2017 to be Pete Carroll's Get It Done or Move On Season?

[hawknation2017]

You can't do what the Patriots do. You can't be the west coast version of the Patriots. Once BB is gone the Patriots won't be able to do what they do now. You have to find your own way. We'll have to find our own way, unless Belichick stays around for awhile in the front office. We went through this before here. Once Red Auerbach left the Celtics the Celtics were never the same.

See how hard it is? You need a parallel universe to accomplish it.

No need to rub it in.

Well, it's got nothing to do with me. I was just lucky enough to have been born here, and never left.

:34853_doh:

 

[BostonBlackie]

No need to rub it in.

Well, it's got nothing to do with me. I was just lucky enough to have been born here, and never left.[/quote]

:34853_doh:

[/quote]

There's no controlling it.

 

[mistaowen]

Does anyone believe this team would not have been better with a healthy Earl Thomas?

Absolutely. He's the most important player on the team, but as good as he is, he wouldn't have made any difference in how far we went. The Falcons were going to throttle us no matter what and GB probably would have again too. They were just playing lights out.

Earl Thomas would have made no difference? You have no substance or analysis behind your assertion. Earl Thomas' influence on the field is enormous. Commentators have talked about how opposing QBs won't take nearly as many risks on the field with Earl Thomas there. They hold onto the ball and open themselves up to pass rush. The experience drop from him to Steven Terrell is also absolutely enormous. The defense's ability to get themselves into the right position without him would have undoubtedly taken a hit.

Games swing on key plays. We suffered some rough luck in the Falcons game and lost to momentum. It's really easy to think that Earl's presence would have turned a couple of those touchdowns into field goals. I think you just don't want to admit that because it doesn't back up your worldview.

Now, consider that even without Earl, the Seahawks were three missed Haushcka kicks away from the #1 seed. They won ten games. This isn't kool-aid, as much as you want it to be.The alarmism you're calling for simply isn't justified and a coaching change would probably hurt more than it helps. We're fine.

Get Earl healthy, get Wilson nimble, get a real left tackle, and we're contenders. That's all that's needed.

WHEN SNAPS YPA YPD TDS INTS PASSER RTG
With Thomas 657 7.01 5.96 7 10 77.8
Without Thomas 480 7.77 6.76 12 1 100.3

According to Football Outsiders, the Seahawks' defense ranked fifth in passing DVOA through the first 11 weeks of the season (Thomas started every game). From Week 12 to Week 17 -- a span in which Thomas played just one quarter -- the Seahawks ranked 30th.

http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...ly-results-having-to-play-without-earl-thomas

Pretty sure it made a difference, especially against pass heavy offenses.

 

[nash72]

It's fine to put the rabbit up there that we're chasing, but when we fall short of catching them, most on here are objective in reasoning why we fell short in that pursuit. You, on the other hand, choose to castigate the entire organization as failures. Maybe that's your coping mechanism in play, but many would refer to that as a fair-weather fan.

But you do bring up a good point about longevity of being a fan of a certain team and how it correlates to the integrity of that fandom. My belief is that there is no bylaw to being a fan. From an organization's aspect, the more money you give them, the happier they are. They won't tell you this, but the person who's been a season ticket holder for 3 years has more value to them than the fanboy who has watched them strictly on the tube for 40 years. It's a business.

Socially it likely gets you some merit being a lifelong fan among the pack of friends or family you hang out with to watch the games, but as in all aspects of life, changes crop up along the way. You are correct in referring to me having roots as a Vikings fan. Yes, I did grow up watching them and have fond memories as a youth of the Chuck Foremans, Ahmad Rashads, Carl Ellers and Matt Blairs. But I've never liked the Wilfs since they bought the team and I realized how tenuous my position is as a fan when they talked of relocation of the team if they didn't get their stadium financing deal a dozen years ago. Here I was, a lifelong fan of the Vikes and here was this billionaire owner threatening to take that all away. Who holds the pivot of power there? Exactly. It had already happened to me once with the North Stars, albeit I was very young. Many here likely experienced that with the Sonics.

