Harvin Takes Shot at Seahawk Teammates

[NorthHawk]

I thought this thread was about how much of a douche bag Pussy Harvin is. How did this devolve into whether RW deserved the MVP???

It's what we do here and it's one of our best qualities.

[Hawk Sista]

because that is what always happens....everything comes back to RW and it's just plain old weird.

Riv...I'm not sure who I was talking to - I scroll the conversation and sometimes I don't even know who said what, especially when I am on my I-phone. My point is directed at everyone.... I think it is a silly exercise to guess (or more aptly stated - assert) that the Hawks would have won that game "if" this and "if" that happened. We had the players we had, and collectively they kicked ass. Percy was a big part of that. Do we win without him? Probably....do we win without cliff? hmmmm?? earl? where does the guessing stop?. Percy's fly sweeps certainly set a tone as did his return to start the second half, the center hiking the ball over the Peyton's head (to start the game) set a tone, the D set a tone, RW's ball control skills set a tone...etc. The tone was set early in all phases of the game and the boys did not didn't let up. RW's leadership in the second half was awesome. My point is it is silly to claim/assert (2 years after the fact) we could have won a game without this guy or that guy. Could we have won last year's NFCCG without Garry Gilliam?

I'm glad the fan of the Santa Clara niners doesn't bug you, RD.....but he bugs the hell outta me, so thanks. It really is not that big of a deal - but doctor's orders post cancer - REDUCE STRESS!.

[RiverDog]

because that is what always happens....everything comes back to RW and it's just plain old weird.

Riv...I'm not sure who I was talking to - I scroll the conversation and sometimes I don't even know who said what, especially when I am on my I-phone. My point is directed at everyone.... I think it is a silly exercise to guess (or more aptly stated - assert) that the Hawks would have won that game "if" this and "if" that happened. We had the players we had, and collectively they kicked ass. Percy was a big part of that. Do we win without him? Probably....do we win without cliff? hmmmm?? earl? where does the guessing stop?. Percy's fly sweeps certainly set a tone as did his return to start the second half, the center hiking the ball over the Peyton's head (to start the game) set a tone, the D set a tone, RW's ball control skills set a tone...etc. The tone was set early in all phases of the game and the boys did not didn't let up. RW's leadership in the second half was awesome. My point is it is silly to claim/assert (2 years after the fact) we could have won a game without this guy or that guy. Could we have won last year's NFCCG without Garry Gilliam?

I'm glad the fan of the Santa Clara niners doesn't bug you, RD.....but he bugs the hell outta me, so thanks. It really is not that big of a deal - but doctor's orders post cancer - REDUCE STRESS!.

Yea, I hear ya about the "what if" game, and that wasn't my intent. Part of my argument was an expression of my own personal feelings towards Percy Harvin. I'll be God damnned if I thank him for anything, SB 48 not withstanding, especially now after he's been taking cheap shots at our guys. Kudos to Doug Baldwin for not lowering himself to Harvin's level by responding to his bullchit.

It is weird how these threads turn into a forum about Russell. I'm responsible for my fair share of tangents so I'm not going to complain.

[Seahawks4Ever]

I read on the internet this morning that one of Harvin's hips is hurting so bad that he is having to have injections to dull the pain. I don't wish bad things on people I don't like but it sure sounds like I have heard this song before. I wonder if his hip problem will reduce how much he plays for the Bills.

"The Song Remains the Same"

[NorthHawk]

If I remember correctly, Harvin's departure was preceded by his refusal to go back on the field in the Dallas game.
Failure to want to compete is a terminal condition in Pete's philosophy and will not be tolerated no matter how much the player is being paid.

[RiverDog]

If I remember correctly, Harvin's departure was preceded by his refusal to go back on the field in the Dallas game.
Failure to want to compete is a terminal condition in Pete's philosophy and will not be tolerated no matter how much the player is being paid.

It's not just "Pete's philosophy". Any coach worth his salt isn't going to put up with insubordination. Can you imagine what Mike Ditka or Chuck Knox would have done to Harvin had he pulled the same chit? And if I really wanted to kick a hornet's nest, I could argue that it was Pete's philosophy that led Harvin to believe that he could get away with telling his coaches to stick it in their arse.

