The Untold Statement Made By Harvin's Departure

suppaball

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
3,194
Reaction score
139
Location
Oroville CA.
One of the best posts I have ever read, you are a smart one for sure, funny I understood what you were saying given my life of empty beer bottles and bong resin. Keep it up I do enjoy a good well thought out post to read . Too much garbage on dot net the past few years.
 

HawkAroundTheClock

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
0
Location
Over There
TwistedHusky":26qb6qyr said:
I have to admit, when I first saw the post I saw a wall of text - misidentified it as one of those rambling screeds (like I am prone to do myself) and scrolled past.

Then I decided that was lazy and decided to read it. Would have missed a really good post.

I really liked it, and it was spot on.
Haha, I did the same thing and arrived at the same conclusion.

Excellent post, OP. If you have the time would you be willing to list some of the books & authors you've been enjoying?
 

EntiatHawk

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern Flank of the Cascades
BCA, Very good post. I have had this basic conversation with some good buddies who are Hawk fans.

I have found it interesting about human nature and group/business psychology/thinking. All too often they follow a pattern already developed.

I happened to be very lucky and grew up in a fledgling industry (Biosciences) where many of the rules had not even been conceived yet and saw a very interesting business development. In the beginning we were all about innovation and doing things with a different approach, of course this was done when we had little else other than our scientific prowess. But as soon as our company starting making money we became so risk adverse and had that need to play with what we perceived as the "Big Boys" we change a fundamental philosophy we had as a company.

I can remember being in a meeting with a VP and discussing business development and how we needed this "So Called" expertise from "Old Pharma" to make the next step of corporate development and I questioned why. My thought was we were where we were because we did things differently (we were able to recruit top talent because of that). I remember saying why do we not want to change in this fundamental approach? We had many chasing us because we were not like the old business models.

How this relates to the Hawks is takes major business conjones to go the path that is different and stay with it. We are seeing the results of those decisions and I for one love this team because of it. Make everyone chase us!!!!!
 

pmedic920

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
28,793
Reaction score
4,540
Location
On the lake, Livingston Texas
hawksfansinceday1":6oe3ad8w said:
Scottemojo":6oe3ad8w said:
.........A forward thinking front office regressed when they dabbled in the instant gratification of Harvin. When they recognized the error, they didn't continue to defend the error by keeping Harvin around. They had an immediate lumpectomy, if you will.
VERY rare in American business culture for any management group to admit a mistake and move on from it and that's what PC/JS did. To see any level of management of any American business entity spending any time whatsoever doing something beyond covering their collective asses is rather refreshing.

Any fan of the Seahawks that isn't convinced this regime is about winning, isn't paying attention.

Very good post BirdsCommaAngry. And yeah, Mods this belongs on the main forum.


You did notice that the mistake was admitted, and thread moved back, right?
:{)
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
pmedic920":1fqrjwdi said:
hawksfansinceday1":1fqrjwdi said:
Scottemojo":1fqrjwdi said:
.........A forward thinking front office regressed when they dabbled in the instant gratification of Harvin. When they recognized the error, they didn't continue to defend the error by keeping Harvin around. They had an immediate lumpectomy, if you will.
VERY rare in American business culture for any management group to admit a mistake and move on from it and that's what PC/JS did. To see any level of management of any American business entity spending any time whatsoever doing something beyond covering their collective asses is rather refreshing.

Any fan of the Seahawks that isn't convinced this regime is about winning, isn't paying attention.

Very good post BirdsCommaAngry. And yeah, Mods this belongs on the main forum.


You did notice that the mistake was admitted, and thread moved back, right?
:{)

Indeed they did. Thank you
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
pehawk":23aja8yo said:
pmedic920":23aja8yo said:
hawksfansinceday1":23aja8yo said:
Scottemojo":23aja8yo said:
.........A forward thinking front office regressed when they dabbled in the instant gratification of Harvin. When they recognized the error, they didn't continue to defend the error by keeping Harvin around. They had an immediate lumpectomy, if you will.
VERY rare in American business culture for any management group to admit a mistake and move on from it and that's what PC/JS did. To see any level of management of any American business entity spending any time whatsoever doing something beyond covering their collective asses is rather refreshing.

Any fan of the Seahawks that isn't convinced this regime is about winning, isn't paying attention.

Very good post BirdsCommaAngry. And yeah, Mods this belongs on the main forum.


You did notice that the mistake was admitted, and thread moved back, right?
:{)

Indeed they did. Thank you

Just like PC/JS admitted a mistake was made with Harvin.

BANG! Thread just went full circle!! :D
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Also just like Harvin, PMedic has been traded. PMedic has been traded to the Jacksonville Jaguars board for a conditional cursing forum, depending on his performance. Rockhawk's REALLY hoping PMedic succeeds there but isn't getting his hopes up.
 

