HawkShack.com

Russell responding to a report that he would waive his no trade clause: "I didn't say that. I'm focused on what we're doing here. I love Seattle. This is a place I've loved every day, every moment..... That's a non-story."

Pete to Fox broadcasters: "We love Russ. But it's a business. We need to find out what's going on" (or something close to that).

Hmmm....

Link? I can't find anything beyond the story I already referenced in the other thread.

RiverDog wrote:Link? I can't find anything beyond the story I already referenced in the other thread.

The RW comment I read this morning in an Athletic article, but is apparently from 12/9 on the subject. The Pete quote was on yesterday’s broadcast, although Talib relayed it “...we need to find out what’s going on”. I read today Pete said”...I know what’s going on”. So guessing Talib mis-spoke, but possible I mis-heard (although I ran it back). It technical, Don’t know how to add a link.

RiverDog wrote:Link? I can't find anything beyond the story I already referenced in the other thread.

TriCitySam wrote:The RW comment I read this morning in an Athletic article, but is apparently from 12/9 on the subject. The Pete quote was on yesterday’s broadcast, although Talib relayed it “...we need to find out what’s going on”. I read today Pete said”...I know what’s going on”. So guessing Talib mis-spoke, but possible I mis-heard (although I ran it back). It technical, Don’t know how to add a link.

No problem, I trust what you're saying. If you said that you read and/or heard it, that's good enough for me.

The quote I posted in the other thread in which Gregg Bell quoted Russell as saying to the effect that he hopes that the Lion's game isn't his last in Seattle but that he knows it's not his last was from 12/30. The "I want to play for Seattle for 20 years" quote was from 12/11.

We have two parallel threads going about the same subject, but that's OK. We'll probably get 20+ comments from each. Bottom line for me is that all this discussion over the past 9 months or so just confirms the rumors we've been hearing since then, that Russell is unhappy and is seriously considering waiving his no trade clause for certain teams of his choosing and demanding a trade. What's unknown is what exactly is his problem. Is it Pete or does he want out no matter what?

The other take away from this past months' worth of Russell quotes is that we can't trust what he says anymore as a reflection of his true feelings on the matter, or at least I can't. He can't have it both ways. He can't on the one hand say that he "wants to play another 10 years" then on the other hand say that he 'hopes' that the Lions game isn't his last while adding a clear and intentional shot across the bow by saying that "I know it won't be my last game in the NFL". He has an enormous amount of leverage, including his no trade clause, his status as one of the top 5 QB's in the league, and his immense popularity amongst his fans, ie the 500 lb gorilla. He simply cannot claim that he's powerless, reduced to only 'hoping' that he stays when he has as much control over his own destiny as he does.

Russell is protecting his image. He doesn't want to be seen as a selfish me first athlete trying to foist his way with ownership so he's planting these little snippits suggesting he's not the bad guy in this power struggle. He's playing like he's a Bambi in the woods.

It's obviously an uncomfortable situation for Pete. Not only is he having to worry about his job, he's having to worry about a franchise quarterback that quite possibly has more control over his fate than he does. Fortunately, we have just one more game left in this stinker of a season and perhaps we can get a final resolution on the direction of our franchise very soon.

This is exactly the reason why I wanted Jody Allen to come out of her underground bunker and make a decision on Pete's fate, to spare him, the team, and us fans from all this uncertainty. The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD. There isn't anything that could be derived from that game that wasn't apparent a week earlier.

Russell would never say that. He has others to do it for him so he can honestly deny saying it but the message is still being sent.

RiverDog wrote:This is exactly the reason why I wanted Jody Allen to come out of her underground bunker and make a decision on Pete's fate, to spare him, the team, and us fans from all this uncertainty. The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD. There isn't anything that could be derived from that game that wasn't apparent a week earlier.

Is there perhaps the likely chance that she has talked to each of the 3 main "drama" topics and was satisfied concerning the 3 men ...she doesn't have to address fan speculation on their time schedule...she has investors demanding far more attention...as the only real news of Jody Allen was profit making business news.

Jason La Canfora reported and shared by Mike Salk this morning Russels agent Mark Rodgers had presented a 6 point list of changes they wanted to see in order to make a long term commitment to Seattle and they believe Seattle hasn’t checked any of the boxes . Again it’s a report but for La Canfora to name Rodgers he’s got to be pretty sure . To me it seems obvious Russ is trying to force a trade. He wants to leave . Do we F tag him after his contract expires ? Force him to stay ?

