Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Roster churn - Seahawks #1 since 2010 (by a large margin)


dos poptarts

Recommended Posts

Was trying to organize the Panthers roster into different groups and ran across this article while trying to do some research. (sorry if it had already been posted). While I don't agree 100% with the article, coorelation != causation, it does provide some credence that Pete Carroll and John Schneider wants to see as many bodies to evaluate as possible. Might be why they've been able to plug backups in during the season w/o significant dropoffs in output. Talent eval still being the most important.

 

No idea where the Panthers might be on this list...

I was looking at roster churn and trying to group the Panthers into 3 tiers.

Tier 1: Elite

Tier 2: Very good at their position

Tier 3: Avg/Below avg/unproven (these is where there should be lots of turnover, but I don't know if that's the case before G-man arrived.)

 

 

The Seahawks' Secret: Moves. Lots of Moves

Since January 2010, when Seattle hired Pete Carroll as its coach, the Seahawks have logged 1,105 transactions, by far the most in the NFL, according to Stats LLC. In fact, Seattle is the only team over that span to crack 1,000 transactions. Only five other teams topped 900.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303743604579350702085746462

 

 

 

 

BN-BH437_COUNT0_G_20140129222706.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are never satsified with what they have is what i take from that, and i like it. i also see that with gettleman.

 

one of the things that i'm sure people would complain about is letting go of guys with potential. we always get attached to guys that we hope some day will turn into something special...the underdog player. i think that in the hurney era we were really bad about that.

 

some players spent years on the roster with the team just waiting for that moment to come where it all clicks. that's just not a way to ensure you have the best team possible, tho.

 

we have to be constantly looking for the right fit and we don't need to take much time to see if it's there. sure, some day two or three draft picks might need a couple years to develop, but i think even with that it doesn't take long to see if the light is capable of coming on or if what they can deliver when they finally "get it" is worth the time put into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting to see some of the best teams on the top of this list, but there is also a good number of some of the worst teams, so I'm not sure if there is a correlation there.

 

i think there is.

 

with the seahawks and pats, i can look at that and see that it's their model of doing business.

 

with the bucs and colts and some of the other teams, they have just had a huge overhaul in their team because of coaching changes and such. i don't see we'll see a pattern there the way we do with the seahawks and pats.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think there is.

 

with the seahawks and pats, i can look at that and see that it's their model of doing business.

 

with the bucs and colts and some of the other teams, they have just had a huge overhaul in their team because of coaching changes and such. i don't see we'll see a pattern there the way we do with the seahawks and pats.

 

Yeah, but if you look at that, it kinda looks like the Jets and Jaguars model too..

 

It doesn't tell the whole story.

 

The Seahawks vastly improved once they found their quarterback. Thats what usually makes the biggest difference.

 

There are just too many average to below average teams high on that list to say there is a correlation.  The Broncos were 26th and look how good they are? Just like the Seahawks, they became contenders when they got their quarterback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reference point.   Transaction doesn't equate to roster changes only.  If for example you sign a guy to the practice squad, waive him, resign him, elevate him to the active roster, send him back to the practice squad and then waive him again, that would be 6 transactions with the same guy.  Sure they had a ton of them but it could be 300 transactions with 50 guys not a 150 guys necessarily.

Just saying...............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correlation is in mindset.

 

The Jags are always looking for another player to help them get wins, so they cycle through tons of players to do so.

 

The Seahawks are doing the same.

 

Stockpiling talent is a constant effort.

 

 

I certainly hope the Panthers follow a similar model going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are never satsified with what they have is what i take from that, and i like it. i also see that with gettleman.

 

one of the things that i'm sure people would complain about is letting go of guys with potential. we always get attached to guys that we hope some day will turn into something special...the underdog player. i think that in the hurney era we were really bad about that.

 

some players spent years on the roster with the team just waiting for that moment to come where it all clicks. that's just not a way to ensure you have the best team possible, tho.

 

we have to be constantly looking for the right fit and we don't need to take much time to see if it's there. sure, some day two or three draft picks might need a couple years to develop, but i think even with that it doesn't take long to see if the light is capable of coming on or if what they can deliver when they finally "get it" is worth the time put into it.