In any event, that experience put something in motion in me that had me looking elsewhere and it was a natural transition for me when Farwell, Tarvaris, Sidney and Bevell came over to the Hawks in 2011. Armed with my knowledge and appreciation of the game, I instantly gravitated to the style of building the organization as orchestrated by Pete and John. It was what I longed for and was mesmerizingly hooked. I'd stay on my computer after work getting the inside locker room look from the Real Rob Report. I got to know these up-and-coming players before most of the country and world. I could sense that something special was brewing. I didn't live in your midst in Seattle, but I got a little taste of that euphoria of anticipation that all of you Seahawk fans can relate to circa. 2011.

And then 2013 happened.

For me, it will go down as the happiest NFL year of my life. Sure I was an interloper and called a bandwaggoner by many of my inner circle ... some in jest, some not ... but I was a devotee to the Hawks and felt it a privilege to see it all come together right before my very eyes. Sure I had invested just one .500 year in 2011 to the Hawks before things really started taking off in 2012 with the dawning of Russ, but I had gone a lifetime without experiencing a Super Bowl title ... and I was thirsty!

So I don't know, maybe my years of devotion to the team doesn't rank me as high on the totem pole as others, but from a personal satisfaction avenue, I have never regretted my decision to become a Hawks fan. I generally watch their games every Sunday at the same bar where the bartenders make sure I get at least one satellite feed, even for those early games. I represent the Hawks with the attire that I wear and I immerse myself in the game. In the world I live in, am I not considered a devoted fan or do I really need 40 years to make it thus?

Cool story bro.

 

[hawknation2017]

Does anyone believe this team would not have been better with a healthy Earl Thomas?

Absolutely. He's the most important player on the team, but as good as he is, he wouldn't have made any difference in how far we went. The Falcons were going to throttle us no matter what and GB probably would have again too. They were just playing lights out.

Earl Thomas would have made no difference? You have no substance or analysis behind your assertion. Earl Thomas' influence on the field is enormous. Commentators have talked about how opposing QBs won't take nearly as many risks on the field with Earl Thomas there. They hold onto the ball and open themselves up to pass rush. The experience drop from him to Steven Terrell is also absolutely enormous. The defense's ability to get themselves into the right position without him would have undoubtedly taken a hit.

Games swing on key plays. We suffered some rough luck in the Falcons game and lost to momentum. It's really easy to think that Earl's presence would have turned a couple of those touchdowns into field goals. I think you just don't want to admit that because it doesn't back up your worldview.

Now, consider that even without Earl, the Seahawks were three missed Haushcka kicks away from the #1 seed. They won ten games. This isn't kool-aid, as much as you want it to be.The alarmism you're calling for simply isn't justified and a coaching change would probably hurt more than it helps. We're fine.

Get Earl healthy, get Wilson nimble, get a real left tackle, and we're contenders. That's all that's needed.

WHEN SNAPS YPA YPD TDS INTS PASSER RTG
With Thomas 657 7.01 5.96 7 10 77.8
Without Thomas 480 7.77 6.76 12 1 100.3

According to Football Outsiders, the Seahawks' defense ranked fifth in passing DVOA through the first 11 weeks of the season (Thomas started every game). From Week 12 to Week 17 -- a span in which Thomas played just one quarter -- the Seahawks ranked 30th.

http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-se...ly-results-having-to-play-without-earl-thomas

Pretty sure it made a difference, especially against pass heavy offenses.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Thank you kindly, Nash.

 

[nash72]

Earl Thomas would have made no difference? You have no substance or analysis behind your assertion. Earl Thomas' influence on the field is enormous. Commentators have talked about how opposing QBs won't take nearly as many risks on the field with Earl Thomas there. They hold onto the ball and open themselves up to pass rush. The experience drop from him to Steven Terrell is also absolutely enormous. The defense's ability to get themselves into the right position without him would have undoubtedly taken a hit.

Games swing on key plays. We suffered some rough luck in the Falcons game and lost to momentum. It's really easy to think that Earl's presence would have turned a couple of those touchdowns into field goals. I think you just don't want to admit that because it doesn't back up your worldview.

