Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

The Tom Johnson Fiasco

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:45 pm
  • That's a stretch.

    All it is to me is more of Big Balls Pete, when he should be a more careful.

    I do agree with Fade however, that Pete needs to defer more to others on the major personnel decisions as several of his big moves have bit the team in the rear.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5339
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 3:52 pm
  • The Hutch thing was hubris. Ruskell was doing his 'fat guy with the goblet' move and it backfired on him. This is different.

    The way the FO is decisioning lately is just...weird.

    Take last year with Sheldon as an example.

    You have a player you essentially rent for one year. To do this, you have to pay valuable draft capital that costs your team for the next several years (in terms of potential on field productivity/contribution).

    Now, look at the roster last year:

    No RB/thin at RB
    Spotty OL
    Declining DL production
    Potential injuries and depth issues in the secondary

    Is that roster (one that missed the playoffs WITH the player you added) going to scream SB to you? What are you going all in on?

    There was little rational reason to expect the playoffs from this roster, much less reason to believe that Sheldon was the missing piece to put us back in the SB hunt. But they paid for him and paid dearly.

    So you either have no/flawed decisioning evaluation process for FA moves or you are trying to keep a dead baby afloat so nobody notices it is dead. Because other than a SB run the only reason to make that trade is to keep fan interest up and somehow keep the team competitive that year.

    It just made no sense. Not just looking back in hindsight, there was literally no reason to expect a playoff performance from that team. Just weird.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3271
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:36 pm
  • The Steve Hutch fiasco was with a different coach and gm.

    And, I think what IVO said is being brushed under the rug so it deserves to be repeated. It was never the coach and GM intent to cut a vested veteran. But, there was a need to add a safety to the 53. No one can forecast who will get injured.

    Again, as someone already said, but worth mentioning we didn’t resign the safety’s to the 53 to start, but to get on the field if an injury occurs. Based on our current injury situation, to have a healthy back up makes sense. Don’t you think?

    I get it. It doesn’t make sense to cut a vested vet and lose 2MIL in cap space.

    So, I ask the arm chair GM’s. Who do you cut and how do you spin it?

    IMO, That’s the real question.

    The DLINE is young, hungry and agressive. As noted, they held the Bears QB to 200 yds and their starting RB to 35 yds. I know this is just one game so I think we should see how this plays out for 16 games, not 2.

    And, if Johnson was such a valuable asset to the Vikes, why didn’t they sign him in the first place? Why did they let him go?
    truehawksfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 742
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:55 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:42 pm
  • This is nitpicking. I'm personally not freaking out if I have $170 and lose $2 of it. Tom Johnson was DL depth and he'll be DL depth in Minnesota. This team is in rebuild mode. Why would you keep a guy just on principal if you have younger potentially more talented players on the roster?
    User avatar
    12thbrah
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 740
    Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:42 am


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 6:56 pm
  • 12thbrah wrote:This is nitpicking. I'm personally not freaking out if I have $170 and lose $2 of it. Tom Johnson was DL depth and he'll be DL depth in Minnesota. This team is in rebuild mode. Why would you keep a guy just on principal if you have younger potentially more talented players on the roster?


    You're absolutely correct in a vacuum, it isn't a big deal.

    Now pullback and look at the oddball moves from the last 3 years.


    The people complaining, are looking at an extended period of questionable moves and this is....
    Image
    User avatar
    Fade
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1675
    Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:26 am
    Location: Truth Ray


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 7:19 pm
  • I just hope this becomes reminiscent of when PC/JS first came here and emptied the roster and I was like, WTH?
    There's two times of year for me: Football season, and waiting for football season.

    - Darius Rucker
    User avatar
    DomeHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 705
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:21 pm
  • Jesus.

    Someone quickly name one time they niticed Tom Johnson was on the team between the time he as signed and the time he was cut. Please.

    What a dumb thread.
    User avatar
    XxXdragonXxX
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2031
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:40 am
    Location: Enumclaw, WA


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:27 pm
  • Theory: The Seahawks showed that they don't play any reindeer games -- er, roster games, with veterans, so that they will continue to have an inside track for some of these UFA signings. Tom Johnson is the new poster child.

    Not saying it's right, just one possibility.