CANHawk

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Messages
12,041
Reaction score
0
Location
PoCompton, BC Canada
pehawk":13oakn2a said:
Also just like Harvin, PMedic has been traded. PMedic has been traded to the Jacksonville Jaguars board for a conditional cursing forum, depending on his performance. Rockhawk's REALLY hoping PMedic succeeds there but isn't getting his hopes up.
pic can be upped to a full frontal nudity smack shack if PMedic makes the pro bowl.
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Thing about PMedic is he's a one trick pony, like Harvin.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
pmedic920":3cqpk7qa said:
hawksfansinceday1":3cqpk7qa said:
Scottemojo":3cqpk7qa said:
.........A forward thinking front office regressed when they dabbled in the instant gratification of Harvin. When they recognized the error, they didn't continue to defend the error by keeping Harvin around. They had an immediate lumpectomy, if you will.
VERY rare in American business culture for any management group to admit a mistake and move on from it and that's what PC/JS did. To see any level of management of any American business entity spending any time whatsoever doing something beyond covering their collective asses is rather refreshing.

Any fan of the Seahawks that isn't convinced this regime is about winning, isn't paying attention.

Very good post BirdsCommaAngry. And yeah, Mods this belongs on the main forum.


You did notice that the mistake was admitted, and thread moved back, right?
:{)
Yes, and thank you.

And now to try to get the thread back on track.............
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
EntiatHawk":113wckk7 said:
............as soon as our company starting making money we became so risk adverse and had that need to play with what we perceived as the "Big Boys" we change a fundamental philosophy we had as a company.

I can remember being in a meeting with a VP and discussing business development and how we needed this "So Called" expertise from "Old Pharma" to make the next step of corporate development and I questioned why. My thought was we were where we were because we did things differently (we were able to recruit top talent because of that). I remember saying why do we not want to change in this fundamental approach? We had many chasing us because we were not like the old business models...............
So what path did the company follow Entiat? Did they follow the well worn path of Big Pharma or stay different and possibly thrive because of the freedom rather than grow but with the strangulation of the large corporation? Staying different would've certainly be riskier but like I said, also possibly produce a greater reward in terms of company culture for sure and financially as well.
 

EntiatHawk

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
449
Reaction score
0
Location
Eastern Flank of the Cascades
hawksfansinceday1":2kqnfovj said:
EntiatHawk":2kqnfovj said:
............as soon as our company starting making money we became so risk adverse and had that need to play with what we perceived as the "Big Boys" we change a fundamental philosophy we had as a company.

I can remember being in a meeting with a VP and discussing business development and how we needed this "So Called" expertise from "Old Pharma" to make the next step of corporate development and I questioned why. My thought was we were where we were because we did things differently (we were able to recruit top talent because of that). I remember saying why do we not want to change in this fundamental approach? We had many chasing us because we were not like the old business models...............
So what path did the company follow Entiat? Did they follow the well worn path of Big Pharma or stay different and possibly thrive because of the freedom rather than grow but with the strangulation of the large corporation? Staying different would've certainly be riskier but like I said, also possibly produce a greater reward in terms of company culture for sure and financially as well.


We took the path closer to big pharma and then got bought out. We never were the same company. I felt we lost that edge that we had created and fell on that sword of justifying things because thats what the big boys did. I rather die trying to be different than die compromising. But that is me.

Handling risk has to be culturally acceptable or it falls apart way too easy when things do not go right.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
pehawk":3leinqzk said:
Also just like Harvin, PMedic has been traded. PMedic has been traded to the Jacksonville Jaguars board for a conditional cursing forum, depending on his performance. Rockhawk's Anguish is REALLY hoping PMedic succeeds there, but isn't getting his hopes up.

FIFY

RockHawk = Paul Allen
Anguish = John Schneider
Happy = Pete Carroll

:thcoffee:
 

pehawk

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
1,738
Happy's never here. He can't stay healthy.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
EntiatHawk":1lvfyhie said:
hawksfansinceday1":1lvfyhie said:
EntiatHawk":1lvfyhie said:
............as soon as our company starting making money we became so risk adverse and had that need to play with what we perceived as the "Big Boys" we change a fundamental philosophy we had as a company.

I can remember being in a meeting with a VP and discussing business development and how we needed this "So Called" expertise from "Old Pharma" to make the next step of corporate development and I questioned why. My thought was we were where we were because we did things differently (we were able to recruit top talent because of that). I remember saying why do we not want to change in this fundamental approach? We had many chasing us because we were not like the old business models...............
So what path did the company follow Entiat? Did they follow the well worn path of Big Pharma or stay different and possibly thrive because of the freedom rather than grow but with the strangulation of the large corporation? Staying different would've certainly be riskier but like I said, also possibly produce a greater reward in terms of company culture for sure and financially as well.


We took the path closer to big pharma and then got bought out. We never were the same company. I felt we lost that edge that we had created and fell on that sword of justifying things because thats what the big boys did. I rather die trying to be different than die compromising. But that is me.

Handling risk has to be culturally acceptable or it falls apart way too easy when things do not go right.
Sorry to hear that, but not one bit surprised.
 