Now, consider that even without Earl, the Seahawks were three missed Haushcka kicks away from the #1 seed. They won ten games. This isn't kool-aid, as much as you want it to be.The alarmism you're calling for simply isn't justified and a coaching change would probably hurt more than it helps. We're fine.

Get Earl healthy, get Wilson nimble, get a real left tackle, and we're contenders. That's all that's needed.

What are you people going on about? Earl Thomas would have made no difference last season because we still would have lost even if he was healthy. The Falcons got robbed in the regular season game at Seattle and should have won that game and now your saying that if the Seahawks had Earl we were going to beat them in the playoffs when they were red hot and playing much better than the first time we played them? No, just no. You guys are acting like if Thomas hadent have gotten hurt, the Seahawks were favorites to go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but thats just not true. GB and the Falcons were clearly better than Seattle last season which ever way you want to look at it and you can throw Dallas in the equation as well. Stop the Earl Thomas nonsense. The team had issues even Earl couldnt fix.

 

[nash72]

I fall in between the thinking of Nash/semiahmoo and the Kool Aid drinkers.

The past two editions of the Seahawks were not nearly as good as the 2012-2014 editions. The defense isn't nearly as dominating, we don't have Beast, the offensive line is much worse, and Russell seems to have hit a plateau. You can cite what ever reasons you like, but those are for the most part universally agreed on (except some might question the Russell part).

Where I disagree is the amount of blame attributed to Pete and the comparison to the Patriots. The Patriots are in a league by themselves, and it's not fair to any team to be compared to them. They are an anomaly. It would be better to compare us to teams like the Broncos or Packers that always seem to be in the mix but have won just one SB in the past 15 years or so. We have been in a bit of a funk the past two seasons, but our core is still solid. We need a tune up, not a complete overhaul.

Thankfully we haven't had years where we completely tanked, like the Panthers did this season. But I'm not satisfied. Pete has spoiled me. I expect Super Bowl teams, not playoff teams.

Great post. It all boils down to Petes philosophy to me. He keeps running the team like we still have the 2013 defense when we clearly dont. Time to change that line of thinking.

 

[nash72]

I'm interested to see how successful Belichick is once Brady retires, I see both sides of the "is it Brady or The System" argument. The System post Brady will be telling.

Well he went 10-5 in 2008 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 last season with bums behind center. I think its more Bill than Brady.

 

[semiahmoo]

You cite the Patriots every single time as your favorite residents of the ivory tower.

And you are correct in that I don't need the assistance of a mod. I can see for myself through your posts that you embody in true colors the unmistakable evidence of a fair-weather fan.

Yeah I cite the best and most successful organization in the NFL. Isnt that what we are striving for?

You can't do what the Patriots do. You can't be the west coast version of the Patriots. Once BB is gone the Patriots won't be able to do what they do now. You have to find your own way. We'll have to find our own way, unless Belichick stays around for awhile in the front office. We went through this before here. Once Red Auerbach left the Celtics the Celtics were never the same.

In a parallel universe somewhere, the Seahawks run the ball on that game-defining play, win a 2nd-consecutive Super Bowl, and then Earl Thomas doesn't get hurt last year and Carroll gets his opportunity to go 4-0 vs. Belichick for his 3rd Super Bowl championship. Then it would be three Super Bowl wins for Belichick and three for Carroll, and all would be right with the world. :179417:

I love that scenario!

 

[semiahmoo]

Earl Thomas would have made no difference? You have no substance or analysis behind your assertion. Earl Thomas' influence on the field is enormous. Commentators have talked about how opposing QBs won't take nearly as many risks on the field with Earl Thomas there. They hold onto the ball and open themselves up to pass rush. The experience drop from him to Steven Terrell is also absolutely enormous. The defense's ability to get themselves into the right position without him would have undoubtedly taken a hit.

Games swing on key plays. We suffered some rough luck in the Falcons game and lost to momentum. It's really easy to think that Earl's presence would have turned a couple of those touchdowns into field goals. I think you just don't want to admit that because it doesn't back up your worldview.

