Are the Seahawks being targeted for player "issues"?

[gargantual]

Maybe our players should not be doing drugs and they can test all they want.

Ahem......kinda funny to hear someone from Toronto saying anything about someone doing drugs.....glass houses and all that. (Still can't believe how much that mayor reminds me of Chris Farley....may he rest in peace).

The whole stupidity rant is really a given (but c'mon everybody....let's beat that horse some more!)

....but I like the concept that it's not so much them targeting us as being hesitant to police the "big money" franchises and a lot of their crap being swept under the rug. Although there HAS to be a heightened level of scrutiny after they so publicly called out Sherm last year and had egg all over their faces as he thumbed his nose at them after beating the rap.

Maybe they should've learned their lesson about not violating confidentiality, and WAITED UNTIL THEY WERE SURE THEY HAD HIM DEAD TO RIGHTS. Stupidity on their part or else (if the leak was a mistake) incompetence!

 

[RiverDog]

The situations of Dwayne Bowe and Aldon Smith are completely irrelevant to those of WT3 and Browner. Thurmond and Browner were not arrested. They were tested by the league. Bowe and Smith were not tested by the league. The NFL has made it a policy not to discipline players that have legal problems until they have been convicted. We've seen it with Michael Vick, Aaron Hernandez, and our own Marshawn Lynch, so please, quit bringing up those guys names in relation to the situation our guys are facing. Once the law has run its course, those guys will be disciplined.

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

 

[Polaris]

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the norm of the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

It's also a fair question to ask if the media is applying a double-standard. I take issue with the bolded word. I contest based on the publically available number that 1-2 more than at least a half-dozen other NFL franchises is not a statistically high rate of suspensions especially when Pete Carroll and John Schneider make a point of giving players with talent a chance when other teams might not. I seem to remember a few years ago when Jim Mora and Tim Ruskell went the other way. I like it this way personally. However, when the Seahawks take risks with players, sometimes that risk will burn us.

 

[gargantual]

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the norm of the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

It's also a fair question to ask if the media is applying a double-standard. I take issue with the bolded word. I contest based on the publically available number that 1-2 more than at least a half-dozen other NFL franchises is not a statistically high rate of suspensions especially when Pete Carroll and John Schneider make a point of giving players with talent a chance when other teams might not. I seem to remember a few years ago when Jim Mora and Tim Ruskell went the other way. I like it this way personally. However, when the Seahawks take risks with players, sometimes that risk will burn us.

Those are some great points. Casting a wider net for talent can have a downside too. I don't like what it does to our team's reputation, but does anyone want to go back to the Ruskell days where we only drafted choirboys?

 

[gargantual]

-------------deleted double post-----------------------

 

[RiverDog]

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the norm of the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

It's also a fair question to ask if the media is applying a double-standard. I take issue with the bolded word. I contest based on the publically available number that 1-2 more than at least a half-dozen other NFL franchises is not a statistically high rate of suspensions especially when Pete Carroll and John Schneider make a point of giving players with talent a chance when other teams might not. I seem to remember a few years ago when Jim Mora and Tim Ruskell went the other way. I like it this way personally. However, when the Seahawks take risks with players, sometimes that risk will burn us.

I did an unscientific search, using Wikipedia, which admittedly isn't the most reliable of sources, and noting that it includes all suspensions, not just PED's/Substance Abuse, and found that there were 54 player suspensions from 2011 through Thurmond's suspension a few days ago. That's an average of 1.59 players per team. Of those 54 players, 6 were Seahawks, meaning our rate of suspensions is over three and a half times the rate the average NFL team has. In 2013 alone, we have had 2 of the 27 total suspensions, and that's not counting Richard Sherman's suspension, which was overturned on a technicality. If Browner is suspended it will make 3 in this season. That, my friend, is significant.

As some have indicated, part of the explanation could be that we are "casting a wider net", in that we may be giving more at risk players chances than other teams. Bruce Irvin certainly fits that profile, but Thurmond and Browner? I'm not so sure. In any case, 3.5 times the league average is a lot of players to answer for, and I don't think there's one answer that entirely explains the problem.

Would I rather go back to the Ruskell days? Of course, not. But our success on the field should not prevent us from asking the question "is our coaching staff is doing all it can to help keep our guys out of trouble?".

 

[Polaris]

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the norm of the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

It's also a fair question to ask if the media is applying a double-standard. I take issue with the bolded word. I contest based on the publically available number that 1-2 more than at least a half-dozen other NFL franchises is not a statistically high rate of suspensions especially when Pete Carroll and John Schneider make a point of giving players with talent a chance when other teams might not. I seem to remember a few years ago when Jim Mora and Tim Ruskell went the other way. I like it this way personally. However, when the Seahawks take risks with players, sometimes that risk will burn us.

