Good Field Gulls article on Pete

[semiahmoo]

No, Sherman's reaction is a byproduct of the fracture. Try to keep up.

Perspective...

 

[Uncle Si]

No, Sherman's reaction is a byproduct of the fracture. Try to keep up.

Perspective...

It's not that difficult... one guy is upset... you are stretching that to be a by-product of an overall team fracture. It's hyperbolic assumption. Truly not a difficult thing to follow. Just no real logic behind. Repeating from thread to thread doesn't improve it.

Perspective. Good idea. Try and get some.

 

[Popeyejones]

Even though I don't totally buy it, I do think this was a well-written and well-framed think piece.

I do think it's leaning on a pretty standard narrative about what happens over time with player's coaches, which is also pretty standard for the consequences of "nice guy"/"cool guy" leadership styles more broadly.

In education circles the cautionary tale is expressed through the "Don't smile until November" rule. If you start out as the "nice" or "cool" or "forgiving" teacher in the beginning of September, by October the kids will start testing limits, and by December the class will be a total chaotic mess. Most importantly, if you start as the "nice" or "cool" guy, once that bottle is uncorked you can't get the cork back in, as if you then try to be more disciplinarian the kids don't take you seriously and they just revolt. If you start too easy going you've basically screwed yourself and you've got to wait it out until next semester when you get to start over again.

In the NFL we're obviously talking about adults and not children, but with buddies in management positions not in education I've talked about this a fair amount and they've said it's the same deal with their jobs managing adults, although not nearly as fast moving and dramatic as it probably is for teachers.

 

[Hyak]

It's been festering for a while. Sherman became the most vocal critic but others likely feel the same as he does but the team as a whole likely wanted him to chill out as it was becoming on issue on the field.

The team is fractured. Gonna take a whole lot of work to fix that.

There's zero evidence of Sherman being the voice of others. If anything, there's far more evidence that his teammates were getting tired of his behavior (see Kam's comments after the Atlanta loss), Baldwin's remarks recently. I also don't recall any player coming out in defense of Sherman after the Rams game and subsequent sulking in the media for the rest of the season.

I think the real issue that fans have a really hard time digesting is that the Seahawks were no longer the best team in the NFL talent wise. Even in 2014, they were not as the depth already was starting to regress. That certainly was highlighted when Brady tore up guys like Simon and they were rushing Tukuafu at DT in the 4th quarter. If you look at last year, the ugly truth was that the OL was incredibly inexperienced and raw and injuries derailed their plans with Wilson, Rawls, and Procise. Add in losing Thomas and the defense fell apart. I see their moves this offseason as a real commitment to address weak areas (OL, RB, defensive depth) with better competition to recharge the overall roster and ensure that guys are not just handed spots.

 

[semiahmoo]

Even though I don't totally buy it, I do think this was a well-written and well-framed think piece.

I do think it's leaning on a pretty standard narrative about what happens over time with player's coaches, which is also pretty standard for the consequences of "nice guy"/"cool guy" leadership styles more broadly.

In education circles the cautionary tale is expressed through the "Don't smile until November" rule. If you start out as the "nice" or "cool" or "forgiving" teacher in the beginning of September, by October the kids will start testing limits, and by December the class will be a total chaotic mess. Most importantly, if you start as the "nice" or "cool" guy, once that bottle is uncorked you can't get the cork back in, as if you then try to be more disciplinarian the kids don't take you seriously and they just revolt. If you start too easy going you've basically screwed yourself and you've got to wait it out until next semester when you get to start over again.

In the NFL we're obviously talking about adults and not children, but with buddies in management positions not in education I've talked about this a fair amount and they've said it's the same deal with their jobs managing adults, although not nearly as fast moving and dramatic as it probably is for teachers.

Well said. Pete's system obviously worked - for a while.

That success has been quickly eroding of late, though. Him getting it back is going to be very difficult, though, winning solves most everything.

 

[Uncle Si]

Even though I don't totally buy it, I do think this was a well-written and well-framed think piece.

I do think it's leaning on a pretty standard narrative about what happens over time with player's coaches, which is also pretty standard for the consequences of "nice guy"/"cool guy" leadership styles more broadly.

In education circles the cautionary tale is expressed through the "Don't smile until November" rule. If you start out as the "nice" or "cool" or "forgiving" teacher in the beginning of September, by October the kids will start testing limits, and by December the class will be a total chaotic mess. Most importantly, if you start as the "nice" or "cool" guy, once that bottle is uncorked you can't get the cork back in, as if you then try to be more disciplinarian the kids don't take you seriously and they just revolt. If you start too easy going you've basically screwed yourself and you've got to wait it out until next semester when you get to start over again.

In the NFL we're obviously talking about adults and not children, but with buddies in management positions not in education I've talked about this a fair amount and they've said it's the same deal with their jobs managing adults, although not nearly as fast moving and dramatic as it probably is for teachers.

