HawkShack.com

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11751 ... om-divided


""There's no division in our locker room," Wilson said Thursday. "There's none at all. If anything, I think's we've continued to build and continued to grow. I truly believe that."

"Other players agreed with Wilson when asked about a divided locker room.

"I hadn't heard that," said strong safety Kam Chancellor. "But if that's what people are saying, it's absolutely ridiculous."

Free safety Earl Thomas was asked if it offended him that anyone would insinuate the team had a locker-room schism.

"It doesn't offend me at all because they're not here and they don't know," Thomas said. "I think this team is headed in the right direction."


Enough said

Its a great politically correct message. Gee I begin to wonder why the hell Percy is gone!!!!I mean everybody got along with him fine....Seriously?

I think there are character guys in the locker room who will truly pull together and I hope they do. All I care about is winning and it will heal their rifts as well. Its ugly when you lose and if they do I think there will be significant changes a year removed from a title. Right now the Hawks have a statistical 38% chance of making the postseason and only a 1% chance of winning the SB. In a way we have them right where we want them. Disrespected and underestimated once again..........But the light switch needs to come on next Sunday or we will be having a different conversation.

Hawktawk wrote:Right now the Hawks have a statistical 38% chance of making the postseason and only a 1% chance of winning the SB.

It's true, but a big assumption behind those numbers is that this team is the 'typical' 3-3 team, which I don't believe we are.

Hawktawk wrote:But the light switch needs to come on next Sunday or we will be having a different conversation.

Yep, because if we lose, then it's clear we really *are* closer to the 'typical' 3-4 team, which would be terrible news.

We'll see.

It's true, but a big assumption behind those numbers is that this team is the 'typical' 3-3 team, which I don't believe we are.

But the light switch needs to come on next Sunday or we will be having a different conversation.

Yep, because if we lose, then it's clear we really *are* closer to the 'typical' 3-4 team, which would be terrible news.

We'll see


My thought exactly. Seattle has played very badly at times this year and yet they are about 3 football plays from being undefeated. They have lost the type of games they won last year, Texans, Tampa Bay, 9ers in the championship etc. I told a buddy after last weeks debacle that they are the best 3 win team in the league.I guess we will put that to the test real quick eh?

Seattle has played very badly at times this year and yet they are about 3 football plays from being undefeated.

Eh, I'd say it would be more than that, as San Diego had their way with us (spectacular plays or not), but yeah, I'd say we're 2 plays* from being 5-1 and haven't played anywhere near our potential.

They have lost the type of games they won last year, Texans, Tampa Bay, 9ers in the championship etc.

Yep, although I don't think NFCCG counts- we simply pulled that one out like champs. The others were falling behind to sh*tty teams then scratching back to eke one out.

I told a buddy after last weeks debacle that they are the best 3 win team in the league.I guess we will put that to the test real quick eh?

Agreed, and agreed. Like I said, there's a strong argument we're not the team our record indicates. Lose this week, though, and that argument evaporates.

*(1) The 3rd-and-20 play in which Romo was all but sacked then overthrew his intended target but a no-name happened to catch it and get a toenail to touch a blade of turf for a catch, and (2) either the 4th-down-from-your-own-18 fake punt, or the botched punt coverage for a TD. I'm not one for shoulda/coulda arguments, but those things happen 2-3 times a decade- it's pretty easy to imagine none of them working in consecutive games.

Anthony wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11751780/russell-wilson-seattle-seahawks-denies-report-locker-room-divided


""There's no division in our locker room," Wilson said Thursday. "There's none at all. If anything, I think's we've continued to build and continued to grow. I truly believe that."

"Other players agreed with Wilson when asked about a divided locker room.

"I hadn't heard that," said strong safety Kam Chancellor. "But if that's what people are saying, it's absolutely ridiculous."

Free safety Earl Thomas was asked if it offended him that anyone would insinuate the team had a locker-room schism.

"It doesn't offend me at all because they're not here and they don't know," Thomas said. "I think this team is headed in the right direction."


Enough said

What do you expect them to say? That they all hate each other's guts?

The Hawks players/coaches were better than the craftiest politician in covering up the Harvin debacle. For 16 months, we never heard a word of any conflict whatsoever, then the minute Harvin was traded, all hell broke loose. As much as I respect them, I derive very little comfort from public statements made by players or coaches about the current state of their locker room.

