Snacks quits

User avatar
Sibelius Hindemith
Posts: 14351
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Sibelius Hindemith » Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:27 am

Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:08 am
I don't the had 20 snaps for him, that was why he was inactive, they didn't have snaps for him, they didn't need him
And if one of their 3 remaining DTs gets injured then what?
Oh yeah, no worries - they got Cedrick Lattimore on the practice squad.

User avatar
Sibelius Hindemith
Posts: 14351
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Sibelius Hindemith » Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:31 am

D-train wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:23 am
Ford has a 80 rating and read only has a 55 rating
Yeah no way Reed is the best DT. He is a better pass rusher perhaps but not by much.

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 17221
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Donn Beach » Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:49 am

Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:27 am
Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 5:08 am
I don't the had 20 snaps for him, that was why he was inactive, they didn't have snaps for him, they didn't need him
And if one of their 3 remaining DTs gets injured then what?
Oh yeah, no worries - they got Cedrick Lattimore on the practice squad.

its like circular logic, you wanted them to give him a role now to keep him happy in case they needed him for a role in the future, but they didn't have a role for him now, that was why he was on the practice squad to begin with, and then inactive, no role. In terms of his quitting, I think they would have considered that, they decided to put what they thought was their best team on the field to win the game

User avatar
Sibelius Hindemith
Posts: 14351
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Sibelius Hindemith » Thu Dec 31, 2020 11:54 am

Well, they could have made a role for him, but it would mean taking 20-25 snaps away from Ford and Reed or benching Mone which would likely ruffle their feathers. Along with considerations about the lineup vs LAR, it was a roster management decision based on their confidence that those three stay healthy for the remainder of the season, i guess. That's assuming they were aware Harrison would walk if he didn't get to play.

User avatar
Donn Beach
Posts: 17221
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 1:06 am

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Donn Beach » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:03 pm

I would like to think its about putting your best team on the field for a given ballgame, give yourself the best chance to win it. If you want to argue it wasn't their best lineup okay. But I don't know about using a player that isn't your best option because you are needing to appease his desire to quit. That doesn't sound like proper roster construction to me

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 76281
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Snacks quits

Post by D-train » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:57 pm

Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:03 pm
I would like to think its about putting your best team on the field for a given ballgame, give yourself the best chance to win it. If you want to argue it wasn't their best lineup okay. But I don't know about using a player that isn't your best option because you are needing to appease his desire to quit. That doesn't sound like proper roster construction to me
That's all debatable and I can see both sides but what isn't debatable is that he quit because he didn't want to be a Seahawk or play football any more. He actually quit because he was no longer an active member of the Seahawks and wasn't playing football.
dt

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 76281
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Snacks quits

Post by D-train » Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:59 pm

I keep having this horrible reoccurring vision of him stopping Carson on 4th and goal at the one inch line with 30 seconds left in the NFC championsip down 4 points.
dt

User avatar
Sibelius Hindemith
Posts: 14351
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Sibelius Hindemith » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:25 pm

Donn Beach wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:03 pm
I would like to think its about putting your best team on the field for a given ballgame, give yourself the best chance to win it. If you want to argue it wasn't their best lineup okay. But I don't know about using a player that isn't your best option because you are needing to appease his desire to quit. That doesn't sound like proper roster construction to me
I don't quite follow you. Roster construction decisions are about more than the next game. Depth matters.

User avatar
Sibelius Hindemith
Posts: 14351
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 3:09 am
Location: Seattle

Re: Snacks quits

Post by Sibelius Hindemith » Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:29 pm

D-train wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:59 pm
I keep having this horrible reoccurring vision of him stopping Carson on 4th and goal at the one inch line with 30 seconds left in the NFC championsip down 4 points.
I had a feeling he'd get snapped up by one of the top seeded teams. I guess that means he can have a role on an already loaded roster.
Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:56 am
Watch KC or GB sign him now and him play a crucial role in the playoffs. Just have to hope Mone can stay healthy i guess.

User avatar
D-train
Posts: 76281
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:33 am
Location: Quincy, MA

Re: Snacks quits

Post by D-train » Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:24 pm

Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 3:29 pm
D-train wrote:
Thu Dec 31, 2020 1:59 pm
I keep having this horrible reoccurring vision of him stopping Carson on 4th and goal at the one inch line with 30 seconds left in the NFC championsip down 4 points.
I had a feeling he'd get snapped up by one of the top seeded teams. I guess that means he can have a role on an already loaded roster.
Sibelius Hindemith wrote:
Tue Dec 29, 2020 6:56 am
Watch KC or GB sign him now and him play a crucial role in the playoffs. Just have to hope Mone can stay healthy i guess.
Wow. Nailed it.
dt

Post Reply