[c_hawkbob]

It's not just "Pete's philosophy". Any coach worth his salt isn't going to put up with insubordination. Can you imagine what Mike Ditka or Chuck Knox would have done to Harvin had he pulled the same chit? And if I really wanted to kick a hornet's nest, I could argue that it was Pete's philosophy that led Harvin to believe that he could get away with telling his coaches to stick it in their arse.

Ha! Reminds me of when Latrell Sprewell choked PJ Calisimo, my first thought was how much fun it would have been to see him try that with Jerry Sloan!

I know, nothing to do with anything, just a random thought the conversation took me to ...

[NorthHawk]

"It's not just "Pete's philosophy". Any coach worth his salt isn't going to put up with insubordination. Can you imagine what Mike Ditka or Chuck Knox would have done to Harvin had he pulled the same chit? [b]And if I really wanted to kick a hornet's nest, I could argue that it was Pete's philosophy that led Harvin to believe that he could get away with telling his coaches to stick it in their arse.[/b

What part of his philosophy would lead someone to believe that, RD?

[RiverDog]

"It's not just "Pete's philosophy". Any coach worth his salt isn't going to put up with insubordination. Can you imagine what Mike Ditka or Chuck Knox would have done to Harvin had he pulled the same chit? [b]And if I really wanted to kick a hornet's nest, I could argue that it was Pete's philosophy that led Harvin to believe that he could get away with telling his coaches to stick it in their arse.[/b

What part of his philosophy would lead someone to believe that, RD?

Pete is not a stern disciplinarian ala some other coaches, such as Mike Holmgren. He's closer to his players, a "player's coach", etc. IMO the fact that his teams are more heavily penalized than average is an attribute of this, for the lack of a better term, laid back style. Another danger of this style is that there are certain situations where an undisciplined, rebellious player may be quicker to lose respect for an authority figure than they might otherwise have been with a coach that is a little less connected to his players, puts more distance between them and makes more clear and distinct the relationship between a subordinate and their superior.

IMO it is possible that because of Pete's laid back style, Harvin saw him and his staff as weak and felt he could say or do as he pleases.

Now before you guys start lacing the tips of your poison darts, I am fully convinced that Pete's style is very successful and am not advocating that he change a thing. I just don't think any coaching style is completely effective in every situation 100% of the time, and Percy Harvin could be one of those situations where another style might have been more successful.

[NorthHawk]

"Pete is not a stern disciplinarian ala some other coaches, such as Mike Holmgren. He's closer to his players, a "player's coach", etc. IMO the fact that his teams are more heavily penalized than average is an attribute of this, for the lack of a better term, laid back style. Another danger of this style is that there are certain situations where an undisciplined, rebellious player may be quicker to lose respect for an authority figure than they might otherwise have been with a coach that is a little less connected to his players, puts more distance between them and makes more clear and distinct the relationship between a subordinate and their superior.

I don't agree with that at all.
Pete uses discipline all the time. It might not be the same as other coaches who are said to be tough, but there are consequences for offensive behavior.
You know as a player going in there are certain lines you don't cross - unless you are some variation of a psychopath where you don't care or can't control yourself.

[RiverDog]

I don't agree with that at all.
Pete uses discipline all the time. It might not be the same as other coaches who are said to be tough, but there are consequences for offensive behavior.
You know as a player going in there are certain lines you don't cross - unless you are some variation of a psychopath where you don't care or can't control yourself.

Perhaps discipline isn't the right term. Maybe style would be better fitting.

Holmgren's style was to maintain a certain amount of distance from his players, which had it's disadvantages as well as its advantages. One advantage of maintaining your distance is that you establish a certain amount of fear into your players, a fear of the unknown, how they might react. Pete, on the other hand, believes in making players feel like he's more like them, getting closer to them personally. IMO it is this type of style that could have reduced Harvin's level of fear of his head coach, emboldened him into thinking that he could talk/act to Pete and his coaches as if he was nothing more than just another teammate, an equal.

Can you see my point?

[burrrton]

Pete uses discipline all the time.

Sincere question: can you name any other examples of PC's stern discipline other than dropping Harvin like a bad habit?

[RiverDog]

Sincere question: can you name any other examples of PC's stern discipline other than dropping Harvin like a bad habit?