Well between a player, a reporter trying to sell copy and a guy on an internet forum, all of whom admittedly have their own agenda, I'll still buy what the player is selling most of the time. Depending on my level of trust in the player or reporter (Sando vs Harvin for instance) I could do with the reporter in some cases, but never the guy on the internet forum.

c_hawkbob wrote:Well between a player, a reporter trying to sell copy and a guy on an internet forum, all of whom admittedly have their own agenda, I'll still buy what the player is selling most of the time. Depending on my level of trust in the player or reporter (Sando vs Harvin for instance) I could do with the reporter in some cases, but never the guy on the internet forum.

Good point, and I agree. There are certain reporters and players that I will trust vs others.

Nevertheless, your point does not alter the OP in that it contained nothing but canned, politically correct comments that contained nothing except that of which you would fully expect from any current players and coaches that are involved in these types of situations.

What do you expect them to say? That they all hate each other's guts?

Frankly, yes. If the locker room was really a train wreck, they might not be saying they *hated* each other, but I could envision snide comments flowing freely from at least a couple guys.

The fact that the players are saying the right things is a positive sign, I think.

burrrton wrote:Frankly, yes. If the locker room was really a train wreck, they might not be saying they *hated* each other, but I could envision snide comments flowing freely from at least a couple guys.

You think they'd freely make snide comments to an ESPN reporter when they knew that whatever they said was going to hit the national wire?

Those comments couldn't have been more politically correct if Pete Carroll wrote them out for them on queue cards.

I'm not going to dismiss that Harvin's jettison is evidence that there is turbulence in the Seahawk's locker room, but I will take RW at his word. RW stands to lose more creditability among his teammates by glossing over virulent issues, towing the company line, than he gains by saying such things merely to keep it in-house. He could have chosen to say less or make a no comment which would be far more telling about a rift. Wilson's and others comments suggest that whatever the issues that prompted the trade of PH, those issues are now at bay.

Often here, non football related issues become the litmus test for who is cynic and who is not. Who is pessimist in realist clothing, who is naive, and who recognizes the prospects for this team, warts and all. The big picture remains quite good. There is much reason for optimism, not just in spite of recent turbulence, but in some ways because of it. Talent, leadership and experience abound on this team. It is far more likely that injuries circumvent the prospects of this team than any other pothole that we have seen to date. There are better days ahead.

RiverDog wrote:
What do you expect them to say? That they all hate each other's guts?

The Hawks players/coaches were better than the craftiest politician in covering up the Harvin debacle. For 16 months, we never heard a word of any conflict whatsoever, then the minute Harvin was traded, all hell broke loose. As much as I respect them, I derive very little comfort from public statements made by players or coaches about the current state of their locker room.

Hmm so you want to believe a writer with an agenda who has already been accused of adding his opinion and making it sound like it was a players by other writers, however you do not want to believe the players specifically these two. I guess some just want to believe in the bad.

RiverDog wrote: .
Good point, and I agree. There are certain reporters and players that I will trust vs others.

Nevertheless, your point does not alter the OP in that it contained nothing but canned, politically correct comments that contained nothing except that of which you would fully expect from any current players and coaches that are involved in these types of situations.

Your assuming it is canned and PC you really do not know, and how is that any different than a writer who wanted to sell copy and stir up trouble sensationalizing something that really may not have been anything but 1 disgruntled player who is now gone. Like I said if you want to believe the factless bad, go for it, However between these players saying what they are saying, ML and his agent saying he did not refuse to get on the bus, and the fact Harvin admitting to getting into fights with several players, but not backing up the other things said I am inclined to believe a lot of poetic licensing and assumptions, went into that article.

RiverDog wrote:
You think they'd freely make snide comments to an ESPN reporter when they knew that whatever they said was going to hit the national wire?

Those comments couldn't have been more politically correct if Pete Carroll wrote them out for them on queue cards.

I do not agree they could have been way more PC, Et could have said yes it offends me because its not true, but he went another route. There were plenty of more PC things they could have said, and the responses are pretty much what I could imagine coming from those players.

That's my thoughts exactly, we are 3-3 yet could very easily be 6-0. As mad as I am at some of the fiascos that have led to the loses we are still a better team than most 3-3 teams. I would have to say that losing to the Rams hurt the most because they are a weak team especially because of their injuries but it is always hard to win on the road and last week showed that. It doesn't get any easier this week against Carolina either, a play off team from last year who are looking to take the next step and whom we almost lost to in the opener last season.