It seems to me that it's either Pete or Russell. There can't be both.
What if they moved on from Pete and hired Eric Bienemy or Byron Leftwich? Those 2 coaches are ready to move to a HC position
and both come from successful Offensive systems. That might satisfy Wilson enough to stay, but maybe in his mind it's just time to move on.
Then in a couple of years we will have neither Pete nor Russ and an even worse team.

Russ wants to leave . His agent wants him to leave . Not sure it has much to do with Pete either . Unless one of Rodgers 6 points is new coach . He wants to leave and when the Giants is on the list he’s got no credibility left at all . It’s about being the center of attention and what better way than being the center of one of the blockbuster qb moves in history . He’s gone . It could be Pete back and no Russ . Or both . But Russ will play here under duress and with a disgruntled attitude the rest of his career if he’s forced to stay .

NorthHawk wrote:Russell would never say that. He has others to do it for him so he can honestly deny saying it but the message is still being sent.

Well, I guess you have an insight that some don't. This is what the article was refering to:

https://theathletic.com/news/seahawks-q ... oaTfoBHXS/

Hawktawk wrote:Jason La Canfora reported and shared by Mike Salk this morning Russels agent Mark Rodgers had presented a 6 point list of changes they wanted to see in order to make a long term commitment to Seattle and they believe Seattle hasn’t checked any of the boxes . Again it’s a report but for La Canfora to name Rodgers he’s got to be pretty sure . To me it seems obvious Russ is trying to force a trade. He wants to leave . Do we F tag him after his contract expires ? Force him to stay ?

Forcing a trade seems to fly in the face of his comments last week about wanting to stay in Seattle. Not sure why he would say one thing and be trying behind the scenes to do the opposite. If so, says a lot about RW....and it's not good.

If he wants to stay hes staying. There's no "I hope I'm here " about it. Its "I'm not going anywhere, I have a no trade clause" . Hes got a no trade clause. The only way they could get rid of him is to cut him.
For the second year hes got his agent leaking destinations and now this 6 point list stuff.

Russ is gone unless they force him to stay. Its strictly a PR campaign on both sides about who is gonna bear the brunt of the blame for the divorce.
Interesting leak from possibly JS saying hes "open to starting anew". I still suspect he will be the last man standing, maybe help pick the next coach . His deal is 2 years longer than PC. Most important to me hes the one who deals with Jodi on a daily basis. Whatever the structure is power wise that's going to be the person with the most influence and best relationship with the superior. But if that quote is true is he talking about dealing Russ? PC getting fired? walk it back after all this?
fascinating

Hawktawk wrote: Whatever the structure is power wise that's going to be the person with the most influence and best relationship with the superior.

Too many people reading "tea leaves" ...the stuff being speculated on is just that...reading into "breaking news" is risky...media needs hype to sell...period. Its been reported before that Pete Carroll has enjoyed a good relationship with Jodi Allen. There is much that Pete Carroll does for the team off the field as well.

The ownership enjoys a hefty profit from the marketing of the Seattle Seahawks product...that marketing is largely the result of many winning seasons and the impact of the team on the local community. Pete Carroll is popular beyond the circle of fans who feel they know he must go. Any firing or forcing into retirement would be bad PR except here in the forums and forums like this. Image is foremost in business and Jodi Allen was behind Pete's new contract...which expresses a form of trust.

Those who wish Russell would leave by "forcing a trade" underestimate the roots Russel has put into Seattle. His charities have been long supported by him and his wife. I thought I saw a news piece months ago concerning Russ had invested with a group into our newest sports team the Seattle Kraken...or is investing with a group hoping to restore NBA basketball to Seattle.

Long tenure with a team that has backed him from his rookie days and paid him well...that holds meaning whether one suspects his sincerity or not. He has strong friendships on the team and gets a lot of latitude on the field to audible out of plays sent in...Pete trusts Russell to not cause turnovers and Russell expresses a desire to throw a pass away and live for the next play. Lockett sometimes tempts him to throw into coverage at times because Tyler has made some magical catches. His relationship with DK is still developing while both are at contrasting levels of maturity.