I saw Pete really chew out Sweezy's arse in a preseason game vs. the Packers two years ago over a stupid personal foul penalty that cost us a first down. It's the only time I've ever seen Pete snap and get that pizzed at a player during a game. Holmgren did it all the time. Commit a stupid PF on a Holmgren team and you'd better dig a hole and climb in. Chuck Knox released a former #1 draft choice (Manu Tuiasosopo) at least in part because he committed a stupid PF that cost us a game.

Fear can be a very effective motivational tool if used the right way and not over used. You need to show your subordinates every once in a great while that you do have a temper and a breaking point. It's part of earning their respect. If over used, it can be counter productive. Mike Singletary (a branch off of Mike Ditka's tree) is a perfect example of a coach that didn't know when to stop.

[NorthHawk]

I fully understand what you are saying, RD. I'm not so sure it works as well nowadays with today's players.

I think Pete does a lot behind closed doors, and I think it's a better way than embarrassing a player during a game.
It may be something as subtle as calmly saying "if you keep up doing the things you are, you won't play for us again and considering I'm thought of as a players coach, other teams might just pass on you as well. It will at the very least limit your options and possibly impact any future contract negotiations".
But everyone is human and you will at times see Pete giving a player hell in the heat of the moment.

[burrrton]

I think Pete does a lot behind closed doors

Again: based on what?

I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment that PC may have found an ideal balance, but to this point I can't see any reason to think he's any kind of a disciplinarian by NFL coaching standards.

I'll reiterate: maybe that's good, bordering on perfect for today's athletes. I'm just wondering why someone would disagree PC has a laid-back philosophy when it comes to discipline.

[RiverDog]

I fully understand what you are saying, RD. I'm not so sure it works as well nowadays with today's players.

I think Pete does a lot behind closed doors, and I think it's a better way than embarrassing a player during a game.
It may be something as subtle as calmly saying "if you keep up doing the things you are, you won't play for us again and considering I'm thought of as a players coach, other teams might just pass on you as well. It will at the very least limit your options and possibly impact any future contract negotiations".
But everyone is human and you will at times see Pete giving a player hell in the heat of the moment.

I agree in principle and for 99% of the time, it's wise to choose the praise in public, chastise in private philosophy. But if there's a clear situation where an arse chewing is fully justified and everyone knows it, it doesn't hurt to unload on a player in public so long as you can offer somewhat of a half azzed apology for doing so shortly afterwards, like in the locker room after the game. If you come back and apologize and explain why you snapped, I think it's more of a positive than to not have lost your cool in the first place. IMO it's important for others to see you get angry occasionally, and not just at the refs.

Pete's gotten mad at officials during a game, but Sweezy is the only player I've ever seen Pete chew out during a game, and I've watched a lot of Pete Carroll coached teams play over the past 20 years or so. If you have another example, I'd love to hear about it.

[Hawk Sista]

I think each of us are defining discipline differently. Is Pete a grade school disciplinarian? NO. Is he a tough guy, screamer when things go wrong? NO. He is a motivator. BUT, at the very same time, there is a lot of discipline in how PC coaches. He has VERY HIGH standards and he expects the MEN on the team to meet those standards through discipline. Discipline in what they eat, drink, do and bring to their teammates. He does give his players wider lanes to be who they are than almost any other coach feels comfortable giving. If this "allowing people to be who they are" is perceived as a lack of discipline, well I disagree 100%. It is because of this strict discipline (and a regimented approach to a very specific plan) that the Hawks have been having the success they have during Pete's tenure. I was listening to the radio sometime last season when Salk asked Pete why he didn't lose it with players who were guilty of repeated pre-snap penalties. What Pete said in response has stayed with me. He said there is a lot of discipline in not having a big reaction in circumstances like that...in taking the time to teach, show film, and raise the bar rather than yell at someone in the moment. He expects that of himself, his coaches, staff and anyone associated with his program.

His quote really made me stop to reflect on some areas in my life where I was lacking discipline. A superfluous example of a lack of discipline is ripping Future a new one (or letting him bug me in the first place) rather than just letting it go. Professionally - I lead a Department of up to 65 -100 people depending on the season. I work to always have a plan (structure to what we are trying to do), to get buy in on the plan from the teammates who will be responsible for it, and to reward with heaping praise when we collectively get there. I attempt to provide the time, tools and training to my team and then hold them uber accountable for lofty goals. In a sense (and I have read some of Pete's motivational books) I am ascribing to what Pete sells which represents a shift from my earlier days as a leader. In my 30's - I directed and micro-managed folks - even successfully so. Now, I invite them to come along for the ride while they continue to fine tune their skills, and then own their role in our collective success or misstep. The latter approach may seem like I am less of a disciplinarian than I used to be. It's just a different way of using discipline and being disciplined.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Pete didn't drop Harvin like a bad habit, or at the drop of the hat. PH did quite a few things before Pete gave up and traded him away, just say'in.