We have had our share of injuries too so I didn't have any sympathy for the Rams and no one has any sympathy for us. That said, we have got to generate a pass rush and that will cure some ills. I think our offense is just about where we want them to be, they just need to develop some consistency.

The worst part of all of this is the first half of the season was supposed to be the "easier" half because the second half of the season is positively brutal. Oh, I loved to hear the announcers last night call the Broncos the one of the two best teams in the NFL along with the Cowboys. One team we beat and the other we could have defeated and probably should have so the season is not lost by any means.

I am still mad, but like they say, winning cures all ills.

Go Seahawks!!!

We may have beat the Broncos and could have won against the Cowboys, but we haven't been playing well.
I think the best we might have been is 5-1 as we were outclassed by the Chargers and simply did not compete very well that game.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:That's my thoughts exactly, we are 3-3 yet could very easily be 6-0. As mad as I am at some of the fiascos that have led to the loses we are still a better team than most 3-3 teams. I would have to say that losing to the Rams hurt the most because they are a weak team especially because of their injuries but it is always hard to win on the road and last week showed that. It doesn't get any easier this week against Carolina either, a play off team from last year who are looking to take the next step and whom we almost lost to in the opener last season.

We have had our share of injuries too so I didn't have any sympathy for the Rams and no one has any sympathy for us. That said, we have got to generate a pass rush and that will cure some ills. I think our offense is just about where we want them to be, they just need to develop some consistency.

The worst part of all of this is the first half of the season was supposed to be the "easier" half because the second half of the season is positively brutal. Oh, I loved to hear the announcers last night call the Broncos the one of the two best teams in the NFL along with the Cowboys. One team we beat and the other we could have defeated and probably should have so the season is not lost by any means.

I am still mad, but like they say, winning cures all ills.

Go Seahawks!!!

By all accounts we do not have an 'easier' half this year. Maybe before the season started it seemed like this but the truth is we have played a brutal 1st half schedule, but the truth is we are now in the easiest part of our schedule, without a doubt. From Washington through the Giants at home is our easiest 6 game stretch and we are 1-2 in those games so far. We lost to a very good cowboys team and to a bad Rams team. It is important that we get back on track, although it won't be easy to get past Carolina but doing so would set us up pretty nicely for the next few weeks. Getting to 6-3 would do wonders to this fanbase. There is no doubt that the second half of the season is brutal, but I still believe that we can beat any team anywhere anytime. Getting back to the one week at a time idea makes the schedule not seems so daunting .

"The worst part of all of this is the first half of the season was supposed to be the "easier" half"

Huh? By my count there were four playoff opponents in the first "half" with two on the road, and three the second half, with two on the road. The winning percentage of those playoff opponents in the first half exceeds that of the second half, and there were additional "improved" teams in the first half ( Dallas, SD) Seattle had three playoff opponents in their first three games. In the second half they have three against playoff opponents, two of which are the same team, and within the division ( Philly being the other).

The first half wasn't some creampuff schedule by any means ( nor is the second) however, claiming otherwise isn't very accurate. I understand being upset with a loss to the Rams, as IMHO there wasn't a really viable excuse for losing that game, unfortunately, the Rams played by far their "cleanest" game in two years ( first time they have been +60 in penalty yardage in a game under Fischer, firest time the have been +5 or more in number of penalties in over a DECADE, hmmmm, odd) they hit on acouple ST plays ( bully for them) but I could also point out Seattle ALWAYS has trouble with those Rams in STL. Other than them, name the Cream Puff teams Seattle has been flailing against to date?

They simply are NOT there.

HumanCockroach wrote:"The worst part of all of this is the first half of the season was supposed to be the "easier" half"

Huh? By my count there were four playoff opponents in the first "half" with two on the road, and three the second half, with two on the road. The winning percentage of those playoff opponents in the first half exceeds that of the second half, and there were additional "improved" teams in the first half ( Dallas, SD) Seattle had three playoff opponents in their first three games. In the second half they have three against playoff opponents, two of which are the same team, and within the division ( Philly being the other).

