Are we tanking or not?

[Glasgow Seahawk]

I think this is a rebuild/evaluation year but the front office won't ever say that incase they exceed expectations like the Rams and Houston have done. Geno is a good stop gap QB. Difference between rebuilding and tanking though. We're mostly reallocating resources to higher priority positions and descoping the safety position along with allowing future cap space to be freed up for when we are good.

 

[WarHawks]

Definitely not. They are simply upfocusing and ideating differential development modi to maximize efficiency and create cohesive integration with increased collaboration indeces among various position groups. Because it would be a real shame to get a top draft pick next year. Wink wink.

 

[Kamcussionator]

Tanking would include getting rid of Lockett, Bellore, maybe Metcalf and Smith for a big push in 2025. I don't see us doing that.

We're going to try to put a competitive team out there, but I don't see us making any big moves for marquee players this year until the staff knows what they they've got and how player fit into their system.

 

[CactusJack]

Teams don't tank in the NFL

 

[Hipflexor]

I don’t see these moves as indication of anything besides reconfiguring the way they spend money.

The safety position is about to go through a new valuation, everyone’s cutting their highly paid safeties. Dissly’s deal was bloated, if JS is to be believed, they think they can compete this year.

Also tanks are for loser franchises like the cardinals

 

[Hawkinaz]

Tanking is what the Bears did, trading away any player that has value which isn’t on a rookie contract

 

[chris98251]

We cut high cost aging safeties, Mac uses the safety position a lot and likes loading up with safeties on the field from what I have read, we are going to get some guys in here that are young and hungry be it FA UDFA or Draft.

 

[Rat]

Maybe a soft tank in that they genuinely don't expect this to be a championship year. Eye to the future, but at least competitive in the interim.

 

[sutz]

I voted yes. And it’s not the traditional tanking. I think they are trying to see who fits and who doesn’t and that will take a year or two. You do need a serviceable QB so they can get a better idea who fits.

they are trying to remain competitive while cutting dead weight to give younger guys a chance to see what they can do. I don’t think they are trying to go 0-17 though. Just an evaluation year.

That's kinda the definition of "not tanking."

 

[James in PA]

I hope we "tank" like the Rams did this past season.

BOOK IT!

 

[bileever]

Tanking is getting rid of good players because they might help you win. We got rid of Adams and Diggs because they were going to make us lose.

 

[AnimeAmore]

Addition by subtraction.
You need to give the first time head coach a year to reshape the roster before you even think of making any "win now" moves. We aren't tanking but we also aren't trying to build the team in FA. The draft is where it's at, and we'll add necessary pieces after

 

[kidhawk]

We don’t cut Geno - “we aren’t tanking“
We cut Adams, Digg etc - “we are tanking”

so which is it?

IF we ARE tanking signing Geno was dumb from a cap view and, if he played all year, from a QBOTF game development view.
if we are NOT tanking we are cutting a lot of experience. (I agree with the cuts)

and If there is TRULY a QB competition for starting then signing Geno was also dumb as he’d be a stupidly overpaid backup if he lost.

When looking at salaries you really have to look at the whole position group. A similar scenario played out when we signed Flynn and drafted Wilson.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

Teams don't tank in the NFL

This. You could never create a winning culture after that. I do believe that players and or coaches have played unmotivated/uninspired in the back end of a losing season. I don’t believe you could get a team to collectively tank. At this level the people (including coaches) are way to competitive in spirit to lose on purpose. People throw that term around all the time yet I have yet to ever see it. If you think trading a bunch of valuable players away to get a load of draft picks and reload the team is tanking then maybe we have different definitions of what that means.

 

[CsrolinaHawker]

Cutting Diggs and Adams is just good business. Look at all the other safeties being let go. Teams are just devaluing the position. Hell who knows, when all is said and done we end up with Justin Simmons on a deal half of what Diggs or Adams was on.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Not tanking, but not shocked if they aren't world beaters either. It's a rebuild.

 

[CactusJack]

Not tanking, but not shocked if they aren't world beaters either. It's a rebuild.

I wouldn't call it a rebuild. They're not starting from scratch (roster). But they're definitely shifting their philosophy on both sides of the ball with an entirely new coaching staff.

It's basically a new regime cutting dead weight. As they try to shape this thing into their own image.

 

[IndyHawk]

Overpaid, fat and unmotivated players are being purged to
fit the new culture.
It takes time to rebuild and if that is tanking then so be it.
I look forward to a new exciting era of Seahawk football.

 

[Rat]

I don’t believe you could get a team to collectively tank. At this level the people (including coaches) are way to competitive in spirit to lose on purpose.

A lot of people take the word "tanking" too literally. No players or coaches are being told to throw games. Tanking is done on the managerial level, and all it really is is placing added emphasis on the future while reducing focus on winning in the present. Priority is on getting younger guys playing experience, compiling future assets, and purging contracts that dont fit into the long-term plan. Like if you have two players at one position, an established vet and an inexperienced youngster, you'd play the latter to get him up to speed, even though the former is more likely to contribute to a winning result in the present. It's more not putting players in position in a position to win than it is asking players to lose. Sometimes, going 5-12 is better for future, sustained winning than going 7-10.

 

[Glasgow Seahawk]

Teams don't tank in the NFL

100% Teams that stink often is usually due to leadership from the top- Jets, Raiders, Bears, Jags, Commanders (under previous regime).

Either these owners are too cheap when it matters to get the right talent/facilities in the organization or are too trigger happy and reactive in their decision making.

I don't think they mean to tank but just get sabotaged from above.