I did an unscientific search, using Wikipedia, which admittedly isn't the most reliable of sources, and noting that it includes all suspensions, not just PED's/Substance Abuse, and found that there were 54 player suspensions from 2011 through Thurmond's suspension a few days ago. That's an average of 1.59 players per team. Of those 54 players, 6 were Seahawks, meaning our rate of suspensions is over three and a half times the rate the average NFL team has. In 2013 alone, we have had 2 of the 27 total suspensions, and if Browner is suspended it will make 3. That, my friend, is significant.

Dig deeper. For it to be significant, you would have to show that the difference is statistically significant and you haven't done so. You need to show the varience as well as the raw averages. Considering that at least a half dozen nfl franchises have suspensions within 1-2 of our own, I challenge that the Seahawks have a statisticially significantly higher incidence than other NFL franchises.

 

[Leee-roy]

The league needs to look at it's policy an marijuana.
The only reason it's not decriminalized everywhere is, lobbying from private prison corporations, prison guard unions, and law enforcement,(who get a lot of $$ from the feds and property seizures).
If the boys want to have a puff in the evenings, let 'em.

 

[Polaris]

I have done some statistical analysis based on the Wiki information (which is suspect but it's what I have). Of the 53 suspensions since 2011 for substance abuse and PED (combined) 2 are for free agents (not affiliated with any team).

Of the 32 teams the data to two significant figures (the data is far too raw for any greater precision) comes out as follows:

Mean number of players suspended: 1.6
Error (to 95% confidence): 3.4

[So it's 1.6 +/- 3.4 or a range of 0 to 5 within 95%]

Highest Team Incidence: Washington Redskins with 7 NOT Seattle (although Seattle is #2 at 6)
I also note that the incidents for Seattle this year is 2. The highest this year is three (Jacksonville).

I note that neither Sherman NOR Browner (this year) is counted nor should they be since in Sherman's case, he won his appealed and was not suspended, and in Browner's case, no suspension has been handed down (and might never be).

Based on the data, while Seattle does in fact have a higher stastical rate, based on the courseness of the data, and the fact that Seattle is on the edge of the two sigma confidence interval...and we KNOW that Seattle takes high risk players, then YES I do think that Seattle is being unfairly maligned by the press. This is not excusing individual players in any way. I also think the data does not suggest that Seattle has an excessive problem over and above the rest of the interval....only that Seattle might have a problem. Far more data (with far better error bars) would be needed to draw the conclusion that the press (and frankly some posters here) are leaping to.

 

[Polaris]

Stirring the pot further, if you take the Wiki numbers and then calculate TOTAL player suspensions in the NFL (regardless of cause) from 2011 to present, we get 19 additional incidents (discounting unaffiliated players) for a total of 72 with the following results:

Average Number of Incidents per Club: 2.2
Margin of Error to 95% confidence: 4.0
Result: 2.2 +/- 4.0 (or 0 to 6.2)

Team with the most incidents: Washington Redskins at 9 and it's not even close. If there is ANY team that should be castigated for being overall dirty, it's the Redskins not the Seahawks. Seattle and New Orleans are tied at 6 for second.

Even more evidence IMHO that the media coverage on this issue has been....slanted.

 

[RiverDog]

Stirring the pot further, if you take the Wiki numbers and then calculate TOTAL player suspensions in the NFL (regardless of cause) from 2011 to present, we get 19 additional incidents (discounting unaffiliated players) for a total of 72 with the following results:

Average Number of Incidents per Club: 2.2
Margin of Error to 95% confidence: 4.0
Result: 2.2 +/- 4.0 (or 0 to 6.2)

Team with the most incidents: Washington Redskins at 9 and it's not even close. If there is ANY team that should be castigated for being overall dirty, it's the Redskins not the Seahawks. Seattle and New Orleans are tied at 6 for second.

Even more evidence IMHO that the media coverage on this issue has been....slanted.

I was not attempting to compare us with any specific team. I was simply noting that we are well above the league average for suspensions, especially if you were to limit it to PED/Substance Abuse violations and especially if you limit it further to the past 12 months. Arguing that there might be one or two teams that are 'dirtier' than us isn't a very good defense IMO. It's a problem our coaching staff needs to address, which I am sure that they are. They'd be fools if they didn't read the writing on the wall and start taking corrective measures.

