Jamal Adams Traded to Seattle!

[pittpnthrs]

Here is the problem Pitt.

Is there ANY realistically possible trade we could have done last year that would have made a difference? Even in hindsight? (not but not knowing our CB or our FS would be terrible)

Not sure there was. No move would have won us the game against the Rams, because the reason was lost to the Rams was not a roster issue. It was because we came in unprepared and we tried to force Wilson to play a type of football we hadn't really played for almost a half year.

It might have been because we kept Wilson in the pocket against withering pressure by the Rams, and he predictably struggled. And it could have been because we were still trying to throw long when we couldn't protect him.

It wasn't because Adams wasn't good enough. Or didn't contribute.

You trade for a guy like Adams because they are worth taking the risk in order to go deeper in the playoffs. We had that chance and even were set up for that success. But Carroll is the NFL version of Doc Rivers and all that entails.

Guys like Maulbert and Maelstrom get angry because complaints about Carroll keep popping up in thread after thread. But if you have a root problem, then trying to figure out what is wrong with the leaves, fruit, flowers, bark, etc....usually stems from that.

We are picked third in our division for a reason. Even though we have the better QB. Even though nobody even knows what is going on with the 49ers QB. Because they have the better coaches. Adams will not fix that.

He was, however, our best shot. Our best shot was to win the division, get the home stadium, and leverage Wilson to make a deep run. We got the division and home games, and some of those wins to get us there were directly the result of adding guys like Adams and Dunlap.


The other question is, if you don't get Adams, do you really think those 1sts we lost would even matter? What is our record with turning 1sts into players that contribute immediately or even as valuable starters?

Honestly, I would have to go back and look at the FA's available, but I know a safety wasnt the answer to the issues. Team needed pass rush, Dline, and Oline (of course) and they surely could have gotten a stud at one of those positions with what they spent on Adams. Honestly, Mcdougald was fine at safety and I highly doubt the Adams addition helped much if any more than if Mcdougald would have stayed (yes I realize he got hurt last season, but he may not have playing in Seattle).

I agree with you about Carroll being the root problem and with some not accepting that, there is going to be disagreements.

As for Adams being the best shot for Seattle moving forward, I still dont know why you think that. There were a few DE's like Dupree, Griffen, Judon, Ogbah, or Vernon that would have been the smarter move IMO. Lets be honest, it took getting Dunlap before the defense could even get out of their own way.

As for the 1sts, no I have zero confidence the FO would have picked anybody worth anything with them. I just wish they would have used them on a different position.

 

[BASF]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

 

[pittpnthrs]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

BASF, you have a legit point and i'm not arguing against it, but its hard for me to believe that it took half of a season for the defense to realize their roles. The coaches and players watch film and practice all week long and it took a sit down with each individual player mid season for their assignments to finally sink in? Was it pure coincidence the defense seemed to turn around when they added the piece that should have been addressed from the get go? I dont think so. I think Carroll gambled that blitzing Adams would fix the pass rush issues and it failed miserably. Its a classic case of ignoring what you really need and trying to scheme around it.

 

[Jville]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

 

[chris98251]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

 

[Jville]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

Excellent Recall :2thumbs: Thanks for the reminder.

 

[pittpnthrs]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

It took a half of a season before having film days? It took a half of a season to recognize there was a problem before addressing it? In the NFL? If that is truly the case, that is piss poor coaching. Seriously, its the NFL, not high school football.

 

[chris98251]

It is very interesting seeing the argument against Adams regarding the improvement of the defense and that it was just the addition of Dunlap that changed their effectiveness. It completely ignores the several press conferences from the players and coaches from the subsequent weeks when the turnaround happened that the main problem was assignment correctness and that the coaches (here I am going to emphasize FINALLY after eight weeks) had meetings with each defensive player individually to get them all on the page.

Adams was definitely one of the players that was trying to do too much and creating opportunities for a good opposing offensive coordinator to exploit, but he was hardly the only one. The Dunlap trade definitely helped in the pressure department and that helped the secondary, but the coaches FINALLY doing their job was the biggest change.