Now, consider that even without Earl, the Seahawks were three missed Haushcka kicks away from the #1 seed. They won ten games. This isn't kool-aid, as much as you want it to be.The alarmism you're calling for simply isn't justified and a coaching change would probably hurt more than it helps. We're fine.

Get Earl healthy, get Wilson nimble, get a real left tackle, and we're contenders. That's all that's needed.

What are you people going on about? Earl Thomas would have made no difference last season because we still would have lost even if he was healthy. The Falcons got robbed in the regular season game at Seattle and should have won that game and now your saying that if the Seahawks had Earl we were going to beat them in the playoffs when they were red hot and playing much better than the first time we played them? No, just no. You guys are acting like if Thomas hadent have gotten hurt, the Seahawks were favorites to go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but thats just not true. GB and the Falcons were clearly better than Seattle last season which ever way you want to look at it and you can throw Dallas in the equation as well. Stop the Earl Thomas nonsense. The team had issues even Earl couldnt fix.

True. Hawks were certainly better with Thomas no doubt - but not good enough to make it back to the SB.

Not even close.

The team's issues are deeper than Thomas in the secondary.

 

[c_hawkbob]

I'm interested to see how successful Belichick is once Brady retires, I see both sides of the "is it Brady or The System" argument. The System post Brady will be telling.

Well he went 10-5 in 2008 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 last season with bums behind center. I think its more Bill than Brady.

Too small a sample size to be conclusive.

 

[mistaowen]

Earl Thomas would have made no difference? You have no substance or analysis behind your assertion. Earl Thomas' influence on the field is enormous. Commentators have talked about how opposing QBs won't take nearly as many risks on the field with Earl Thomas there. They hold onto the ball and open themselves up to pass rush. The experience drop from him to Steven Terrell is also absolutely enormous. The defense's ability to get themselves into the right position without him would have undoubtedly taken a hit.

Games swing on key plays. We suffered some rough luck in the Falcons game and lost to momentum. It's really easy to think that Earl's presence would have turned a couple of those touchdowns into field goals. I think you just don't want to admit that because it doesn't back up your worldview.

Now, consider that even without Earl, the Seahawks were three missed Haushcka kicks away from the #1 seed. They won ten games. This isn't kool-aid, as much as you want it to be.The alarmism you're calling for simply isn't justified and a coaching change would probably hurt more than it helps. We're fine.

Get Earl healthy, get Wilson nimble, get a real left tackle, and we're contenders. That's all that's needed.

What are you people going on about? Earl Thomas would have made no difference last season because we still would have lost even if he was healthy. The Falcons got robbed in the regular season game at Seattle and should have won that game and now your saying that if the Seahawks had Earl we were going to beat them in the playoffs when they were red hot and playing much better than the first time we played them? No, just no. You guys are acting like if Thomas hadent have gotten hurt, the Seahawks were favorites to go to the Super Bowl. Sorry, but thats just not true. GB and the Falcons were clearly better than Seattle last season which ever way you want to look at it and you can throw Dallas in the equation as well. Stop the Earl Thomas nonsense. The team had issues even Earl couldnt fix.

True. Hawks were certainly better with Thomas no doubt - but not good enough to make it back to the SB.

Not even close.

The team's issues are deeper than Thomas in the secondary.

I like how you guys conveniently ignore my post about the passing defense dropping from 5th overall to 30th without Earl. That is an ENORMOUS decrease in play. If you don't think there was a huge dip in overall defensive play, alignment, leadership, scheme capabilities, or ability to defend big plays without Earl, there is no point in having a conversation. He makes the defense run and has been the main cog in a historic defense since day 1.

 

[hawknation2017]

I'm interested to see how successful Belichick is once Brady retires, I see both sides of the "is it Brady or The System" argument. The System post Brady will be telling.

Well he went 10-5 in 2008 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 last season with bums behind center. I think its more Bill than Brady.

Too small a sample size to be conclusive.

And he has the benefit of being in one of the consistently weakest divisions in the league over the last decade. Home field advantage is a perennial surety with the Patriots' schedule.