Nobody “wishes” Russell will leave by forcing a trade except him which is obviously his trajectory . As I say with a no trade clause he decides whether to stay or go . And perhaps PC and or JS are ready to grant his wish . I’m just making an observation based on facts and statements , not saying people are rooting for it . Russ and Ciara and his baseball agent Rodgers want a trade .

And I think it’s a mistake to choose Carroll over Wilson as that’s the decision to be made.
Franchise QB’s don’t come along that often. just look around the league and see how few there are of them.
How long have the Giants been looking even with high draft picks- since Eli Manning?
The Jets, since Namath?
The Browns, since Kosar?
The WFT, they tried and flamed out with RGIII, but who was their last Franchise QB - Theisman?
The Dolphins- was it Marino?
The list goes on.

Wilson, via his team has made it clear he doesn’t want to continue in Pete’s system any longer,
so Jody has to make a choice of who she thinks will best for the team.

Hawktawk wrote:Nobody “wishes” Russell will leave by forcing a trade except him which is obviously his trajectory . As I say with a no trade clause he decides whether to stay or go . And perhaps PC and or JS are ready to grant his wish . I’m just making an observation based on facts and statements , not saying people are rooting for it . Russ and Ciara and his baseball agent Rodgers want a trade .

The only motivation of the three you mention would be his agent...who already got his last big payday with Russ's last contract. Negotiations for a player still under an expensive contract would have to be worked out just to start any serious talks...not many teams have the cap space to absorb RW and his current contract and I doubt we want to trade him and help make it happen by absorbing some of the cost of such a trade...we would want draft picks which have no cap hits while a team receiving Russ would want to unload some "equitable contracts" of their own...it's not easy to move your most expensive player when he still has contract remaining.

This is an example of Russell and his wife establishing roots here in Seattle.


By Chuck SchilkenStaff Writer
Aug. 13, 2019 12:12 PM PT

Russell Wilson and his wife, Ciara, have joined the ownership team of Major League Soccer’s Seattle Sounders FC.

“Football. Fútbol. We Love them both!” the Seattle Seahawks quarterback tweeted Tuesday morning, along with a photo of himself, Ciara and their children in Sounders gear. “We can’t wait for our kids to grow up loving Soccer!”

Wilson and Ciara are part of a new group of investors in the team that is led by former Microsoft executive Terry Myerson and his wife, Katie Myerson, and also includes Seattle-bred rapper Macklemore and his wife, Tricia Davis.

“We are fired up about the Seattle Sounders because it’s our home. It’s the place we get to raise our kids and the place we are forever connected to,” Wilson and Ciara said in a statement released by the Sounders. “We want to have the world’s best soccer players play here in Seattle and win championships!”

tarlhawk wrote:
The only motivation of the three you mention would be his agent...who already got his last big payday with Russ's last contract. Negotiations for a player still under an expensive contract would have to be worked out just to start any serious talks...not many teams have the cap space to absorb RW and his current contract and I doubt we want to trade him and help make it happen by absorbing some of the cost of such a trade...we would want draft picks which have no cap hits while a team receiving Russ would want to unload some "equitable contracts" of their own...it's not easy to move your most expensive player when he still has contract remaining.

Saints are negative 61 Million in cap space...even trying to unload Taysom Hill wouldnt free enough cap space. The NY Giants have only 2 Million in cap space...with a rookie QB under contract. The only team close would be the WFT with 60 million+ in cap space...but two #1 draft picks 2022/2023 and Chase Young...JS will not make it easy to trade the key player who transforms our franchise as a whole. Does Russell want to move his young family into a place with one of the nation's highest crime rates?

There’s another angle that’s crossed my mind too. He’s punking the Seattle FO hinting he wants a trade when he just wants press . Just like Arod . Until I hear him say “ I’m not going anywhere I’m under contract and I have a no trade clause “ I believe none of it . And another angle I’ve not heard addressed much . Is it possible Russ wants to stay and the team wants to trade him ?

Nobody “wishes” Russell will leave by forcing a trade except him which is obviously his trajectory

Not at all obvious except evidently to a few here. IMO it's quite the assumption with some fairly thin evidence. (you needn't reiterate said evidence, I'm quite aware).

And I think it’s a mistake to choose Carroll over Wilson as that’s the decision to be made.

I agree with the evaluation of which choice would be most beneficial but again see the rest as a major assumption.

As I see it we're about 50-60% or so likely for a major change this offseason and of the three or four possible avenues see having a different QB next season as the least likely by a fair bit.