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

It took a half of a season before having film days? It took a half of a season to recognize there was a problem before addressing it? In the NFL? If that is truly the case, that is piss poor coaching. Seriously, its the NFL, not high school football.

Don't you have a Jerome Bettis Jersey to get autographed, I am sure the line is much shorter these days. I think his book signings is happening somewhere, How we stole a Super Bowl.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The hope was that Adams could change things. It did and it didn't.

In a normal circumstance, no way you do that deal. But considering Pete's defenses rely on great safety play and Pete was either going to win with defense or go down trying??

You probably had to make the trade. Especially considering the opportunity and uncertainty.

Probably a matter of perspective but this is both the floor and ceiling.

With Carroll and Wilson, we are almost assured to make the playoffs. And with Carroll and Wilson we are also almost certainly going to lose the divisional playoff game. No matter what our roster looks like.

There is a lot of debating the hows and whys, whether it is Wilson falling short or Pete holding Wilson back or something else.

But we are at close to a decade now, and while so many things have changed - one thing that has not is the end result.

Maybe this is our year, but in a NFC West where we are probably the #3 team - not sure it makes sense to expect much.

The Adams trade didn't work out for us if the goal was deeper runs in the playoffs. But if the goal was to win the division and give us the best chance in the playoffs - it probably did.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Nice post,

What comes to mind is that old forest and tree analogy. In this case .... can't see the forest because of a view blocking tree. Differences in focus are noticeable thru out the forum. Forum nearsightedness often takes on a comic book flavor with flawless praise for alleged super heroes and as well as relentless condemnation for alleged super villains. I'm convince that not everyone is cognizant of the interdependence at work in team sports.

In addition to differences in focus, there seems to be a great range of depth in understanding the schemes employed during the course of a game. So If one addresses why a player was added to enhance or make possible a particular scheme to be folded in with other schemes, that doesn't necessarily register with everyone who reads such a post.

You make a good point about the coaches going thru roughly half a season before having one on one meetings addressing assignment discipline. In the past, that was something player leadership at all three levels could be counted on to address during the course of a season. I would expect field leadership to be better with this group and be more closely monitored. Especially coming off of the success coaches had last year with one on one meetings. I doubt they will have any hesitancy to intercede much earlier this year.

One final aspect. I find it interesting that the original post that kicked off this thread was made 11 months ago. That's a long time to be stuck and hung up on repeating the same objections over and over again. But we all learn with individual uniqueness.

Learning and growing is what the Seahawks program is all about.

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

It took a half of a season before having film days? It took a half of a season to recognize there was a problem before addressing it? In the NFL? If that is truly the case, that is piss poor coaching. Seriously, its the NFL, not high school football.

Don't you have a Jerome Bettis Jersey to get autographed, I am sure the line is much shorter these days. I think his book signings is happening somewhere, How we stole a Super Bowl.

Your bitterness toward my point is noted.

So you think its perfectly normal for NFL teams to take 7 to 9 games to recognize issues that plagued them from the start and to finally address them in film sessions that have been going on before the season even started? Lol, ok then.

 

[chris98251]

So many forget the LOB having Toast issues with guys splitting the coverage for almost half season also till they decided to have film days with all 4 or them and Bobby.

We have pieced together a secondary that did not play collectively together much and changed out pieces on the fly, it takes time not only to adjust and learn the defense but assignment and then on field calls as well as the body and tendencies of your team mates.

It took a half of a season before having film days? It took a half of a season to recognize there was a problem before addressing it? In the NFL? If that is truly the case, that is piss poor coaching. Seriously, its the NFL, not high school football.

Don't you have a Jerome Bettis Jersey to get autographed, I am sure the line is much shorter these days. I think his book signings is happening somewhere, How we stole a Super Bowl.

Your bitterness toward my point is noted.