I could care less what the media says about us, positive or negative.

 

[Polaris]

Stirring the pot further, if you take the Wiki numbers and then calculate TOTAL player suspensions in the NFL (regardless of cause) from 2011 to present, we get 19 additional incidents (discounting unaffiliated players) for a total of 72 with the following results:

Average Number of Incidents per Club: 2.2
Margin of Error to 95% confidence: 4.0
Result: 2.2 +/- 4.0 (or 0 to 6.2)

Team with the most incidents: Washington Redskins at 9 and it's not even close. If there is ANY team that should be castigated for being overall dirty, it's the Redskins not the Seahawks. Seattle and New Orleans are tied at 6 for second.

Even more evidence IMHO that the media coverage on this issue has been....slanted.

I was not attempting to compare us with any specific team. I was simply noting that we are well above the league average for suspensions, especially if you were to limit it to PED/Substance Abuse violations and especially if you limit it further to the past 12 months. Arguing that there might be one or two teams that are 'dirtier' than us isn't a very good defense IMO. It's a problem our coaching staff needs to address, which I am sure that they are. They'd be fools if they didn't read the writing on the wall and start taking corrective measures.

I could care less what the media says about us, positive or negative.

I wasn't presenting it as a defense. I was pointing out that the reporting on this has unfairly maligned the team and has been downright dirty and borderline libelous (talking to you Silver) and the numbers I've shown along with the statistical analysis bears this out.

 

[RiverDog]

Stirring the pot further, if you take the Wiki numbers and then calculate TOTAL player suspensions in the NFL (regardless of cause) from 2011 to present, we get 19 additional incidents (discounting unaffiliated players) for a total of 72 with the following results:

Average Number of Incidents per Club: 2.2
Margin of Error to 95% confidence: 4.0
Result: 2.2 +/- 4.0 (or 0 to 6.2)

Team with the most incidents: Washington Redskins at 9 and it's not even close. If there is ANY team that should be castigated for being overall dirty, it's the Redskins not the Seahawks. Seattle and New Orleans are tied at 6 for second.

Even more evidence IMHO that the media coverage on this issue has been....slanted.

I was not attempting to compare us with any specific team. I was simply noting that we are well above the league average for suspensions, especially if you were to limit it to PED/Substance Abuse violations and especially if you limit it further to the past 12 months. Arguing that there might be one or two teams that are 'dirtier' than us isn't a very good defense IMO. It's a problem our coaching staff needs to address, which I am sure that they are. They'd be fools if they didn't read the writing on the wall and start taking corrective measures.

I could care less what the media says about us, positive or negative.

I wasn't presenting it as a defense. I was pointing out that the reporting on this has unfairly maligned the team and has been downright dirty and borderline libelous (talking to you Silver) and the numbers I've shown along with the statistical analysis bears this out.

Like I said, I don't give two hoots in hell how slanted the media coverage has been. It doesn't affect our chances of winning one iota. On the other hand, player suspensions do affect our team and can have a huge effect on our chances of winning.

 

[Polaris]

Like I said, I don't give two hoots in hell how slanted the media coverage has been. It doesn't affect our chances of winning one iota. On the other hand, player suspensions do affect our team and can have a huge effect on our chances of winning.

That's nice. I do care. I do care for several reasons:

1. If the media coverage is negative, it's a lot easier for the League to impose discipline that otherwise would be either unfair or of questionable fairness. Ask the Saints fans all about that!

2. The news coverage affects the willingness of free agents to sign with this team (at least potentially).

3. If there is enough unfair negative coverage, it can exacerbate and "us vs them" mentality which while healthy can make it more difficult to actually correct problems that need to be corrected. That can also lead to....

4. An potentially adversarial relationship between the players of the organization and their fans (and I am starting to see signs of this).

The other reason I think it matters, is that I am not at all convinced this is really a problem rather than a stastitical artifact. In fact the numbers strongly suggest that it is at least possibly a statistical artifact when you account for the fact that the Seahawks DO take chances with marginal players with talent (which would automatically generate a higher baseline).

 

[RiverDog]

Like I said, I don't give two hoots in hell how slanted the media coverage has been. It doesn't affect our chances of winning one iota. On the other hand, player suspensions do affect our team and can have a huge effect on our chances of winning.

That's nice. I do care. I do care for several reasons:

1. If the media coverage is negative, it's a lot easier for the League to impose discipline that otherwise would be either unfair or of questionable fairness. Ask the Saints fans all about that!