Which is why most teachers don't subscribe to false relationship building methods like "don't smile until
November".

Be yourself and earn respect that way. Petes done that. Every team has players that get upset. What happens is next is the ear mark of the team and coach.

 

[Uncle Si]

Even though I don't totally buy it, I do think this was a well-written and well-framed think piece.

I do think it's leaning on a pretty standard narrative about what happens over time with player's coaches, which is also pretty standard for the consequences of "nice guy"/"cool guy" leadership styles more broadly.

In education circles the cautionary tale is expressed through the "Don't smile until November" rule. If you start out as the "nice" or "cool" or "forgiving" teacher in the beginning of September, by October the kids will start testing limits, and by December the class will be a total chaotic mess. Most importantly, if you start as the "nice" or "cool" guy, once that bottle is uncorked you can't get the cork back in, as if you then try to be more disciplinarian the kids don't take you seriously and they just revolt. If you start too easy going you've basically screwed yourself and you've got to wait it out until next semester when you get to start over again.

In the NFL we're obviously talking about adults and not children, but with buddies in management positions not in education I've talked about this a fair amount and they've said it's the same deal with their jobs managing adults, although not nearly as fast moving and dramatic as it probably is for teachers.

Well said. Pete's system obviously worked - for a while.

That success has been quickly eroding of late, though. Him getting it back is going to be very difficult, though, winning solves most everything.

Like watching a dog chase its tail

 

[Sports Hernia]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not convinced we have a clear picture of Pete and Richard's relationship. What message, if any, the trade talks are supposed to deliver. What I do know (at least I think I know) is Pete's style of "parenting" is positive, but it also rely's on personal responsibility. Be who you are, be all you can be, but perform at your highest level or your gone. So whatever discord exists for Richard, I believe Pete's way of dealing with it will be to continue to deliver his message of always compete, and even if they tune it out, as all teenagers eventually do, they will, if they continue to grow, find new meaning and relevance to the message. Pete treats them like adults, he's not interested in strong arming players to act a certain way. He's willing to let them make mistakes as he thinks he can use that to continue learning, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the core of his style. A bit high wire act, a bit clown and more than bit of heart.

IMHO, the team's response was a warning shot across Sherman's bow to "stay in his lane".
The smartest scenario is to draft a couple or 3 stud corners and everyone competes for a spot. If they are HONESTLY better than Sherm (not likely) then they play and you trade Sherm next year if you feel you need to.

I'm not talking "OK at best" corners like Maxwell and Shead who never got their heads turned around, I'm talking at least
One that is better or equal to better Sherm that get their heads turned around and play the ball.

You don't trade an All-pro CB and create a huge hole because he hurt an assistant coach's and some radio jackholes feelings, that's beyond dumb IMHO! Pete wants players with chips on their shoulders, which means you need to take the "bad" with the good when you have that type of player on your team.

As for Sherm "wanting to be traded" I think that is Sherm just being defiant and stubborn, though he is probably tired of dealing with a certain assistant offensive coach who shall remain nameless.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill by pitting Sherm against Bevell, but your prior posts indicate you have an agenda, so this is par for the course for you. Fact of the matter is that Sherm just didn't want to see us throw from the 1. Period. Which is kind of weird, but it's a burr in his saddle.

But his discontent stretched over a number of coaches and media type. Maybe even players.

Ummmm yeahhhhh (doing my best Lumberg impersonation)...... no I am not, but you are welcome to have that opinion as wrong as it is. I find it ironic and slightly amusing that you are accusing others of having an "agenda".

....and thanks for missing the main point of my post. :2thumbs:

 

[Siouxhawk]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not convinced we have a clear picture of Pete and Richard's relationship. What message, if any, the trade talks are supposed to deliver. What I do know (at least I think I know) is Pete's style of "parenting" is positive, but it also rely's on personal responsibility. Be who you are, be all you can be, but perform at your highest level or your gone. So whatever discord exists for Richard, I believe Pete's way of dealing with it will be to continue to deliver his message of always compete, and even if they tune it out, as all teenagers eventually do, they will, if they continue to grow, find new meaning and relevance to the message. Pete treats them like adults, he's not interested in strong arming players to act a certain way. He's willing to let them make mistakes as he thinks he can use that to continue learning, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the core of his style. A bit high wire act, a bit clown and more than bit of heart.

IMHO, the team's response was a warning shot across Sherman's bow to "stay in his lane".
The smartest scenario is to draft a couple or 3 stud corners and everyone competes for a spot. If they are HONESTLY better than Sherm (not likely) then they play and you trade Sherm next year if you feel you need to.

I'm not talking "OK at best" corners like Maxwell and Shead who never got their heads turned around, I'm talking at least
One that is better or equal to better Sherm that get their heads turned around and play the ball.