The first half wasn't some creampuff schedule by any means ( nor is the second) however, claiming otherwise isn't very accurate. I understand being upset with a loss to the Rams, as IMHO there wasn't a really viable excuse for losing that game, unfortunately, the Rams played by far their "cleanest" game in two years ( first time they have been +60 in penalty yardage in a game under Fischer, firest time the have been +5 or more in number of penalties in over a DECADE, hmmmm, odd) they hit on acouple ST plays ( bully for them) but I could also point out Seattle ALWAYS has trouble with those Rams in STL. Other than them, name the Cream Puff teams Seattle has been flailing against to date?

They simply are NOT there.

Rodgers
Rivers
P.Manning
Cousins
Romo
Davis


That's 4 upper echelon QB's (HR I know how you feel about Rivers..) in a league where upper echelon QB's are hard to find. They have gone 2-2 against said QB's, and one of them has the best RB in the league right now (D. Murray).

You pointed out the Rams loss hurts, coming against a very average QB, who took care of the ball and made a few plays himself to go along with the special teams (seriously, that punt return is one of the most genious plays I have ever seen, a complete fake out that was by design).

Their schedule thus far has been difficult, agreed. These next 4 weeks will be telling. Newton, Carr, E. Manning, and Smith. A slight break, and if they win all 4 and Zona loses just 1, they can be playing for the division lead on Nov.23 ( a game I will be going to, so I hope this is the scenario).

HumanCockroach wrote:"The worst part of all of this is the first half of the season was supposed to be the "easier" half"

Huh? By my count there were four playoff opponents in the first "half" with two on the road, and three the second half, with two on the road. The winning percentage of those playoff opponents in the first half exceeds that of the second half, and there were additional "improved" teams in the first half ( Dallas, SD) Seattle had three playoff opponents in their first three games. In the second half they have three against playoff opponents, two of which are the same team, and within the division ( Philly being the other).

The first half wasn't some creampuff schedule by any means ( nor is the second) however, claiming otherwise isn't very accurate. I understand being upset with a loss to the Rams, as IMHO there wasn't a really viable excuse for losing that game, unfortunately, the Rams played by far their "cleanest" game in two years ( first time they have been +60 in penalty yardage in a game under Fischer, firest time the have been +5 or more in number of penalties in over a DECADE, hmmmm, odd) they hit on acouple ST plays ( bully for them) but I could also point out Seattle ALWAYS has trouble with those Rams in STL. Other than them, name the Cream Puff teams Seattle has been flailing against to date?

They simply are NOT there.

The toughest part of the 2014 season was in the first 4 games, specifically the first 3 as they all included 2013 playoff teams, but the last half of the season includes the most meaningful games as 5 of our 6 divisional games come after the halfway point. Perhaps some folks are getting those two factoids mixed up.

We were supposed to get healthy in the stretch of 4 games that started with the Rams because we were facing opponents that going into last weekend had won a total of 7 games between them. We lost the first one in that stretch.

I don't pay too much to the schedule thing. It's all a matter of timing, when we catch certain teams. It would appear now that we caught the Packers at a good time, caught the Cowboys at a bad time. Teams so often times change their persona in the NFL, and if you can't be consistently good all season like we were last year, you want to be hot in the stretch run that starts around Thanksgiving. With so many divisional opponents coming around then, getting hot then would almost guarantee us a ticket to the January dance.

You think they'd freely make snide comments to an ESPN reporter when they knew that whatever they said was going to hit the national wire?

Again, if the locker room was in the shape the accusations indicate, yes, I do.

I'm not sure I agree with the comments being necessarily 'politically correct', either- if there's nothing significantly wrong, what else would you expect them to say, or how else might you think they'd say it?

When there is this much smoke you will usually find a corresponding sized fire.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/10/24/espn-confirms-existence-of-seattle-locker-room-divide-in-unusual-way/

I mean people really doubt this? Just how much contrary evidence do some people need to counter the PR statements of the status quo? We just dumped the most special talented player in the NFL - - a player that we took a second mortgage out on our future on - - and received next to nothing in return - - and yet some people still want to "Doubt" that there are major issues in the Seahawk locker room?

In my own observation of watching Russell Wilson act both on the field and in interviews over the past year, I have often thought to myself that he acts and talks more like a coach than a player. So it does not surprise me in the least of these reports that claim Russell acts more like a coach in the opinion of some of the Seahawk's players.

The good news is that if this team can get on track and win a couple games in a row then team unity will naturally follow.

And speaking of following I hope the message has been received by all the teammates that challenging Russell WIlson's leadership role will not be tolerated period.