2. The news coverage affects the willingness of free agents to sign with this team (at least potentially).

3. If there is enough unfair negative coverage, it can exacerbate and "us vs them" mentality which while healthy can make it more difficult to actually correct problems that need to be corrected. That can also lead to....

4. An potentially adversarial relationship between the players of the organization and their fans (and I am starting to see signs of this).

The other reason I think it matters, is that I am not at all convinced this is really a problem rather than a stastitical artifact. In fact the numbers strongly suggest that it is at least possibly a statistical artifact when you account for the fact that the Seahawks DO take chances with marginal players with talent (which would automatically generate a higher baseline).

I disagree completely. But that's your opinion, and I respect it. We'll just have to agree to disagree as I don't think we're getting anywhere on this topic.

Go Hawks!

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

Secondly, I am not excusing either WT3 or BB. They are 100% responsible for their actions. However, when the number of PED/substance abuse suspensions are well above the norm of the average of the other NFL teams, then we also have to look at other areas of our organization for answers. Is there something that we are or are not doing that's contributing to this abnormally high rate of suspensions? It's a fair question.

It's also a fair question to ask if the media is applying a double-standard. I take issue with the bolded word. I contest based on the publically available number that 1-2 more than at least a half-dozen other NFL franchises is not a statistically high rate of suspensions especially when Pete Carroll and John Schneider make a point of giving players with talent a chance when other teams might not. I seem to remember a few years ago when Jim Mora and Tim Ruskell went the other way. I like it this way personally. However, when the Seahawks take risks with players, sometimes that risk will burn us.

Those are some great points. Casting a wider net for talent can have a downside too. I don't like what it does to our team's reputation, but does anyone want to go back to the Ruskell days where we only drafted choirboys?

No because of the wider net our depth is better equipped to handle starters being injured or removed just like EVERYONE will witness on MNF.

 

[MeanBlueGreen]

I think that the more successful the team is, the more other teams are gunning for them. I'm sure the Saints and others have teams of people trying to dig up whatever they can.

Happens in college all the time...

 

[RiverDog]

I think that the more successful the team is, the more other teams are gunning for them. I'm sure the Saints and others have teams of people trying to dig up whatever they can.

Happens in college all the time...

You're absolutely right about "it" happening in college, ie digging up dirt on a team/school, in particular the SEC. But the reason it happens there is due to the competition for talent. There is virtually no competition between NFL teams for talent, at least not compared to the situation with the colleges where student athletes can go to any school they choose. I don't think we have to worry about the 49'ers sending out undercover spies to unearth scandals within the Seahawks organization like Alabama's competition might have done to Mike Price.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Polaris,

It would also be interesting to see out of how many players total since 2011 each team has had on their rosters.

Let's say for instance team A had 90 different players on their roster since 2011 but had 6 infractions.

But team B kept its roster a little tight knit and only had 70 different players yet had 4 infractions.

1 team is risking more than the other because its constantly changing and adding new personell which could lead to two things:

1. Constant change makes it harder to establish leadership and for players to hold each other accountable off the field.

2. The constant change makes it a competetive atmosphere and the burden as well as the realism of getting paid and working in a multi-million industry and wanting that security will likely cause many young players as well as older players to improve or maintain performance. Sometimes athletes will cheat and 99% of the time, its that athletes own damn fault.

With all that said the scrutiny of the Seahawks for PEDs/substance abuse is overblown completely.

Media outlets only provide body counts not actual research because Barbre, Moffitt, and Sherman should all be exempt.

Barbre tested positive while with the Dolphins.

Moffitt failed to file a special exempt that allows players to use Adderall under prescription.

Sherman wasn't convicted, and I'm sure he's had to pee in more than one cup that wasn't broken.

So that leaves Browner, Guy, and Irvin as the PED culprits. Irvin is the only one that seems sketchy of using something other than "Adderall" , we will never know... however I do know Irvin was suspended in April meaning he has passed 56 random drugs test across 7 months... and served his 4 game suspension, a whole month away from the team, practice, and games while undergoing a position change. You can hardly call that performance enhancing in any way.

And Browner and Thurmond as the Substance Abuse culprits.

Altogether, 4 players... and looking at that list of suspended players that's really not that big.
Every team has players with drug problems.

Seahawks get a bad rap because they are painted as a villian. If idiots want to call the Seahawks cheaters because two players smoked weed... then let them be ignorant.

Only 1 player out of 61 total who have been on the roster has been suspended for PEDs and that was 7 months, 56 drug tests ago where anything he used would not of had any performance impact when he played his first game in week 5.