You don't trade an All-pro CB and create a huge hole because he hurt an assistant coach's and some radio jackholes feelings, that's beyond dumb IMHO! Pete wants players with chips on their shoulders, which means you need to take the "bad" with the good when you have that type of player on your team.

As for Sherm "wanting to be traded" I think that is Sherm just being defiant and stubborn, though he is probably tired of dealing with a certain assistant offensive coach who shall remain nameless.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill by pitting Sherm against Bevell, but your prior posts indicate you have an agenda, so this is par for the course for you. Fact of the matter is that Sherm just didn't want to see us throw from the 1. Period. Which is kind of weird, but it's a burr in his saddle.

But his discontent stretched over a number of coaches and media type. Maybe even players.

Ummmm yeahhhhh (doing my best Lumberg impersonation)...... no I am not, but you are welcome to have that opinion as wrong as it is. I find it ironic and slightly amusing that you are accusing others of having an "agenda".

....and thanks for missing the main point of my post. :2thumbs:

You did make a solid point, but then you tainted it with your illogical and hyper-dramatic afterthought, an allegation that really does make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Popeyejones]

Which is why most teachers don't subscribe to false relationship building methods like "don't smile until
November".

Be yourself and earn respect that way. Petes done that. Every team has players that get upset. What happens is next is the ear mark of the team and coach.

I'm more than fine with saying the analogy of teaching doesn't easily map onto to NFL coaching (TBF, I said so myself), but "don't smile until November" isn't about relationship building, it's about classroom management. And there's not a teacher on earth who thinks good classroom management comes from just being yourself.

As for PC, agreed that every team has players that get upset, but we're not having this coversation about every coach nor does every team necessitate this conversation. I think we're deep enough into PCs tenure on the Seahawks to conclude that the Seahawks under PC seem to be atypically afflicted with undisciplined behavior on the field (e.g. jumping offsides, trying to get in fights after games are effectively over, flipping off coaches from the field, etc,) and off-the field (e.g. fights and screaming matches on the sidelines, locker room fistfights between players, backbiting between players on social media, acting boorish to the sports media, the team getting repeatedly fined for players being too aggressive during practices). I mean heck, even Russell Wilson, who is maybe the most vanilla "good soldier" we've seen at the QB position in a decade backbit his coach in the media when PC innocuously said he wanted Wilson to further develop his understanding of the game.

We can debate if all of that is a coincidence or a consequence of PC's "player's coach" coaching style, but we can't pretend the conversation isn't happening, or that the Hawks aren't thought of around the league as pretty remarkably undisciplined team.

FWIW, to me, trying to shop Sherman reads a lot like someone who has realized they left the leadership reigns a little too loose, and is willing to move on from one of their best players to send a message that he's not gonna just fall on his sword for what he takes to be his previous mistakes. That's obviously just conjecture though.

 

[Uncle Si]

Could be. And I think it's a good analogy. But I think this is the first time under his tenure a senior team leader has voiced displeasure. We dont know that it's a reflection of PCs leadership, team divide or just a personal problem Sherman has.

Given that it's a first I think it's a little assumptive by some in the fan base to suggest the wheels are off. Pete gets to deal with this. Once it's dealt with it can be assessed how it worked. BB hasn't hesitated to shop unhappy super stars. Petes turn to deal with one.

 

[Popeyejones]

^^^ Oh, yeah, totally agree with you the wheels aren't off, or close to being off.

The Seahawks are still going to the playoffs year in and year out, which in the NFL is the only real definition of success over time. How can the wheels be off if the team has still had nothing but success under PC's tenure?

 

[Siouxhawk]

I don't believe Pete has wavered from his style or philosophies one bit and in fact the Sherman potential trade, which Sherm reportedly initiated and has been an active participant in, would fit into that same groove. If you're not buying in and don't want to be here anymore, then we'll accommodate your wishes.

And I do not believe the Hawks' locker room is full of turmoil as some on here believe. They are alpha males and sometimes friction arises, but there really hasn't been anything that has seriously impacted the team (I don't consider the loss of the fifth round draft pick to fall into that category; a little over rambunctious in OTAs in a drill that Sowell even said was blown out of proportion by the league).

 

[Sgt. Largent]

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

I've said this many times.

It was the first big criticism of Pete when he was hired, his critics said his rah rah "college style" of coaching would never work in the NFL because veterans wouldn't buy in.

So are we starting to see some of that criticism come home to roost now that he's deep into his tenure here? I'd say a little, yes.

Dave Wyman talks about this all the time when asked what's separates the good teams from the bad since the NFL is such a parity league..........and he says it's the buy in factor. Great teams and coaches continue to get their players to buy in, and thus produce the effort required to out will their opponents.

Maybe John and Pete are starting to figure this out, and thus the Sherman trade rumors are now running rampant.