    Johnson signs, the Seahawks cut him the Friday before Game 1, whole different deal. Word gets around. Next Free agent will think twice.
    2018 Adopt-A-Rookie: Rashaad Penny
    2018 BounceBack Bet: C.J. Prosise
    User avatar
    olyfan63
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2075
    Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:03 am


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Wed Sep 19, 2018 10:50 pm
  • I agree with many that I'd rather have 3 comp picks next year than the FA we signed. To whatever degree Tom Johnson didn't work out as an old FA, his share towards losing a comp pick is a concern.

    That being said, I wasn't at all surprised that Pete added old FAs to try to compete this season. He did it starting in 2010 when he first showed up and ever since then we've had a rotation of older FA DL churning through. Pete has never viewed this season as a throwaway rebuild year and their moves the last two seasons have been to try to win games now. That leaves him at odds with the fans who are expecting a more serious rebuild based on future draft picks.

    Personally, I think Pete has earned the right to try to stay competitive. I also think we'll never have a fair view of that decision due to the injuries over the last two seasons that have sabotaged the team.
    User avatar
    AgentDib
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3500
    Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:08 pm
    Location: Seattle


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:17 am
  • XxXdragonXxX wrote:Jesus.

    Someone quickly name one time they niticed Tom Johnson was on the team between the time he as signed and the time he was cut. Please.

    What a dumb thread.


    What a dumb post.
    This is not about missing Johnson at all! :roll:

    It is about a trend of haphazard bad moves that still continue through when we are attempting to rebuild. The fact we are paying someone $1.8M (total) to play 1 game and now we are paying him to play against us.

    The fact is we miscalculated cutting a starting Dlineman for a #4 safety that never played. The miscalculation was either he wasn't who we thought he was (should have never made the team with week 1 full salary guarantee), or we would get him back (but he chose to double dip instead which is smart since he is near career end).
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5314
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Thu Sep 20, 2018 12:01 pm
  • Lol. I wish I was Tre Madden. This is THE BS of BS’s.
    WE ALL WE GOT, WE ALL WE NEED!!!!!!!!!!!
    Pandion Haliaetus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3238
    Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:07 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:23 pm
  • Ok we probably forgot that players cut before week 10 does NOT count against comp pick calculation

    If we cut two of the ones below we get a comp pick. Either way Tom Johnson isn’t counting against since he was cut

    Barkevious Mingo
    --Ed Dickson
    --Jaron Brown
    --Shamar Stephen
    --DJ Fluker
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7303
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:06 pm
  • Just a little hyperbole? The transition tag on Hutch was the worst move the organization ever made... no hyperbole.
    User avatar
    evergreen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 512
    Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:56 pm


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:42 pm
  • This is classic. If you keep players because you have money invested in them, then you are not honoring the "always compete" mantra, and if you let go players who cost the team money then it's terrible management.

    Pick one for change.

    Once we acquire 53 players then it doesn't matter how they got here or what they are owed when. If they perform then we keep them, and if they don't, then we don't.

    How many sacks did we get with Johnson playing? How many sacks did we get last week? How did this vaunted Vikings defense do in their last two outings?
    User avatar
    KiwiHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2102
    Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 3:22 pm
    Location: Auckland, New Zealand


Re: The Tom Johnson Fiasco
Sat Sep 29, 2018 1:51 pm
  • KiwiHawk wrote:This is classic. If you keep players because you have money invested in them, then you are not honoring the "always compete" mantra, and if you let go players who cost the team money then it's terrible management.

    Pick one for change.

    Once we acquire 53 players then it doesn't matter how they got here or what they are owed when. If they perform then we keep them, and if they don't, then we don't.

    How many sacks did we get with Johnson playing? How many sacks did we get last week? How did this vaunted Vikings defense do in their last two outings?

    People will dissect everything from the standpoint of damn near hoping to find a negative result.
    It's the .net way :irishdrinkers:
    Hindsight is a powerful weapon to have when providing opinions on personnel matters.

    The Johnson thing didn't go as hoped. It does look awful in retrospect. One team's defensive chess move resulted in another's counter.
    The game is the game.
    The Breh
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 264
    Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:58 pm


Previous


It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:35 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information