RiverDog wrote: The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD.

This year alone we have seen "weak" teams that have no business defeating their "stronger"opponents...but parity becomes more apparent as these type of victories are not so rare anymore. These Lions (1-11-1 at the time) beat the Cards (10-3) 30-12. The Texans stunned a couple of teams (1-8) beat the Titans (8-2) 22-13 and while being (4-11) beat the Chargers (8-7) 41-29. Lastly the Jags (2-6) beat the Bills (5-2) 9-6. An NFL win is a win and many times this season we lost to teams we shoulda/coulda/woulda ...but didn't.

tarlhawk wrote: The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD.

This year alone we have seen "weak" teams that have no business defeating their "stronger"opponents...but parity becomes more apparent as these type of victories are not so rare anymore. These Lions (1-11-1 at the time) beat the Cards (10-3) 30-12. The Texans stunned a couple of teams (1-8) beat the Titans (8-2) 22-13 and while being (4-11) beat the Chargers (8-7) 41-29. Lastly the Jags (2-6) beat the Bills (5-2) 9-6. An NFL win is a win and many times this season we lost to teams we shoulda/coulda/woulda ...but didn't.

They beat the Vikings, blew out our next opponent with their starting former MVP candidate behind center. They tied the Steelers. The QB was bad but the week before he was an end zone interception from a walk off win vs the Falcons. And look at Seattle's output. Against a not bad defense our back was over 100 at the half. Russ had 4 TD passes. The offense not only scored 51, they missed an entire possession due to the onside kick and still knelt on the 1 when a handoff to Penney would surely have tied the team scoring record at 58, a game vs AZ that I attended. Anyone who thinks scoring 51 points and leaving more on the table is easy against anyone in this league better go pad up and give it a whirl.

It was a great win from a seriously underachieving team. If the offense had been half this good all year wed have 10 wins at least.

TriCitySam wrote:
Well, I guess you have an insight that some don't. This is what the article was refering to:

https://theathletic.com/news/seahawks-q ... oaTfoBHXS/

The article is a month old. Lots more has *reportedly * been leaked by Russel's agent in the meantime. Once more and Ill be done.

HE HAS A NO TRADE CONTRACT. There is no "I hope ill be here" Its "I know ill be here 2 more years, I have a no trade contract and I want to be here" anything less is just PR and not believable. He holds the cards.

RiverDog wrote: The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD.

This year alone we have seen "weak" teams that have no business defeating their "stronger"opponents...but parity becomes more apparent as these type of victories are not so rare anymore. These Lions (1-11-1 at the time) beat the Cards (10-3) 30-12. The Texans stunned a couple of teams (1-8) beat the Titans (8-2) 22-13 and while being (4-11) beat the Chargers (8-7) 41-29. Lastly the Jags (2-6) beat the Bills (5-2) 9-6. An NFL win is a win and many times this season we lost to teams we shoulda/coulda/woulda ...but didn't.

Hawktawk wrote:They beat the Vikings, blew out our next opponent with their starting former MVP candidate behind center. They tied the Steelers. The QB was bad but the week before he was an end zone interception from a walk off win vs the Falcons. And look at Seattle's output. Against a not bad defense our back was over 100 at the half. Russ had 4 TD passes. The offense not only scored 51, they missed an entire possession due to the onside kick and still knelt on the 1 when a handoff to Penney would surely have tied the team scoring record at 58, a game vs AZ that I attended. Anyone who thinks scoring 51 points and leaving more on the table is easy against anyone in this league better go pad up and give it a whirl.

It was a great win from a seriously underachieving team. If the offense had been half this good all year wed have 10 wins at least.

And if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle. You do realize that nearly all the teams in the league, even the Lions, can take a very short period of time and make the same claim you're making about us, don't you?

Yes, our offense, as well as the defense, has occasionally looked pretty good, maybe even playoff good if they could sustain it. But your memory has to be shorter than your manhood if you can't remember what it looked like just a week earlier when this same offense, with a healthy Russell and a healthy Penny, couldn't stay on the field, going 3-11 on 3rd/4th down and losing TOP by over 16 minutes, or a full quarter of football, against a defense in the 5-10 Bears that's ranked 28th in the league.