[RiverDog]

I think each of us are defining discipline differently. Is Pete a grade school disciplinarian? NO. Is he a tough guy, screamer when things go wrong? NO. He is a motivator. BUT, at the very same time, there is a lot of discipline in how PC coaches. He has VERY HIGH standards and he expects the MEN on the team to meet those standards through discipline. Discipline in what they eat, drink, do and bring to their teammates. He does give his players wider lanes to be who they are than almost any other coach feels comfortable giving. If this "allowing people to be who they are" is perceived as a lack of discipline, well I disagree 100%. It is because of this strict discipline (and a regimented approach to a very specific plan) that the Hawks have been having the success they have during Pete's tenure. I was listening to the radio sometime last season when Salk asked Pete why he didn't lose it with players who were guilty of repeated pre-snap penalties. What Pete said in response has stayed with me. He said there is a lot of discipline in not having a big reaction in circumstances like that...in taking the time to teach, show film, and raise the bar rather than yell at someone in the moment. He expects that of himself, his coaches, staff and anyone associated with his program.

His quote really made me stop to reflect on some areas in my life where I was lacking discipline. A superfluous example of a lack of discipline is ripping Future a new one (or letting him bug me in the first place) rather than just letting it go. Professionally - I lead a Department of up to 65 -100 people depending on the season. I work to always have a plan (structure to what we are trying to do), to get buy in on the plan from the teammates who will be responsible for it, and to reward with heaping praise when we collectively get there. I attempt to provide the time, tools and training to my team and then hold them uber accountable for lofty goals. In a sense (and I have read some of Pete's motivational books) I am ascribing to what Pete sells which represents a shift from my earlier days as a leader. In my 30's - I directed and micro-managed folks - even successfully so. Now, I invite them to come along for the ride while they continue to fine tune their skills, and then own their role in our collective success or misstep. The latter approach may seem like I am less of a disciplinarian than I used to be. It's just a different way of using discipline and being disciplined.

Thanks for sharing that, Sis. I've been a supervisor for 37 years, with crews varying from around 80-150 "Team Members" (the current politically correct term to refer to employees as) to include other salaried supervisors, and I've developed a style I'm comfortable with. Sometimes it shows when I comment about the various coaching styles.

Everyone has their own style, and no style is perfect, including Pete's. Who knows if Harvin would have reacted differently to another coaching style. My guess is that it wouldn't have mattered who he played for, the result would have been the same, the guy would have still been a dickhead.

[Vegaseahawk]

there is a lot of discipline in how PC coaches. He has VERY HIGH standards and he expects the MEN on the team to meet those standards through discipline. Discipline in what they eat, drink, do and bring to their teammates. He does give his players wider lanes to be who they are than almost any other coach feels comfortable giving. If this "allowing people to be who they are" is perceived as a lack of discipline, well I disagree 100%. It is because of this strict discipline (and a regimented approach to a very specific plan) that the Hawks have been having the success they have during Pete's tenure.

This^
I couldn't have said how I see this any better than Sis did, so I won't.
There are examples of how quickly PC & JS have moved to eliminate cancer or "me first" type of behavior in his locker room. LenDale White comes to mind. They are not afraid to cut bait, regardless of the investment.

[HumanCockroach]

There's a few Carroll/ Schneider jettisoned quickly. Hill, Moffitt, and the former USC RB / pothead/ entitled they traded for from Tennessee.There I am sure have been others, It seems to Mr, at least from an outside perspective, that there is plenty of rope, and they are more than willing to forgive a ton, support and try to help players, both on and off the field, but once that limit is reached its game over....

As for the "final" straw with Harvin, I have been told (take it for what it is worth, based on a certain inebriated punters loose lips at a comedy club) that Harvin attempted to throw Baldwin off the balcony at the VMAC, not some "little scuffle" but an actual attempt to maim, or kill him.... According to said drunken punter, dumping him was the best move Seattle has made on in his time with the team, right after trading for him.