Read the article, and watched the video, this is still just speculation ( the SAME speculation) that was originally reported.Simply didn't see anything that leads me to believe that this team would "turn" on a QB that just got them ALL PAID and won a SB. ( anyone think that guys like Bennett, Sherman, Thomas etc don't get what they did, without Wilson on that field? I certainly don't believe a single one of them would, they WON without Harvin, to get there, would they have won it all with him but no Wilson?

Honestly, I've never said Wilson is one of favorite players on this team, doesn't even crack my personal top 7, but the truth is if ANY of those 7 are saying, or perpetuating this garbage, dump them. Whether it be Sherman, Earl, Beast,Baldwin,Wagner,Kam,Bennett I don't care, trade them, cut them, whatever. This Wilson's team moving forward, and that is simply the way it is. I doubt any of those players are stupid enough to not understand that, and I agree with Wilson, ignore the noise. NONE of this is "confirmed" in anyway.

I have heard from multiple inside sources both in Bristol and outside sources that work in and around the studio, that both these gentleman love to have 2' Genoa salomies shoved up their posteriors, while performing oral on each other, while young interns tickle their baskets with pink ostriche,feathers before taking the air, so don't listen to them. SMDH

Other than the level of media interest in this particular locker room there's nothing there that goes beyond typical locker room dynamics. Just like any ship's crew or Army troop or large remote site construction crew. You put any group of people from separate backgrounds, experiences and ideologies together and you get exactly this dynamic. It's not unusual and certainly not a big deal as long as issues are resolved as they arise and everyone is capable of working together towards the common goal.

The only reason it's a story at all is because we just won the Super Bowl and are 3-3. If we were 6-10 last year or were 5-1 this year there would still be this dynamic in play but nobody would be talking about it.

Exactly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

c_hawkbob wrote:Other than the level of media interest in this particular locker room there's nothing there that goes beyond typical locker room dynamics. Just like any ship's crew or Army troop or large remote site construction crew.

When I was in bootcamp in San Diego (U.S. Navy hoorah!) our sixth week we got a little bit more freedom than we'd gotten in previous weeks, and during that week, our company really fractured into different groups mostly along racial lines, but there was more to it than just that.
There were some people who had joined because they were very gung-ho, and were looking to possibly make a career out of the Navy, there were other people who joined because the Gulf War had started, and they heard the call to serve (myself) still others who had nothing better to do with their lives, they were going nowhere, and then there were those who were avoiding criminal sentencing by joining.
There was one guy, named Weaver, a young black kid from southside Chicago (or so he said) who claimed to have been a gang member. This guy carried himself like he just didn't care, and like he was too good for everyone. He walked and talked like he'd as soon kill you as look at you, constantly emphasizing this sort of swagger he had. Several other black men decided to buddy up with him, and began to adopt his negative attitude, his swagger, his mannerisms, and his hatred of whites, and (seemingly) even bigger hatred of blacks who he deemed weren't "black enough".

At the same time, there were also factions within the whites, there was a group that sort of tagged around with one particular white guy whose plan was to eventually become a medic and a SEAL and his work ethic and physique let us all know that he would obtain this goal! There were other small groups as well, but one group in particular consisted of what the CO called FUR's. F'ed up recruits. These were the whites who had generally come from poor backgrounds, and who were basically at their last stop in trying to make a go of their lives. They were the losers of the company, and they took every opportunity they had to complain, whine, and generally run down the morale of everyone within ear shot.

All of that nonsense came to an IMMEDIATE and SCREECHING halt when our Company Commander Senior Chief Petty Officer Gerhardt found out what had been going on.

We hurt so bad...so very, very bad.

Sixth week of bootcamp we were told, was traditionally "hell week" in the Navy, and we quickly found out why. Apparently, this went on pretty much in every company in every sixth week of boot camp, and the CO's expected it, were prepared for it, and knew good and well how to deal with it. Abruptly, and painfully.

Seems to me that Pete may not have been expecting this sort of nonsense in the Seahawks locker room (though it probably didn't come as a huge surprise, if this rumor is in fact true), but he knew EXACTLY how to deal with it; send a very clear VERY loud message...send someone packing.