Sorry, man, this team sucks, and any attempt to show otherwise amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. Three of our six wins came against the 2 win Lions, the 2 win Jags, and the 4 win Texans with an inflated record as 2 of their wins came against the Jags. Those are the bottom 3 teams in many if not most of the current power rankings. Time to push down the plunger.

RiverDog wrote: You do realize that nearly all the teams in the league, even the Lions, can take a very short period of time and make the same claim you're making about us, don't you?
But your memory has to be shorter than your manhood if you can't remember what it looked like just a week earlier when this same offense, with a healthy Russell and a healthy Penny, couldn't stay on the field, going 3-11 on 3rd/4th down and losing TOP by over 16 minutes, or a full quarter of football, against a defense in the 5-10 Bears that's ranked 28th in the league.
Time to push down the plunger.

Seem to have touched a nerve based on your acid cynicism response. No I don't think any team in the NFL can boast an equal comparison by highlighting a short stint of time...even the Lions. The NFL is a high scoring league in the AFC as well as the NFC and bad teams get thumped often. Our much maligned Defense has frustrated many a winning opponent given such a huge imbalance in time of possession...in effect we gave our opponents on average almost twice the time to score the meager points scored against us.

Our team has a better roster than its many dismissive fans give it. Our talent core is not the bane of "bad choices" ...but often complex factors are at play. Our GM has the confidence of our ownership despite what "fans" think.

Fans always simplify what it takes to be successful in a modern NFL so their arguments don't have to go in the weeds to discover reasons...they point out what "other" teams do as if that is a true source to support their "claims"...but not surprising in a country that feasts on others "faults" as if it elevates their own...no wonder the cancel culture even exists...

As for the Bears game as simply pointing out their record Vs ours and being dismissive of their "3rd string QB"... Bad weather levels the field and puts the focus on running and defense for both teams. Penny responded but the uneven Time of Possession spelled our doom. I sincerely think without the bad weather that our full strengths would've come to bear on an easy victory but why speculate on a bad games outcome? No one said health alone for RW and Penny is all it takes...its a team effort to win and a team effort to lose.

I didn’t say the team doesn’t suck . I’ve been saying it does for months . It’s one game . 51 points and kneeling on the opponents 1 is an impressive blowout win . Frustrating as it pertains to the football team because it creates uncertainty . Is it a good team beginning to emerge from a season long funk ? Or a bad team that had a day they played damn near perfect? Or something in the middle ? If they should win impressively next week does Jodi run it back next year ? If so is it the right move or a recipe for another bad season and a QB continuing to decline ? My guess we will know more quite soon .

RiverDog wrote: You do realize that nearly all the teams in the league, even the Lions, can take a very short period of time and make the same claim you're making about us, don't you?
But your memory has to be shorter than your manhood if you can't remember what it looked like just a week earlier when this same offense, with a healthy Russell and a healthy Penny, couldn't stay on the field, going 3-11 on 3rd/4th down and losing TOP by over 16 minutes, or a full quarter of football, against a defense in the 5-10 Bears that's ranked 28th in the league.
Time to push down the plunger.

tarlhawk wrote:Seem to have touched a nerve based on your acid cynicism response. No I don't think any team in the NFL can boast an equal comparison by highlighting a short stint of time...even the Lions. The NFL is a high scoring league in the AFC as well as the NFC and bad teams get thumped often. Our much maligned Defense has frustrated many a winning opponent given such a huge imbalance in time of possession...in effect we gave our opponents on average almost twice the time to score the meager points scored against us.

Our team has a better roster than its many dismissive fans give it. Our talent core is not the bane of "bad choices" ...but often complex factors are at play. Our GM has the confidence of our ownership despite what "fans" think.

Fans always simplify what it takes to be successful in a modern NFL so their arguments don't have to go in the weeds to discover reasons...they point out what "other" teams do as if that is a true source to support their "claims"...but not surprising in a country that feasts on others "faults" as if it elevates their own...no wonder the cancel culture even exists...

As for the Bears game as simply pointing out their record Vs ours and being dismissive of their "3rd string QB"... Bad weather levels the field and puts the focus on running and defense for both teams. Penny responded but the uneven Time of Possession spelled our doom. I sincerely think without the bad weather that our full strengths would've come to bear on an easy victory but why speculate on a bad games outcome? No one said health alone for RW and Penny is all it takes...its a team effort to win and a team effort to lose.