So you think its perfectly normal for NFL teams to take 7 to 9 games to recognize issues that plagued them from the start and to finally address them in film sessions that have been going on before the season even started? Lol, ok then.

Yes as a newly formed group learning how to be pros, creating terminology for calls on the field. Absolutely, they were all considered reaches except Earl and even then he was too small, Wagner Too light, they had a new system, and were just getting on the field together and everyone was testing them.

Their film days were in depth study after hours, after the team stuff, want to know what makes a Super Bowl team, stuff like that and the commitment.

You have a group like that, and then you have guys that come and get a paycheck, most teams have a lot of paycheck collectors, some teams a coach can motivate them to be special, sometimes it's special players that make a team special and its infectious.

 

[Ad Hawk]

It took a half of a season before having film days? It took a half of a season to recognize there was a problem before addressing it? In the NFL? If that is truly the case, that is piss poor coaching. Seriously, its the NFL, not high school football.

Don't you have a Jerome Bettis Jersey to get autographed, I am sure the line is much shorter these days. I think his book signings is happening somewhere, How we stole a Super Bowl.

Your bitterness toward my point is noted.

So you think its perfectly normal for NFL teams to take 7 to 9 games to recognize issues that plagued them from the start and to finally address them in film sessions that have been going on before the season even started? Lol, ok then.

Yes as a newly formed group learning how to be pros, creating terminology for calls on the field. Absolutely, they were all considered reaches except Earl and even then he was too small, Wagner Too light, they had a new system, and were just getting on the field together and everyone was testing them.

Their film days were in depth study after hours, after the team stuff, want to know what makes a Super Bowl team, stuff like that and the commitment.

You have a group like that, and then you have guys that come and get a paycheck, most teams have a lot of paycheck collectors, some teams a coach can motivate them to be special, sometimes it's special players that make a team special and its infectious.

Well said, Chris. It seems perfectly normal for a group of guys to "not get it," no matter how much coaching attempts to get through. The fact that they did finally do better speaks well. Yes, I realize the 2nd half QBs weren't top-notch, but the difference was still noticeable.

Well, to those who were looking, anyway, and not blinded by previous assumptions.

 

[seabowl]

Thought it would be fun to let folks see the reactions from the moment the trade went down. Many (including me) thought we paid way too much while others said he was worth every penny.

Many thought we were guaranteed to finish with at least very good records in 20' and 21' giving the Jets two low first round picks making the deal more palatable for the Hawks, but with what has gone down this year it's not looking good.

Interesting read through.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I made the mistake of thinking Jamal would maintain his level of performance. I think he can get it turned around to some extent. Probably never enough to justify the cost, though.

I stand by the opinion that they needed to do something. Sure wish that something was Ramsey instead.

 

[seabowl]

Ugh

 

[K.J WRIGHT]

Pete should have been fired after trading for Adams.

 

[Rat]

He’s going going to his generation’s Troy Polamalu. That’s easily worth what we gave up.

Is it too late to claim that someone hacked my account?

 

[Natethegreat]

We massively overpaid for a guy fighting his way off his team and constantly complaining. Cant see how this could go wrong. Compare this trade to Minkah Fitzpatrick last year. We paid a ton more in draft capital plus we gave them Mcdougald who is a good player.

I may finally be ready for regime change. This reeks of desperation and all in attitude for the next 2 years. Not at all a win forever move.

Yeah, I think I pretty much nailed it right from the start. What a terrible trade made by a coach failing about in desperation. Sunk our future for a guy that has been outplayed by Ryan Neal.

 

[seabowl]

He’s going going to his generation’s Troy Polamalu. That’s easily worth what we gave up.

Is it too late to claim that someone hacked my account?

Absolutely. Let’s start the investigation

 

[SoulfishHawk]

While I do agree they gave up too much, he was playing damn good football.
Now, I'm just waiting for the "Pete and John should have known" posts. Because, you should be able to predict injuries for a guy w/out a big injury history.