HawkShack.com

Well now we know http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ael-bowie/ ... we really didn't want to lose Bowie and it was indeed a mistake to have exposed him to waivers thinking we were safe by the "unwritten rule.

If an unwritten rule indeed exists, it’s not being respected. And it can’t be enforced. The Seahawks could have avoided the issue by continueing to carry Bowie on the 90-man roster until the first roster cuts and then slid him to injured reserve. Instead of making a move with one of the other 89 players, the Seahawks took a calculated risk on Bowie, and it backfired.

Didn't take as long as I thought for the real story to come out, but it's just as I suspected.

It's easy to say they should have known, but really, they should have with the Pats and others claiming players off of the injury waiver wire last year and I think more teams doing it this year. Considering he was a young Tackle who might also play Guard coming from a Championship team who also played in at least 8 games, teams would have some film on him.
If he was really in their plans, it would have been easy to protect him.
In any event, he's gone and we'll have to make do.

Nobody's perfect. We fupped duck. But Not majorly; it's only about a 2 on the Hutch scale

Yah, lesson learned.

c_hawkbob wrote:Well now we know http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ael-bowie/ ... we really didn't want to lose Bowie and it was indeed a mistake to have exposed him to waivers thinking we were safe by the "unwritten rule.

If an unwritten rule indeed exists, it’s not being respected. And it can’t be enforced. The Seahawks could have avoided the issue by continueing to carry Bowie on the 90-man roster until the first roster cuts and then slid him to injured reserve. Instead of making a move with one of the other 89 players, the Seahawks took a calculated risk on Bowie, and it backfired.

Didn't take as long as I thought for the real story to come out, but it's just as I suspected.

We don't know if it was the "real" reason or not. From the first paragraph of the story:

"After the Seahawks waived right tackle Michael Bowie with the “injured” designation and the Browns claimed him, coach Pete Carroll suggested that the team didn’t really want to keep Bowie anyway, pointing out that he’d shown up for training camp 20 pounds overweight."

There would seem to be a difference of opinion between our head coach and our offensive line coach. Who's to say what the "real" reason was?

RiverDog wrote:

c_hawkbob wrote:Well now we know http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ael-bowie/ ... we really didn't want to lose Bowie and it was indeed a mistake to have exposed him to waivers thinking we were safe by the "unwritten rule.

If an unwritten rule indeed exists, it’s not being respected. And it can’t be enforced. The Seahawks could have avoided the issue by continueing to carry Bowie on the 90-man roster until the first roster cuts and then slid him to injured reserve. Instead of making a move with one of the other 89 players, the Seahawks took a calculated risk on Bowie, and it backfired.

Didn't take as long as I thought for the real story to come out, but it's just as I suspected.

We don't know if it was the "real" reason or not. From the first paragraph of the story:

"After the Seahawks waived right tackle Michael Bowie with the “injured” designation and the Browns claimed him, coach Pete Carroll suggested that the team didn’t really want to keep Bowie anyway, pointing out that he’d shown up for training camp 20 pounds overweight."

There would seem to be a difference of opinion between our head coach and our offensive line coach. Who's to say what the "real" reason was?

That's interesting, when Carroll was asked about it shortly after on the local radio, his stance was, they didn't think anyone would claim him with the injury he had, and that they had done that numerous times ( McCoy was brought up as an example) and that they had expected him to remain with the team after he cleared waivers with his injury designation.

HumanCockroach wrote:
That's interesting, when Carroll was asked about it shortly after on the local radio, his stance was, they didn't think anyone would claim him with the injury he had, and that they had done that numerous times ( McCoy was brought up as an example) and that they had expected him to remain with the team after he cleared waivers with his injury designation.

Yes he did, that was always his initial response. I think the "20 lbs overweight" comment was and out of hand dismissal of the matter by a "where do we go from here" HC who was done worrying about where we go from back there. I think everybody just jumped on the latter comment because it's more salacious.

Really don't care too much honestly. Bowie wasn't going to contribute anything this season due to the injury and he isn't the long term answer at any position. Not being able to stash him just gives them extra motivation to invest more in the Offensive Line during the next off season.

kalibane wrote:Really don't care too much honestly. Bowie wasn't going to contribute anything this season due to the injury and he isn't the long term answer at any position. Not being able to stash him just gives them extra motivation to invest more in the Offensive Line during the next off season.

Yea, no kidding. Water under the bridge.

c_hawkbob wrote:Nobody's perfect. We fupped duck. But Not majorly; it's only about a 2 on the Hutch scale

Interesting. But look at the teams that viloated the unwritten rule. The Saints blitzed the hell out of us in 2011 preseason, thereby breaking an unwritten rule. They extended another commonly known unwritten practice to an extreme degree with bounty gate. Belichik did the same with Spygate. Now Jerra is coming under heat for potential tampering by talking it up with AP in the offseason. Who knows what was really said in that conversation.

Given the organizations involved here, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that this happened the way it did.