Seahawks walking a delicate line with popular players

[Sgt. Largent]

a. The Pats are successful every year because they've never had to make a decision on their Hall of Fame QB. let's not forget how good Tom Brady is.

But they do continually make tough decisions on the rest of their roster, many times trading popular high performing players in their prime.

I think the comparison here with how NE coldly jettisons good players over and over, and somehow continues to win vs what our FO has done, which is to hang onto players past their prime to the detriment of our cap is a fair one.

IMO it means two things;

1. Pete doesn't plan on coaching for another 10 years, so he's been hesitant to start over with turning the roster over for another 2-3 years finding the next LOB and other roster spots.

2. The lack of drafting and development by Schneider and our coaches. The REASON we've hung onto guys like Kam, Bennett, Sherman, Avril, etc is because there hasn't been an adequate re-stocking of the roster with the talent to take their place and still compete for Divisions and SB's.

 

[Seymour]

a. The Pats are successful every year because they've never had to make a decision on their Hall of Fame QB. let's not forget how good Tom Brady is.

They also didn't have to pay him market value much of his career. I'm sure we'll somehow find out that "some investment" that he made will bring back that money (plus some) after he is out of the league. (Yes, they likely found a way around that also). :roll:

 

[Uncle Si]

a. The Pats are successful every year because they've never had to make a decision on their Hall of Fame QB. let's not forget how good Tom Brady is.

2. the analogy to the Ms is a poor one. Baseball is 9 at bats and a pitcher. the influence of 3-4 players is obvious (and reflected in the salaries). A roster of 52 is not as influenced by the shortcomings of previously high caliber players as baseball.

3. The team does have tough choices ahead

They have not on Brady but they did with Bledsoe which was controversial at the time but proved to be the right onw.

they did, and that was very early on, and after Brady had won a Super Bowl. It was gutsy. Giants werent so lucky when they did the same thing with Hostetler and Simms

I get that the Patriots have made the most of those "cold, calculated" decisions. But let's face it, they are under a great deal more pressure to soften up those decisions if Brady is not he surprise he is. Not taking away from the Pats, but Brady's emergence as one of the best QBs of all time makes those decisions tougher.

And they did hang on to a number of vets well into and beyond their prime. They rarely hang on to players that cant meaningfully contribute, however. People just focus on the ones they let go. What the Patriots have done, really well, is never sacrifice their balance.

 

[Hawks46]

Aging baseball players can still produce.

Aging football players produce until they drop off of a cliff. This is a facile analogy at best. The basic premise is correct in that you can't fall in love with older players for too long, but comparing football to baseball is like comparing hockey to basketball. Sure, they're all team sports and.......that's about it.

 

[WindCityHawk]

3. The team does have tough choices ahead

I think the choices are only hard because we want to hang out to our past. If we're as excited for our future as we are for our past, the choices get a lot easier.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

3. The team does have tough choices ahead

I think the choices are only hard because we want to hang out to our past. If we're as excited for our future as we are for our past, the choices get a lot easier.

The problem is I don't think we've done a good enough job with the future as we needed to in order to not have a drastic drop off in production and wins...............that's why Pete and John have hung onto some players longer than they probably should have.

 

[WindCityHawk]

3. The team does have tough choices ahead

I think the choices are only hard because we want to hang out to our past. If we're as excited for our future as we are for our past, the choices get a lot easier.

The problem is I don't think we've done a good enough job with the future as we needed to in order to not have a drastic drop off in production and wins...............that's why Pete and John have hung onto some players longer than they probably should have.

Ah, good point. Our poor drafts could have forced them to take this route.

 

[Lords of Scythia]

article is crap

GO HAWKS!!!!!!!!!!!!