Seahawks 2016 And USC 2009 Meltdowns

[Uncle Si]

Strange? To you possibly I suppose.

I find it far more strange to speculate on silence as you are attempting. We hear less than 1% of what goes on in the locker room, so yes, I'll take a former player and coaches word over most.

To me....if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, it's a duck.

We hear less than 1%?

That's crap, and you've made plenty of posts about all that we do hear... including Sherman, Bennett, Carroll, etc.

No, you are picking a side and supporting regardless of the fragility of its existence. Do you believe in aliens because we haven't proven they don't exist?


It is strange.

 

[Seymour]

Believe what you must, it is your right to.

Others however appear to not be able share in this right.

Aliens has what to do with football and this discussion, and how is that on topic of 2016 Meltdowns?

Yes less than 1% of what goes on in the locker room is what i said. 60 players, how many coaches, and hundreds of conversations that take place daily. We catch a fraction of what is said there.

Their mindset is keep it in house. They are good at that, even Percy never made it out. It takes coaches or players leaving for much of this to surface.

 

[IrishNW]

Petros loves being the voice of doom.

Pete chose Barkley because he was the best candidate. He was a leader. Aaron Corp crumbled under pressure (as seen when USC played Washington that year). Mitch Mustain was inconsistent.

Pete may or may not "favor" his QB, but that hardly makes him different from other coaches. Do you think Belichick favors Brady? Do you think Aaron is favored in Green Bay? Big Ben in Pittsburgh? Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and in the current NFL they get lots of attention. If the guys on D don't like that, they need a reality check.

I don't think you can compare us to another team. The problem is that favoritism completely undermines his entire coaching philosophy. I don't think that's the case for the other teams in the NFL. For an example Belichick starts who ever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can favor players and its not a problem because he does not come into the meeting room every day and preach the best player will win the job.

 

[Uncle Si]

Believe what you must, it is your right to.

Others however appear to not be able share in this right.

Aliens has what to do with football and this discussion, and how is that on topic of 2016 Meltdowns?

Yes less than 1% of what goes on in the locker room is what i said. 60 players, how many coaches, and hundreds of conversations that take place daily. We catch a fraction of what is said there.

Their mindset is keep it in house. They are good at that, even Percy never made it out. It takes coaches or players leaving for much of this to surface.

Oh come on Seymour... don't try and play a victim because you and I don't agree. That's nonsense.

I will let you piece together the metaphor. You can do it. If you want to remain on topic, why did you bring up Sherman? You took it here.

This team has not been very quiet with its issues. You have made many posts in many threads regarding that. If Sherman really, desperately wanted to call out Wilson or wanted Carroll to, we would know. If you want to equate that to an exact percentage, sure, hit it at under 1%. Should we weight it as well? Because it seems that Sherman's mini meltdowns have been a very hot topic on this board for months now.

I think it's naive to take the word of one person no longer working for the team as gospel. Sure, it can reflect a growing tension, one that I believe exists (in all teams). You have literally made it a point of fact in many posts. I disagree with that. I actually find it a strange way to interpret the situation.

 

[Seymour]

I am not playing victim. I refuse to get into a discussion when we cannot even agree on basic understanding of words and comments like "so and so never said that". I say you cannot know that (which is absolutely true) you say BS. Had you said something like "I've never heard him say that", or "where did you hear that?"....we can move on. I cannot move on with those that have what IMO is twisted definitions of words.

That said. Sherman is on topic, it all revolves around his outbursts. How much did you hear about this before you actually witnessed this in a game? NONE that I saw.

No, I don't generally take one persons word as gospel. But if it fits, if it is logical, if there has been similar comments from others, if he is a reliable source and it makes sense, then yes, I take that over a proven liar and his silence any day.

 

[Uncle Si]

No, I don't generally take one persons word as gospel. But if it fits, if it is logical, if there has been similar comments from others, if he is a reliable source and it makes sense, then yes, I take that over a proven liar and his silence any day.

Fair enough... but this is where I'm not buying into it all. I don't see the source as reliable, and we have not yet heard definitive statements from others that support or match it.

Also, who is the proven liar? Sherman? Carroll? These statements seem very escalating. You certainly have a very real issue with Sherman.

The meltdown here, though, was whether Carroll was losing the team because of his reliance on poor QBs. Noone on this team can think that a QB change is necessary. Shit, if they need an apology from Wilson for the throw even that's not fair. he didn't call the play.