Naw, no raw nerves activated, and I do apologize. I wasn't trying to be an acid cynic, rather trying to add a little levity and should have included a smiley face.

Actually I do admire your optimism, but it's not for me. I hate getting my hopes up only to have them dashed when I realize that I was looking at fool's gold such as was the case at the end of last season when we got embarrassed by the Rams. That's why I tend to take on a more of a glass half empty point of view. I want the team to win me over, to show me the money. I could care less about potential. I'm results orientated.

Hawktawk wrote: Once more and Ill be done. HE HAS A NO TRADE CONTRACT. There is no "I hope ill be here" Its "I know ill be here 2 more years, I have a no trade contract and I want to be here" anything less is just PR and not believable. He holds the cards.

Well, the article on the Athletic quoted the 12/9 comments by RW, was written 12/31, but was reiterating that RW want's to stay in Seattle. The cards are kinda split. The truth is this:

*Russell holds the all the cards where a TRADE is involved. He has to approve any trade.
*If no trade, and they want him to stay, the cards are in the Seahawks court. He has 2 years left on his contract and technically could be franchised up to 3 times after that. That would take him to age 38, so the Hawks have plenty of cards to play if they desire. Sure, he could demand a trade, but they are under no obligation to oblige.

Hawktawk wrote: Once more and Ill be done. HE HAS A NO TRADE CONTRACT. There is no "I hope ill be here" Its "I know ill be here 2 more years, I have a no trade contract and I want to be here" anything less is just PR and not believable. He holds the cards.

TriCitySam wrote:Well, the article on the Athletic quoted the 12/9 comments by RW, was written 12/31, but was reiterating that RW want's to stay in Seattle. The cards are kinda split. The truth is this:

*Russell holds the all the cards where a TRADE is involved. He has to approve any trade.
*If no trade, and they want him to stay, the cards are in the Seahawks court. He has 2 years left on his contract and technically could be franchised up to 3 times after that. That would take him to age 38, so the Hawks have plenty of cards to play if they desire. Sure, he could demand a trade, but they are under no obligation to oblige.

Technically, Sam is correct. The no trade clause simply gives Russell a veto power over a trade. It does not give him a right to a trade.

But realistically, Russell has a lot more leverage than just the no trade clause. He is a franchise quarterback, arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the league and a valuable commodity that is extremely difficult to procure, unarguably the most impactful position on the team. Along with Bobby, he is our most tenured player and undoubtedly enjoys significant support with his teammates that aren't going to want to see him leave. He is also, by far, the most popular player on our roster with the fans and can use his popularity to great advantage. Indeed, he's already started to prime the pump with his recent statements regarding his future.

Those advantages are every bit, if not more, powerful than his no trade clause as they would make it very difficult for the team to play hard ball with him. If Russell demands a trade, the Hawks are going to be hard pressed not to oblige his request. The last thing they want is an open warfare between their star QB and the management. The fans would line up behind Russell like mice behind the Pied Piper.

RiverDog wrote:
Technically, Sam is correct. The no trade clause simply gives Russell a veto power over a trade. It does not give him a right to a trade.

But realistically, Russell has a lot more leverage than just the no trade clause. He is a franchise quarterback, arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the league and a valuable commodity that is extremely difficult to procure, unarguably the most impactful position on the team. Along with Bobby, he is our most tenured player and undoubtedly enjoys significant support with his teammates that aren't going to want to see him leave. He is also, by far, the most popular player on our roster with the fans and can use his popularity to great advantage. Indeed, he's already started to prime the pump with his recent statements regarding his future.

Those advantages are every bit, if not more, powerful than his no trade clause as they would make it very difficult for the team to play hard ball with him. If Russell demands a trade, the Hawks are going to be hard pressed not to oblige his request. The last thing they want is an open warfare between their star QB and the management. The fans would line up behind Russell like mice behind the Pied Piper.

It would be difficult for sure, but also difficult on RW as that's not a situation he wants to be in either, and you could be surprised by the fans. Many times fans line up behind management, not the player. None of us know how big a set each has when it comes to an open dispute. That's why the cards are kinda split.

RiverDog wrote:
Technically, Sam is correct. The no trade clause simply gives Russell a veto power over a trade. It does not give him a right to a trade.