Lords of Scythia

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
2,612
Reaction score
179
BirdsCommaAngry":2xvvaipe said:
When Percy Harvin was traded, it was difficult to determine a more truthful opinion about whether the deeper meaning of this move was good, bad, or downright ugly. As an avid reader of non-fiction with a preference for anything and everything dealing with our own psychology, I've had the fortune of being made aware of a handful of insights into the issue. What's remarkable is just as when a friend gets a new car and we start to notice the same model everywhere we go, whenever I learn about concepts with tremendous potential for improving our lives, they start popping up everywhere too. There are both the positive instances where they're being used for the benefit of ourselves and others and the negative instances where improvement is sorely needed. What's even more remarkable is that one of the places they can be seen most frequently is with our very own Seattle Seahawks. Upon seeing some of these instances, there's one conclusion to be drawn about trading Percy Harvin. It wasn't emblematic of merely a mistake but instead it demonstrates the very quality that makes us a cut above so many other organizations - not just in the NFL but the entire world.

I've read about coaching and the neurological functions behind the development of expertise. When I watched an exchange between Kris Richard and Earl Thomas after a play during training camp, it served as a reminder that what a coach teaches isn't half as important as how he chooses to attempt to teach it. The play was a short pass over the middle where ET was narrowly beaten as his diving attempt to swat the ball was inches short of denying the completion. Kris Richard ran up to ET like he was defender in the NBA and ET had just received a pass, asked him what happened, and shook his head in disagreement at ET's assertion that he was just too slow to make the play. He then proceeded to demonstrate that had ET attempted to deflect the pass with his right arm instead of his left (he was diving to his left) his body would have been able to extend a slightly greater distance, and he would have made the play. Kris Richard then quickly ran back to the sideline and this exchange was over before all the players were even back to the line of scrimmage. What this accomplished was ET's error was identified and corrected without taking him out of the situational context of where the information is important. It was also done quickly enough to allow ET zero opportunity to misjudge his own error. Social scientists who study learning advocate this very approach and we've been intently personifying what they preach.

I've read about status-quo bias and our tendencies to prefer immediate gratification over delayed gratification. Status-quo bias is the tendency for us to prefer continuing as we are because we mistake change as a presumably negative experience instead of a more accurate prediction that involves the potential for improvement. In studies we've been noted to make odd decisions like preferring a cheaper but less consistent electrical service over a more expensive but more consistent competitor when it's the one we're used to and not necessarily the best service for our needs. We've been noted to prefer receiving a gift of $100 today over $200 a month from now but when the question is changed to a gift of $100 12 months from now or a gift of $200 13 months from now, we no longer mind waiting the extra month for an addition $100 dollars. We are prone to errors we may not even be aware of and those who are aware gain a competitive advantage over the naive. When other teams' front offices analyzed players who present trade-offs that go against the status-quo like the height-related examples of Russell Wilson, Brandon Browner, and Richard Sherman, they tended to see only the limitations of their respective situations and not the potential. When other teams select their players on draft day, they're more likely than us to trade up and get a guy they want right then, right there while we trade down and enjoy the spoils of delaying the gratification of our selection. Where others have seen deficiency and what they immediately want, we've seen the hidden opportunity.

I've read about Alcoa, a company with its share of employee injuries as a result of deficiencies in their overall manufacturing methods. Paul O'Neill became the CEO and made reducing their number of employee injuries their companies highest priority, even more so than profit. What's remarkable about this seemingly counter-intuitive approach is it not only resulted in Alcoa becoming one of the safest companies in the world, but they became considerably more profitable in the process. When I read "Lotus pose on two", an ESPN article covering our team's attempts to kindly engage its players with yoga, meditation, and an overall message of care, the connection was unmistakable. We treat our players not only like people and not only like people who deserve to succeed in the NFL but people who deserve to succeed in all facets of life. Just like Paul O'Neill before him, Pete Carroll had learned their was a better way of doing things and he made it one of our top priorities.

Lastly, I've read about sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion. People might eat more than we may want to of an expensive meal because we feel that in doing so we're getting more of our money's worth despite the long-term costs of overeating being considerably greater. We do this both because of our attachment to investments and our tendency to feel about twice as negative about losing something as we would feel positive if we gained that very same something. Similarly, PC and JS could have held onto Harvin given our considerable investment yielded in his acquisition and yet they elected not to do so even with of one of greater inherent motivations of human nature in loss aversion compelling them not to. Put it all together and there's a very distinct pattern to be seen with our organization.

Above all else, our guys are rational. We actively think about what's true, whether it's relating to the effect of certain measurables like height on players' potential, the best way to coach a player, the best kind of occupational culture to have, etc. We also actively adapt our assertions about what's true into the everyday processes we've used to make our team's culture what it is today. What we've accomplished and are continuing to accomplish isn't just a triumph of sport, it's been a triumph over a multitude of the issues preventing many of us from enjoying life as much as we could.
You have a strong point, there. That mentality is why RG3 is still being given a chance to start in Washington. All they can see is how much they paid for him. I think this is a fallacy an owner is more likely to fall into, because he's more closely connected to the outlay for the product, than say Griffin's coach, who wasn't even with the org when they got him. I think certain things are deal-killers, overriding everything else, such as a player refusing to go on the field when the coach tells him to--that's why Harvin is gone. I also think these smart techno-geek billionaires like Paul Allen are cerebral and pragmatic and know that sometimes one must cut one's losses (good money after bad) and move forward.
 
Top