 

[Uncle Si]

I like how you guys conveniently ignore my post about the passing defense dropping from 5th overall to 30th without Earl. That is an ENORMOUS decrease in play. If you don't think there was a huge dip in overall defensive play, alignment, leadership, scheme capabilities, or ability to defend big plays without Earl, there is no point in having a conversation. He makes the defense run and has been the main cog in a historic defense since day 1.

Doesn't fit their narrative.

It's too easy to assume the worst, ignoring data, while claiming anyone doing the opposite is the one guessing... some posters are really showing an agenda instead of an opinion.

It's weird too, to keep going on an on an on (and on for a couple of them) about the same things. they say it's because they're the "realists" ("real fans" i think one of them said).

Seems more like therapy to me

 

[RiverDog]

Since you are tossing out labels like "Kool Aid drinker," why don't you directly address my point above and explain to me why having a healthy Earl Thomas would not have greatly improved our chances of maintaining the #1 scoring defense for a 5th-consecutive year, earning a bye and home field advantage with a win over Arizona, winning two games at home in the playoffs, and advancing to what would have been our third Super Bowl in four years. I think we were much closer to having another Super Bowl season than the Negative Nancies understand.

Having a healthy Earl for the full season would have made a big difference, no doubt about it. So would have having a healthy Russell for the entire season. Whether having either or both would have made a big enough difference to get us to another Super Bowl is anyone's guess.

My guess is that our problems on both offense and defense were severe enough to where it wouldn't have made enough of a difference to get us over the hump.

 

[Seymour]

I'm interested to see how successful Belichick is once Brady retires, I see both sides of the "is it Brady or The System" argument. The System post Brady will be telling.

Well he went 10-5 in 2008 with Matt Cassell and 3-1 last season with bums behind center. I think its more Bill than Brady.

Too small a sample size to be conclusive.

Look at their player turnover and following success over the last 15 years. Brady isn't drafting and changing scheme to fit those new players is he?

 

[hawknation2017]

I like how you guys conveniently ignore my post about the passing defense dropping from 5th overall to 30th without Earl. That is an ENORMOUS decrease in play. If you don't think there was a huge dip in overall defensive play, alignment, leadership, scheme capabilities, or ability to defend big plays without Earl, there is no point in having a conversation. He makes the defense run and has been the main cog in a historic defense since day 1.

Doesn't fit their narrative.

It's too easy to assume the worst, ignoring data, while claiming anyone doing the opposite is the one guessing... some posters are really showing an agenda instead of an opinion.

It's weird too, to keep going on an on an on (and on for a couple of them) about the same things. they say it's because they're the "realists" ("real fans" i think one of them said).

Seems more like therapy to me

Totally. I think some people don't like feeling let down, so they intentionally ignore the positives in order to temper their expectations. "We suck. We are doomed. We will never win another Super Bowl. Blah, blah, blah." Too bad for them that they are allowing their lack of emotional intelligence to deprive them of truly enjoying this great era of competitive Seahawks football.

 

[Largent80]

True, I don't whine. I make jerky...

 

[Uncle Si]

I like how you guys conveniently ignore my post about the passing defense dropping from 5th overall to 30th without Earl. That is an ENORMOUS decrease in play. If you don't think there was a huge dip in overall defensive play, alignment, leadership, scheme capabilities, or ability to defend big plays without Earl, there is no point in having a conversation. He makes the defense run and has been the main cog in a historic defense since day 1.

Doesn't fit their narrative.

It's too easy to assume the worst, ignoring data, while claiming anyone doing the opposite is the one guessing... some posters are really showing an agenda instead of an opinion.

It's weird too, to keep going on an on an on (and on for a couple of them) about the same things. they say it's because they're the "realists" ("real fans" i think one of them said).

Seems more like therapy to me

Totally. I think some people don't like feeling let down, so they intentionally ignore the positives in order to temper their expectations. "We suck. We are doomed. We will never win another Super Bowl. Blah, blah, blah." Too bad for them that they are allowing their lack of emotional intelligence to deprive them of truly enjoying this great era of competitive Seahawks football.

Somewhere in between all of it is the very rationale:

We are a pretty damned good football team with some glaring weaknesses that if are addressed can get us back to being pretty damned good and if not will continue a downward trend towards mediocrity.