RiverDog wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 .
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.
Nobody “wishes” Russell will leave by forcing a trade except him which is obviously his trajectory
And I think it’s a mistake to choose Carroll over Wilson as that’s the decision to be made.
RiverDog wrote: The Lions win meant absolutely nothing. A win against a 2-13-1 team. Whoop de doo. BFD.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests