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

[Guest Dark Knight]

Seattle has about a 1-2 year window to win another championship and then they will be cap fuged.

They can't keep half their #1 ranked defense & QB at league minimum forever.

[ThunderKatt]

You want the bottom of your roster to be just as strong, because you are as good as your weakest player.  I would like for the bottom of the panthers roster to be studs, that means the next man up will be able to compete.

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.

 

[rayzor]

Basically always work like you are the worst team in the league.

 

right. work...not act.

 

 

always be improving. no settling allowed. status quo is not acceptable for the next year.

[rayzor]

You want the bottom of your roster to be just as strong, because you are as good as your weakest player.  I would like for the bottom of the panthers roster to be studs, that means the next man up will be able to compete.

 

totally agreed, and while it may not be realistic thinking for the bottom of the roster to be just as good as the top, the desire and effort needs to be there to try and make that happen.

 

what is expected of starters should be expected of all players. nothing short of excellence is acceptable.

[EightyNine]

totally agreed, and while it may not be realistic thinking for the bottom of the roster to be just as good as the top, the desire and effort needs to be there to try and make that happen.

what is expected of starters should be expected of all players. nothing short of excellence is acceptable.

You are right that it is unrealistic to have these expectations, although its what you strive for.

But does the number of transactions equate to desire and effort? Its about the quality of the transactions, not the quantity. If I let a good player go and bring in someone who is worse, I have 2 more transactions, but does that make it a good move?

[rayzor]

You are right that it is unrealistic to have these expectations, although its what you strive for.

But does the number of transactions equate to desire and effort? Its about the quality of the transactions, not the quantity. If I let a good player go and bring in someone who is worse, I have 2 more transactions, but does that make it a good move?

 

the number of transactions is a sign of the desire and the effort. the end product can't be disputed.

 

not every team churning the roster like they and the pats do are successful and not every perrenial successful team does it. it's just a sign that they are never satisfied, which is what i hope we model.

 

i think people are making this out to be like their high turnover rate is being seen as the model that some might want to follow. i think it's the mindset. you are always looking for the best player and always acting to make sure that you have the best roster possible.

 

you want quality and quantity. you want smart decisive actions continually made. that's what i want, anyway.

 

[dos poptarts]

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.

 

Avril, Browner, Rice, Clemons, Okung, and both their tackles all missed more than a few games IIRC. Their backups were able to keep them from losing games. <----This seems to be how the GM for the Seahawks wants to build. Have a high rate of churn to evaluate as many players as possible. Some teams say this publicly but really don't practice it. (R.Smith, Texans, looking right at you)

 

Talent evaluation is still more important, but the Seahawks (much like the Patriots) kept plugging in guys during the season while their starters miss games. Except I think the Patriots defense lost too many this year and they still were able to win 12 games during the regular season.

[ThunderKatt]

Yea, I know that's irrational but I think quality depth should be expected.  You have depth players on other rosters that are better than our starters mainly the cb position.  I understand what they are doing some times you have to throw 200-300 darts to hit the bulleyes 20-30 times.  Now if you already have your starters with 20 extra targets then you are set even if it is for one year.

 

Maybe Ron will get into the mindset of saying right off the bat, "no this kid isn't going to work, or bring in the next group of kids"  That is a strong stance if training starts at 8 and your coach has sent 20 invitees away before lunch because they don't fit the mold.  That is building a mindset for excellence.

totally agreed, and while it may not be realistic thinking for the bottom of the roster to be just as good as the top, the desire and effort needs to be there to try and make that happen.

 

what is expected of starters should be expected of all players. nothing short of excellence is acceptable.

 

[EightyNine]

the number of transactions is a sign of the desire and the effort. the end product can't be disputed.

 

not every team churning the roster like they and the pats do are successful and not every perrenial successful team does it. it's just a sign that they are never satisfied, which is what i hope we model.

 

i think people are making this out to be like their high turnover rate is being seen as the model that some might want to follow. i think it's the mindset. you are always looking for the best player and always acting to make sure that you have the best roster possible.

 

you want quality and quantity. you want smart decisive actions continually made. that's what i want, anyway.

 

 

 

Avril, Browner, Rice, Clemons, Okung, and both their tackles all missed more than a few games IIRC. Their backups were able to keep them from losing games. <----This seems to be how the GM for the Seahawks wants to build. Have a high rate of churn to evaluate as many players as possible. Some teams say this publicly but really don't practice it. (R.Smith, Texans, looking right at you)

 

Talent evaluation is still more important, but the Seahawks (much like the Patriots) kept plugging in guys during the season while their starters miss games. Except I think the Patriots defense lost too many this year and they still were able to win 12 games during the regular season.

There is logic to both sides.  I definitely understand what you mean. I want that mindset too. But ideally, i think a GM would rather quickly find a guy that he really likes and can develop over time, instead of having to constantly move new players in and out.  That doesn't mean i think making a lot of moves is bad.  We obviously should always be making moves and seeing whats out there.  But drafting well is the key to everything, especially in late rounds.  That's were the best GMs make their money, and you see how much Seattle is reaping the benefits of doing that.

 

My main point is: if you draft well, get players that fit what you do and stay healthy, what is the need to have such a high turnover rate?  Isn't that what every GM wishes he could do?

[rayzor]

 

My main point is: if you draft well, get players that fit what you do and stay healthy, what is the need to have such a high turnover rate?  Isn't that what every GM wishes he could do?

 

that was what hurney shot for and got...well...the whole low turnover rate and sticking with your drafted players or returners from the previous year.

 

you should always be self scouting and able to 1) spot where you could have done better in your choices and 2) spot where you could do better than what you have.

 

sometimes we're going to get it wrong. sometimes we'll get it right, but only for a moment. you may find someone that can help for right now, but then find someone available that wasn't available before who can help more.

 

the goal of every GM isn't to try and avoid high turnover rates. the goal is to make the roster as strong as possible. draft well, trade smart, make intelligent decisions in FA. all three of these things have to be going consistently.

 

[EightyNine]

that was what hurney shot for and got...well...the whole low turnover rate and sticking with your drafted players or returners from the previous year.

 

you should always be self scouting and able to 1) spot where you could have done better in your choices and 2) spot where you could do better than what you have.

 

sometimes we're going to get it wrong. sometimes we'll get it right, but only for a moment. you may find someone that can help for right now, but then find someone available that wasn't available before who can help more.

 

the goal of every GM isn't to try and avoid high turnover rates. the goal is to make the roster as strong as possible. draft well, trade smart, make intelligent decisions in FA. all three of these things have to be going consistently.

 

I didn't mean to say the goal was to avoid high turnover rates.  Sorry for the confusion.  I meant that drafting well and getting players that are a good fit and stay healthy was the goal.  Pretty much the same thing you just said in your last sentence.  I just mentioned that a product of doing that would be lower turnover rates.

[h0llywood]

75 of those transactions consist of Pete Carroll signing and cutting Mike Williams.

[joemac]

Doesn't Carrol control all the personnel decisions in Seattle?

[El Chingon]

A smart and informative thread, well done.