 

[IrishNW]

I dont agree with players not "buying" into Petes system anymore. Pete's system works...he has the championships to prove it. Its not a matter of buying in as its a matter of the players attitude towards things. Sherman's attitude has gotten out of control and he either needs to rethink things or move on.

none of the other older players on the team are acting this way. Doug Kam Earl Bobby KJ Bennet Avril are all still "buying" in.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

I've said this many times.

It was the first big criticism of Pete when he was hired, his critics said his rah rah "college style" of coaching would never work in the NFL because veterans wouldn't buy in.

So are we starting to see some of that criticism come home to roost now that he's deep into his tenure here? I'd say a little, yes.

Dave Wyman talks about this all the time when asked what's separates the good teams from the bad since the NFL is such a parity league..........and he says it's the buy in factor. Great teams and coaches continue to get their players to buy in, and thus produce the effort required to out will their opponents.

Maybe John and Pete are starting to figure this out, and thus the Sherman trade rumors are now running rampant.

It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that everyone knows damn well why New England keeps winning, and it's not because of any of those players. There's one guy there who is in no danger of being cut.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that everyone knows damn well why New England keeps winning, and it's not because of any of those players. There's one guy there who is in no danger of being cut.

For sure, but that's Belichick's cold hearted cruel philosophy..............I'm gonna keep Tom Brady and everyone else is expendable if you don't do what we tell you to do and play the way we want you to play.

Pete's an amazing coach, and his philosophy has also worked very well, and it's why guys like playing for him.

But the downside is guys who are wired like Sherman think they're smarter than everyone and see it as "Kumbyah" mumbo jumbo.

My point is maybe why we see Pete's hold on the team maybe slipping a little is because it's now year 4-5 of the core veterans listening to him preach, and it's not working as well. Could mean a NE style roster churn is in order if he can't right the ship this year.

 

[Siouxhawk]

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

I've said this many times.

It was the first big criticism of Pete when he was hired, his critics said his rah rah "college style" of coaching would never work in the NFL because veterans wouldn't buy in.

So are we starting to see some of that criticism come home to roost now that he's deep into his tenure here? I'd say a little, yes.

Dave Wyman talks about this all the time when asked what's separates the good teams from the bad since the NFL is such a parity league..........and he says it's the buy in factor. Great teams and coaches continue to get their players to buy in, and thus produce the effort required to out will their opponents.

Maybe John and Pete are starting to figure this out, and thus the Sherman trade rumors are now running rampant.

It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that everyone knows damn well why New England keeps winning, and it's not because of any of those players. There's one guy there who is in no danger of being cut.

And who conveniently takes a salary way below market value (above the table, anyway), which allows more talent under their salary cap.

 

[Hyak]

It also probably has a lot to do with the fact that everyone knows damn well why New England keeps winning, and it's not because of any of those players. There's one guy there who is in no danger of being cut.

For sure, but that's Belichick's cold hearted cruel philosophy..............I'm gonna keep Tom Brady and everyone else is expendable if you don't do what we tell you to do and play the way we want you to play.

Pete's an amazing coach, and his philosophy has also worked very well, and it's why guys like playing for him.

But the downside is guys who are wired like Sherman think they're smarter than everyone and see it as "Kumbyah" mumbo jumbo.

My point is maybe why we see Pete's hold on the team maybe slipping a little is because it's now year 4-5 of the core veterans listening to him preach, and it's not working as well. Could mean a NE style roster churn is in order if he can't right the ship this year.

The roster churn is going to happen regardless. They are not going to pay some of the current core players on big 3rd contracts NOR should they. Do that and you'll see a team full of overpaid veterans in the midst of diminishing skills.

That said, it just reinforces the need to kill it in the draft.

 

[Uncle Si]

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

I've said this many times.

It was the first big criticism of Pete when he was hired, his critics said his rah rah "college style" of coaching would never work in the NFL because veterans wouldn't buy in.

So are we starting to see some of that criticism come home to roost now that he's deep into his tenure here? I'd say a little, yes.

Dave Wyman talks about this all the time when asked what's separates the good teams from the bad since the NFL is such a parity league..........and he says it's the buy in factor. Great teams and coaches continue to get their players to buy in, and thus produce the effort required to out will their opponents.

Maybe John and Pete are starting to figure this out, and thus the Sherman trade rumors are now running rampant.

We dont know what we are seeing is a any more or less a by product of anything. It could be Pete. It could be Sherman. It could be the NFL.

People are so quick to try and connect and link things without a. Reviewing them in full context and 2. Allowing them to play out.

This is Petes first big issue. So how is he "trying to figure it out" now? As if he's been letting it go for years? Come on... he could trade Sherman and we'd know "Pete doesn't play" same as BB. Maybe he'll try something else. But it's a stretch to say this has been some festering wound under the skin for years.