I can see why (if this is true) some players would have a problem with a guy like Russell Wilson, a guy who is more likely to develop a close relationship with the coaching staff than his fellow players.
I can understand why some black players may feel like they have been snubbed by their leader, or feel like he's kissing "the man's" butt, or feel jealous of his upbringing or education or leadership status or work ethic or whatever.
What I cannot help but think though is, 1. this sort of thinking is SO SELF DEFEATING! and 2. would those same players expect a Tom Brady, or a Peyton Manning, or Drew Brees to"hang with them" and make it rain at strip clubs?
Of course they wouldn't! In fact, they would all feel very disappointed to see those guys hanging out at a strip club, rather than doing their job, and being the leaders they are supposed to be.
Being black skinned shouldn't change that expectation. I find this sort of thing, so sad, and personally believe that this sort of thinking has a lot to do with the problems and turmoil we see in inner cites.

monkey wrote:
Seems to me that Pete may not have been expecting this sort of nonsense in the Seahawks locker room (though it probably didn't come as a huge surprise, if this rumor is in fact true), but he knew EXACTLY how to deal with it; send a very clear VERY loud message...send someone packing.

Interesting story, rings true on many levels. These experiences are played out in most workplaces, whereas clubs, churches, organizations and the like see less of this dynamic because most of these non work environments are largely homogeneous groupings of people with similiar interests and backgrounds. However, a locker room is hardly a melting pot of assimilation. The different backgrounds converge into a team, but the differences hold forth in the social dynamic.

I realize that my opinion might be unique, and I preface it with the fact that I love him as our qb, but I see RW as a bit of an odd duck; at least in the realm of sports. He seems a little too good, a little too scripted, a little too squeaky clean.

Many of us were shocked to hear of his marital break-up. How could RW be subject to such human frailty? I have wondered at the fact that NCS basically didn't want Russell back to finish his college career. The fact that he was named captain so quickly at Wisconsin suggests that his first impression leadership is so strong; does the fact that NCS was willing to let him go (I realize that his back up was an up and comer) suggest that his style of leadership wears thin over time?

Again, I love RW as the seahawks qb and I hope that he retires as a seahawk in about 15 years with multiple championships, but I don't see RW as "one of the guys". However this is not an unmanageable or unique situation, many qbs operate on a different wavelength than their teammates. Those that can't deal with it often find themselves on another team with a different qb to be put off by.

I believe that the real locker room issues were and are with Percy and ML. ML is not happy with the handwriting on the wall.

Long Time Fan wrote:
Interesting story, rings true on many levels. These experiences are played out in most workplaces, whereas clubs, churches, organizations and the like see less of this dynamic because most of these non work environments are largely homogeneous groupings of people with similiar interests and backgrounds. However, a locker room is hardly a melting pot of assimilation. The different backgrounds converge into a team, but the differences hold forth in the social dynamic.

I realize that my opinion might be unique, and I preface it with the fact that I love him as our qb, but I see RW as a bit of an odd duck; at least in the realm of sports. He seems a little too good, a little too scripted, a little too squeaky clean.

Many of us were shocked to hear of his marital break-up. How could RW be subject to such human frailty? I have wondered at the fact that NCS basically didn't want Russell back to finish his college career. The fact that he was named captain so quickly at Wisconsin suggests that his first impression leadership is so strong; does the fact that NCS was willing to let him go (I realize that his back up was an up and comer) suggest that his style of leadership wears thin over time?

Again, I love RW as the seahawks qb and I hope that he retires as a seahawk in about 15 years with multiple championships, but I don't see RW as "one of the guys". However this is not an unmanageable or unique situation, many qbs operate on a different wavelength than their teammates. Those that can't deal with it often find themselves on another team with a different qb to be put off by.

I believe that the real locker room issues were and are with Percy and ML. ML is not happy with the handwriting on the wall.

At NC State he played both football and baseball. After his junior season (athletically, he actually was graduated academically) he was drafted by the Rockies. His father's health was failing and he wanted to be a professional athlete before his dad died so he wanted to try his hand at Minor League baseball. He went the NC State coach and asked if he could play minor league baseball that summer and the coach basically told him we would love to have you back here at NC State but we only want you if you are wholly devoted to football, as they had another NFL caliber qb (Mike Glennon) on their roster that they wanted to get some experience. He had felt like he had already made a commitment to his dad to try baseball so that was that. After playing baseball he still wanted to come back to NC State, they had already turned the page so he sent out letters to other schools, finally choosing Wisconsin. He wasn't ushered out of NC State for any reason relating to anything like this.

