipped the bird after his injury and hasn’t been heard from since.

The one guy we still see is Kam. He has had a visible presence on the sidelines. He’s the one true leader of the guys who aren’t playing in Seattle any more—despite his holdout a few years ago.

Other then Earl he is still on our Payroll also.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Seymour":1u452fe9 said:
You are wasting your time Sarge, good luck. This is beyond a common sense issue. Some just want to believe their superstar hero can do no wrong. :roll:
I don’t think anyone is stating that at all.

It’s obvious to every one that these players have personality flaws, but most great players do. Just as most great musicians are tourtured souls to varying degrees.

On the other hand some here think that the idiots and clowns on local sportsradio can do no wrong....


My problem with Jim Moore and Brock is they they interjected themselves to be part of the story and then while doing so stated their opinion(s) as Stone cold fact.

Moore is a washed up sports columnist and radio hack, a Brock is a never was been NFL QB.
They could have come up with the same story/opinion without making themselves part of the story, and would have come out of this looking alright instead of taking the low road. They both lost any credibility they might have still had IMHO!

Sports Radio is the new “reality TV”, stir up shit and start controversy.

Charles Barkley said it best during his playing days... “There’s a lot of stupid people in the world, and most of them are (sports) reporters!
 

BigMeach

Active member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
915
Reaction score
226
With Brock not specifically calling out player names, I think it says a lot that Michael Bennett is the one who responded.
 
Top