But realistically, Russell has a lot more leverage than just the no trade clause. He is a franchise quarterback, arguably one of the top 5 QB's in the league and a valuable commodity that is extremely difficult to procure, unarguably the most impactful position on the team. Along with Bobby, he is our most tenured player and undoubtedly enjoys significant support with his teammates that aren't going to want to see him leave. He is also, by far, the most popular player on our roster with the fans and can use his popularity to great advantage. Indeed, he's already started to prime the pump with his recent statements regarding his future.

Those advantages are every bit, if not more, powerful than his no trade clause as they would make it very difficult for the team to play hard ball with him. If Russell demands a trade, the Hawks are going to be hard pressed not to oblige his request. The last thing they want is an open warfare between their star QB and the management. The fans would line up behind Russell like mice behind the Pied Piper.

TriCitySam wrote:It would be difficult for sure, but also difficult on RW as that's not a situation he wants to be in either, and you could be surprised by the fans. Many times fans line up behind management, not the player. None of us know how big a set each has when it comes to an open dispute. That's why the cards are kinda split.

Agreed that the cards would be split, but not necessarily 50/50. I also agree that we don't know exactly how they're being played or how effective they are, nor do I suppose the two sides know, either. Typical poker game.

You're right that there are occasions when people line up with management vs. the player. When Alex Rodriguez left following a contract dispute with the Mariners, the fans lined up squarely behind the M's. That's exactly the situation Russell is trying to avoid when he starts saying things like how he wants to play in Seattle for 20 years, that he loves this place, that he 'hopes' it isn't his last game, blah blah blah. He's trying to create this image of himself as wanting to play here so that the fans won't desert him like they did with Arod and rather put pressure on management to accede to his demands. It's politics.

My point is that there's more to this cat-and-mouse game besides the wording of his contract and the franchise tag.

In that type of situation I'm not concerned about how the fans react at all.
What would concern me is the fracture in the locker room. Some would fall in behind Wilson and others with the HC.
As well, he is a leader of the team, so not all of the players would believe him when he says lets play to win. A player
can't lead when he doesn't want to be here.

RiverDog wrote:Naw, no raw nerves activated, and I do apologize. I wasn't trying to be an acid cynic, rather trying to add a little levity and should have included a smiley face.

Actually I do admire your optimism, but it's not for me. I hate getting my hopes up only to have them dashed when I realize that I was looking at fool's gold such as was the case at the end of last season when we got embarrassed by the Rams. That's why I tend to take on a more of a glass half empty point of view. I want the team to win me over, to show me the money. I could care less about potential. I'm results orientated.

Its hard to admit but the Rams are an excellent antagonist and I was so glad to see them give up on RB Todd Gurley(always a thorn in our side) after the 2019 season. Last year (2020) we both came into our second match-up with 10-4 records and they had head to head advantage if we both ended 11-5 since they beat us earlier in the year. The game was hard fought (6-6 halftime score) ...we didn't really " ice the game " until Russ threw a TD to our TE Jacob Hollister with just over 2 min to play.

McVay has a fierce ego (as their QB Goff would learn later) and had his team amped for our wildcard match-up since losing to us (20-9) gave us the NFC Championship he covets/expects. Goff injured his thumb against us but finished their (9-20) loss against us but couldn't play their final game against the Cards ( QB John Wolford subbed).

In the wildcard game Wolford was preferred by McVay but we knocked him out right away with a neck injury. Goff entered recovering from thumb surgery (12 days before). After the game he said the injury wasn't 100% healed but didn't bother him in the game ( He threw 3 long passes 20/44/44 yds so his recovering thumb doesn't bare merit as we got beat by a QB with a broken thumb). A "pick-6" in the 2nd quarter hurt our momentum and Russ threw 2 TD strikes to DK Metcalf that were matched with an Akers rushing TD and a 15 yd TD pass to their WR Woods sealing the game 30-20.

We were beat much worse than the score would indicate. We were beat at the LoS on both sides by a
better talented and better coached team. It was pathetic and embarrassing to see how far we have fallen
and we added very little in the off season.

NorthHawk wrote:We were beat much worse than the score would indicate. We were beat at the LoS on both sides by a
better talented and better coached team. It was pathetic and embarrassing to see how far we have fallen
and we added very little in the off season.

It wasn't pathetic/embarrassing to lose to a better team. Reality comes to roost often when the other teams in our division benefit from the NFL cycle of failure/reward...the Rams have been to 3 playoffs since 2012 and like the 49ers (also only 3 playoffs since 2012) they have taken turns being our rivals.