More than fair point. Good clarification.

burrrton wrote:
Again, if the locker room was in the shape the accusations indicate, yes, I do.

So do I, it happens all the time in bad locker rooms on other teams. See: Chicago Bears.

mykc14 wrote:At NC State he played both football and baseball. After his junior season (athletically, he actually was graduated academically) he was drafted by the Rockies. His father's health was failing and he wanted to be a professional athlete before his dad died so he wanted to try his hand at Minor League baseball. He went the NC State coach and asked if he could play minor league baseball that summer and the coach basically told him we would love to have you back here at NC State but we only want you if you are wholly devoted to football, as they had another NFL caliber qb (Mike Glennon) on their roster that they wanted to get some experience. He had felt like he had already made a commitment to his dad to try baseball so that was that. After playing baseball he still wanted to come back to NC State, they had already turned the page so he sent out letters to other schools, finally choosing Wisconsin. He wasn't ushered out of NC State for any reason relating to anything like this.

It's a minor point, but I hadn't heard that the reason he wanted to give baseball a shot was to become a pro athlete before his dad passed. I thought it was simply a matter of him wanting to give baseball his best shot before fully committing to football like NCS wanted him to. His dad was living on the east coast, not sure why he'd come all the way out west in some totally obscure dusty little town if it was a matter of his dad seeing him as a pro.

Ironically, Russell ended up here in the Tri Cities for that short stint in professional baseball, and just prior to the SB, the local newspaper ran a neat article about a home run he hit and the guy that returned the ball to him.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/01/3 ... .html?rh=1

RiverDog wrote:It's a minor point, but I hadn't heard that the reason he wanted to give baseball a shot was to become a pro athlete before his dad passed. I thought it was simply a matter of him wanting to give baseball his best shot before fully committing to football like NCS wanted him to. His dad was living on the east coast, not sure why he'd come all the way out west in some totally obscure dusty little town if it was a matter of his dad seeing him as a pro.

Ironically, Russell ended up here in the Tri Cities for that short stint in professional baseball, and just prior to the SB, the local newspaper ran a neat article about a home run he hit and the guy that returned the ball to him.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2014/01/3 ... .html?rh=1

Yeah riv, I have read it in a couple of places but he also discussed it in an interview on CNN. He was drafted by the Rockies on one day and his dad died the next:

NICHOLS (voice-over): Russell Wilson spent two seasons playing single-A baseball, trying his best to make his late father proud.

(on camera): Michael Jordan took a break from his basketball career to play baseball and part of it was this dream he and his dad had. And he wanted to see it out.

For you, seeing out your baseball career, at least testing out how good it could be, was that part of something you felt you wanted to do for your dad?

WILSON: I think it was part of it. Dad always thought I'd plays shortstop for New York Yankees or something crazy like that.

here's an excerpt from another article discussing why the wolfpack let him out of his scholarship, from the Washington Post:

Wolfpack Coach Tom O’Brien and his staff, uneasy with their quarterback’s decision to split his time, asked Wilson to commit full-time to football. Wilson refused, and O’Brien named Mike Glennon — now the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ starting quarterback — the starter. Wilson was eventually released from his scholarship to N.C. State, and because he had graduated in three years, fulfilling the balance of the promise he had made to his dad by completing his degree in broadcasting and communications, he was free to transfer and play immediately.

Yeah riv, I have read it in a couple of places but he also discussed it in an interview on CNN. He was drafted by the Rockies on one day and his dad died the next:

NICHOLS (voice-over): Russell Wilson spent two seasons playing single-A baseball, trying his best to make his late father proud.

(on camera): Michael Jordan took a break from his basketball career to play baseball and part of it was this dream he and his dad had. And he wanted to see it out.

For you, seeing out your baseball career, at least testing out how good it could be, was that part of something you felt you wanted to do for your dad?

WILSON: I think it was part of it. Dad always thought I'd plays shortstop for New York Yankees or something crazy like that.

Pretty interesting that on the game the other day, they mentioned they had asked RW3 if any celebs had reached to him following the Super Bowl win.

RW3 said MJ and Derek Jeter both reached out. Seems like no coincidence. Not a bad couple guys to hear from.

And now RW3 is a senior editor for Jeter's new site.

Pretty cool story, thanks for sharing guys.

Who is RW3?

NorthHawk wrote:Who is RW3?

Russel Wilson, #3.