The whole thing seems contrived, really. Again, if you want to devote alot of energy to it, so be it. I don't see the point in it for fans or media. Even if Sherman does have a problem with Wilson, that's not an uncommon dynamic in an NFL locker room and he's certainly pretty quiet about his dissatisfaction at the moment so it's not a distraction unless people (media people) talk about it.

 

[Seymour]

And to think I attempted to agree with you and this is how that turned out because I mention the name Sherman. :roll:

I have an issue with Shermans erratic behavior and ego, yes. Do I think it will still be a problem? Yes, unless I see evidence of change I do.
Sherman is the proven liar, when he denied the Moore incident without realizing it was on tape that made him look ridiculous for starters. Ask someone else if you don't believe me on this.

Here is one of hundreds of links on the denial of any wrong doing or even admit to saying anything negative to Moore.

http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/20...erman-nobody-cares-to-know-what-the-truth-is/

 

[Uncle Si]

And to think I attempted to agree with you and this is how that turned out because I mention the name Sherman. :roll:

I have an issue with Shermans erratic behavior and ego, yes. Do I think it will still be a problem? Yes, unless I see evidence of change I do.
Sherman is the proven liar, when he denied the Moore incident without realizing it was on tape that made him look ridiculous for starters. Ask someone else if you don't believe me on this.

Here is one of hundreds of links on the denial of any wrong doing or even admit to saying anything negative to Moore.

http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/20...erman-nobody-cares-to-know-what-the-truth-is/

I don't deny Sherman lied about the Moore incident. I don't really care either, to be honest. I was merely trying to determine who you were calling a liar, as the OP was about Carroll (and, you know, he had his issues at USC).

As for agreeing with me... I mean where did you do that? I don't think the Sherman thing is a big deal, at all. You do, and have made that point vehemently in many threads.

 

[Seymour]

And to think I attempted to agree with you and this is how that turned out because I mention the name Sherman. :roll:

I have an issue with Shermans erratic behavior and ego, yes. Do I think it will still be a problem? Yes, unless I see evidence of change I do.
Sherman is the proven liar, when he denied the Moore incident without realizing it was on tape that made him look ridiculous for starters. Ask someone else if you don't believe me on this.

Here is one of hundreds of links on the denial of any wrong doing or even admit to saying anything negative to Moore.

http://seahawkswire.usatoday.com/20...erman-nobody-cares-to-know-what-the-truth-is/

I don't deny Sherman lied about the Moore incident. I don't really care either, to be honest. I was merely trying to determine who you were calling a liar, as the OP was about Carroll (and, you know, he had his issues at USC).

As for agreeing with me... I mean where did you do that? I don't think the Sherman thing is a big deal, at all. You do, and have made that point vehemently in many threads.

Really? You can't be serious?

What does the word "Exactly" mean to you?

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137236#p2048211

 

[Uncle Si]

Really? You can't be serious?

What does the word "Exactly" mean to you?

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137236#p2048211

Seriously? after arguing with me for like 6 posts, you're going to go back to the first one post where you agree with one sentence and then immediately bring Sherman into it? You can't be serious. My goodness.

Have a word with yourself Seymour...

 

[Seymour]

Really? You can't be serious?

What does the word "Exactly" mean to you?

http://www.seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=137236#p2048211

Seriously? after arguing with me for like 6 posts, you're going to go back to the first one post where you agree with one sentence and then immediately bring Sherman into it? You can't be serious. My goodness.

Have a word with yourself Seymour...

You missed my point. This entire exchange started with me agreeing with you, and went south because I mentioned Shermans name. Do you disagree with that?
Why is it any different whether it's posters here, Petro's, or Sherman that believes Pete does not hold Russell to the same standard and should be called out? It is all the same opinion based on the same premiss (that we coddle an inferior QB...pure BS IMO)

 

[Uncle Si]

(that we coddle an inferior QB...pure BS IMO)

We agree...

 

[sc85sis]

Petros loves being the voice of doom.

Pete chose Barkley because he was the best candidate. He was a leader. Aaron Corp crumbled under pressure (as seen when USC played Washington that year). Mitch Mustain was inconsistent.

Pete may or may not "favor" his QB, but that hardly makes him different from other coaches. Do you think Belichick favors Brady? Do you think Aaron is favored in Green Bay? Big Ben in Pittsburgh? Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and in the current NFL they get lots of attention. If the guys on D don't like that, they need a reality check.

I don't think you can compare us to another team. The problem is that favoritism completely undermines his entire coaching philosophy. I don't think that's the case for the other teams in the NFL. For an example Belichick starts who ever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can favor players and its not a problem because he does not come into the meeting room every day and preach the best player will win the job.