Both of them have benefitted from being mired in losing seasons and built up their talent corps using a similar template...hire a good coach...obtain a QB who gives you winning opportunities while under a rookie contract...make careful FA additions using the money saved by having younger players contributing while under rookie contracts. The difference is we have sustained our winning ways (8 playoffs in same time span...2 SB back to back with one lombardi Trophy and a close 2nd SB...Rams with 1SB loss...49ers with 2 SB losses.)

We were pushed around all game long and the score flattered us.
And this at home! You know, the place where we almost never lost?
It showed clearly how much poorer this team was than the championship teams of the past.
And Pete thinks a few bandaids will get us back to that level. We see that by the squandering of draft picks
for short term players as opposed to drafting and developing talent over a few years.

tarlhawk wrote:It wasn't pathetic/embarrassing to lose to a better team. Reality comes to roost often when the other teams in our division benefit from the NFL cycle of failure/reward...the Rams have been to 3 playoffs since 2012 and like the 49ers (also only 3 playoffs since 2012) they have taken turns being our rivals.

Both of them have benefitted from being mired in losing seasons and built up their talent corps using a similar template...hire a good coach...obtain a QB who gives you winning opportunities while under a rookie contract...make careful FA additions using the money saved by having younger players contributing while under rookie contracts. The difference is we have sustained our winning ways (8 playoffs in same time span...2 SB back to back with one lombardi Trophy and a close 2nd SB...Rams with 1SB loss...49ers with 2 SB losses.)

I agree that in retrospect, the Rams were the better team, but that wasn't apparent before the game.

The betting line before the game had us as the favorites. We were the NFC West champions. We had a 12-4 record, the Rams were 10-6 and we were playing at home. Granted, not much of an advantage during the pandemic, but better than having to travel. In addition, the Rams were playing without their starting quarterback, forced to return when his inexperienced backup was injured during the game, a major handicap for any team let alone an underdog. Plus we had just decisively beaten the same team just two weeks earlier 20-9. All the signs indicated that we were the better team.

But the game was a complete embarrassment. Wilson played poorly, completing just 41% of his passes for a paltry 142 yards. The Rams had more first downs, more total yards, and a slight edge in TOP. We committed 9 penalties, the Rams just 2. We lost 30-20, a score made closer by a late TD.

It was my wake-up call. I felt like a fool for believing in Pete, for believing in Russell. I felt like I had been sold a lemon of a used car by a slick salesman. It was after that game that I came to the conclusion that unless Pete could produce a legitimate SB contender the following season that I was off the bandwagon.

RiverDog wrote:But the game was a complete embarrassment. Wilson played poorly, completing just 41% of his passes for a paltry 142 yards. The Rams had more first downs, more total yards, and a slight edge in TOP. We committed 9 penalties, the Rams just 2. We lost 30-20, a score made closer by a late TD.

It was my wake-up call. I felt like a fool for believing in Pete, for believing in Russell. I felt like I had been sold a lemon of a used car by a slick salesman. It was after that game that I came to the conclusion that unless Pete could produce a legitimate SB contender the following season that I was off the bandwagon.

I can relate to the pain...I just no longer invest my emotions anymore to the point of anguish when I'm hoping we can return to the gala event. I really don't even bother watching the SB when we aren't there. I can accept and appreciate the effort and energy it takes to get a collective team to the SB. I am not quick to assume I could do better...because as I look into learning more about the only surviving sport (for me) and the more I learn the more appreciative I become. At work it was our lunch time topic of choice...something we could agree with...I don't recall any dissenters...except when we digressed into politics.

I watch every game I can and that way I can mentally compare how we play vs how other teams play.
It's quite clear to me that we have a huge gap in talent and that other teams know what we are doing on Defense and Offense.
That's why things have to change. Teams have figured us out and Pete still tries to do the same things we did in 2012 but
without the talent to overcome this disadvantage.

RiverDog wrote:My point is that there's more to this cat-and-mouse game besides the wording of his contract and the franchise tag.

Agreed. In an article today Salk said "....when you hear an opinion you can often surmise which character in the drama has been talking to whom." The wild card of course is Jodi. Other than her "legal" issues a few years ago with some folks at Vulcan, we really know nothing about how she thinks.