 

This is what I "think" Carroll and Schneider are doing. Is Hawk recovered from partying yet? He might have more insight. But what the Hawks show is their Coach/GM philosophy. Yes, they could be waiving, cutting, re-signing the same player to pad the transactions, but you can't pad a 15% lead on the 2nd place team.

Bad teams with new GMs/HCs should have high transactions as they get their team assembled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I "think" Carroll and Schneider are doing. Is Hawk recovered from partying yet? He might have more insight. But what the Hawks show is their Coach/GM philosophy. Yes, they could be waiving, cutting, re-signing the same player to pad the transactions, but you can't pad a 15% lead on the 2nd place team.

Bad teams with new GMs/HCs should have high transactions as they get their team assembled.

Its easy to look at Seattle at the top of this list and make a correlation, but I'm just not sure if its there.  The Seahawks are reaping the benefits of drafting well.. Their best players came from the draft.  They really started to be contenders when they got their quarterback, which probably shows a much much better correlation.  They aren't players that came from constantly changing your roster.  Your highest turnover rate should be at the bottom of your roster, not the top.  I agree that you need to always improve in this area, but i think there are too many factors (quarterback, draft success, good teams not on the list, and bad teams that are on the list) to make this type of direct correlation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correlation is in mindset.

 

The Jags are always looking for another player to help them get wins, so they cycle through tons of players to do so.

 

The Seahawks are doing the same.

 

Stockpiling talent is a constant effort.

 

 

I certainly hope the Panthers follow a similar model going forward.

 

good explaination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Big opportunity for Nadeau if he gets called up. 
    • I think OL is a pretty low overall concern but every single offseason there should be an attempt to upgrade through the draft. Edge rusher there are no easy answers, IMO. If a truly elite prospect falls to us in the 1st, that is fine. This draft seems to be much more heavy on 3-4 DE's or 4-3 DE's than it is on elite EDGE guys. You just have to keep plugging away every offseason and hope it works out. I don't think it's worth trading a ton of draft capital over at the moment, despite being a crucial roster weakness. Do the best you can and build a better roster and maybe eventually we will be in a position to be making a Parsons level trade.
    • I understand that a capable OC is desirable but I also understand, or think I might, the dynamics with the staff and maybe I’m wrong but I do not see Canales firing his offensive right hand guy without significant pressure from Morgan or Tepper to do so.  So that, in addition to Canales stating pretty definitively, that he was keeping play calling.     I don’t know what you do in that circumstance. It would need to be important enough to you to make it worth firing Canales to get your OC play caller.    To that, if Canales not being good so far at play calling (and we only have the one year in TB to factor with what we have see here), is accepted as a given, it is only fair and honest to consider what an impediment having to construct and administer an offense around Bryce Young’s game would be to an OC. I would say it is a big complication, big surprise there.  You won’t know about Canales 100% until you remove Bryce from the equation and get him a clean slate to create from - without the Bryce restrictions.  And yeah you will likely end up without a top notch high flying offense. But it still *could* be much better than it is now. In the right hands.  So that is potentially what we’re looking at. I suppose we could keep Bryce and bring in a college style coach and design a Bryce rollout offense or something and see if that helped. I am not in favor of that, probably the last thing I would want.  We could do nothing, which I am not in favor of. We could fire Canales and keep Bryce (my least preferred option). We could get rid of both, which I would begrudgingly accept but would lament the interruption of the continuity that a 3rd year would provide.  You could get rid of Bryce and get a couple of new QB prospects in here, vets, drafts, whatever… that would be my choice.  I am afraid I know how it’s gonna go. All I can really say about that is, there has not been a single time in three years that I looked at the upcoming game and felt like we were gonna win because we have Bryce Young playing QB. Because of what he could do with the ball in his hands. Not once. Sure there have been a handful of games that he was part of the reason we won, a couple he was a big part, but not enough times to feel like that is my expectation. At best, it is cross your fingers and hope for good Bryce. 
×
×
  • Create New...