Who do we have better than Russ at QB? Who's been available to acquire who is better?

 

[IrishNW]

Petros loves being the voice of doom.

Pete chose Barkley because he was the best candidate. He was a leader. Aaron Corp crumbled under pressure (as seen when USC played Washington that year). Mitch Mustain was inconsistent.

Pete may or may not "favor" his QB, but that hardly makes him different from other coaches. Do you think Belichick favors Brady? Do you think Aaron is favored in Green Bay? Big Ben in Pittsburgh? Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and in the current NFL they get lots of attention. If the guys on D don't like that, they need a reality check.

I don't think you can compare us to another team. The problem is that favoritism completely undermines his entire coaching philosophy. I don't think that's the case for the other teams in the NFL. For an example Belichick starts who ever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can favor players and its not a problem because he does not come into the meeting room every day and preach the best player will win the job.

Who do we have better than Russ at QB? Who's been available to acquire who is better?

Who currently on this roster is a better QB than rus? I would have to assume no one.

Who's been available? I honestly don't know, I don't pay that much attention.

Does that mean there hasn't been opportunities to improve that position? No it does not. Probably unlikely though.

 

[Tusc2000]

Petros loves being the voice of doom.

Pete chose Barkley because he was the best candidate. He was a leader. Aaron Corp crumbled under pressure (as seen when USC played Washington that year). Mitch Mustain was inconsistent.

Pete may or may not "favor" his QB, but that hardly makes him different from other coaches. Do you think Belichick favors Brady? Do you think Aaron is favored in Green Bay? Big Ben in Pittsburgh? Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and in the current NFL they get lots of attention. If the guys on D don't like that, they need a reality check.

I don't think you can compare us to another team. The problem is that favoritism completely undermines his entire coaching philosophy. I don't think that's the case for the other teams in the NFL. For an example Belichick starts who ever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can favor players and its not a problem because he does not come into the meeting room every day and preach the best player will win the job.

Who do we have better than Russ at QB? Who's been available to acquire who is better?

The 2016 Seahawks and 2009 Trojans are not comparable at all.

The 2009 Trojans had to scramble because Mark Sanchez left early for the NFL. Barkley did okay for a true freshman, but he made the typical freshman mistakes.

But the Trojans also lost their entire stud LB corp to graduation -- Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Rey Mauluga -- and their D took a big step down, giving up 55 points to the likes of Stanford and 47 to Oregon. Suffice to say 2009 was a rebuilding year for SC.

I think Pete managed that as well as anyone could. He left after that season simply because he got the NFL deal he had been waiting for, not because he knew sanctions were imminent. Conspiracy theorists may disagree.

But how any of this really relates to the Seahawks 2016 season is dubious.

 

[sc85sis]

Petros loves being the voice of doom.

Pete chose Barkley because he was the best candidate. He was a leader. Aaron Corp crumbled under pressure (as seen when USC played Washington that year). Mitch Mustain was inconsistent.

Pete may or may not "favor" his QB, but that hardly makes him different from other coaches. Do you think Belichick favors Brady? Do you think Aaron is favored in Green Bay? Big Ben in Pittsburgh? Franchise QBs don't grow on trees and in the current NFL they get lots of attention. If the guys on D don't like that, they need a reality check.

I don't think you can compare us to another team. The problem is that favoritism completely undermines his entire coaching philosophy. I don't think that's the case for the other teams in the NFL. For an example Belichick starts who ever he wants for whatever reason he wants. He can favor players and its not a problem because he does not come into the meeting room every day and preach the best player will win the job.

Who do we have better than Russ at QB? Who's been available to acquire who is better?

The 2016 Seahawks and 2009 Trojans are not comparable at all.

The 2009 Trojans had to scramble because Mark Sanchez left early for the NFL. Barkley did okay for a true freshman, but he made the typical freshman mistakes.

But the Trojans also lost their entire stud LB corp to graduation -- Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Rey Mauluga -- and their D took a big step down, giving up 55 points to the likes of Stanford and 47 to Oregon. Suffice to say 2009 was a rebuilding year for SC.

I think Pete managed that as well as anyone could. He left after that season simply because he got the NFL deal he had been waiting for, not because he knew sanctions were imminent. Conspiracy theorists may disagree.

But how any of this really relates to the Seahawks 2016 season is dubious.

That's an excellent point. They had I think 11 guys drafted in 2009, including Sanchez, kicker David Buehler and a slew of defensive players.