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

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

Seattle won as many games as Green Bay and was one missed kick away from winning as many as Atlanta. Atlanta and Green Bay were good, but thinking they were out of our reach in order to justify demands for a coaching change? You're going off sentiment, dude. Sentiment and frustration. I'll go on Mistaowen's hard numbers, and the evidence of Wilson's injury/fatness/whatever, to back up my stance that injuries were a sufficient explanation for our "sucking" last year, which you define as going to the playoffs. "No, just no" isn't convincing.

Also, "Stop the Earl Thomas nonsense"? I'm sorry, are you my father? Do you have any idea how little power you have to push people around on this forum? I'll post what I please (within the rules, of course)). If you're incapable of politely discussing things rather than dictating, you're not going to find a receptive audience here.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

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.

I'll consider it a downward trend when we miss the divisional round.

 

[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.

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.

With practically every starter back and depth being filled out with experienced veterans, it's hard for me to see this team not being better than they were a year ago, absent more serious injuries.

 

[Uncle Si]

With every starter back and depth being filled out with experienced veterans, it's hard for me to see this team not being better than they were a year ago, absent more serious injuries.

Still some areas that need improving by players who aren't currently on the team. The o-line, the secondary, and maybe a RB or pass rusher.

I don't think we are as close to the dominant 2013 team as many want us to be. But we aren't as far away as others suggest either.

 

[hawknation2017]

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.

With every starter back and depth being filled out with experienced veterans, it's hard for me to see this team not being better than they were a year ago, absent more serious injuries.

Still some areas that need improving by players who aren't currently on the team. The o-line, the secondary, and maybe a RB or pass rusher.

I don't think we are as close to the dominant 2013 team as many want us to be. But we aren't as far away as others suggest either.

True, but the depth chart already looks stronger than it did last year, and we haven't even added players in the draft yet.

We were already a pretty damn good team last year too, even with all the injuries: won our division, defeated both Super Bowl teams during the regular season, #1 in scoring defense and DVOA through the first 11 weeks of the season, tied for the most Pro Bowlers, etc.

And now we are creating the depth to hopefully improve some of those weak spots and to overcome the injuries better than we did last season.

 

[nash72]

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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, they really struggle when they play outside of their division. Give me a break.

 

[Largent80]

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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

What does this have to do with Pete Carroll moving on after this year if he doesn't produce results??:?

 

[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.

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?

Nope. But that's yet a single data point in a complicated equation and not one that hasn't already been considered.

IMO the only way we'll ever know is if Brady retires and Belichick continues to coach for at least a half a dozen more years.

 

[nash72]

Seattle won as many games as Green Bay and was one missed kick away from winning as many as Atlanta. Atlanta and Green Bay were good, but thinking they were out of our reach in order to justify demands for a coaching change? You're going off sentiment, dude. Sentiment and frustration.

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

 

[nash72]

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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

What does this have to do with Pete Carroll moving on after this year if he doesn't produce results??:?

I dont know. Ask the guy who brought up Earl Thomas.

 

[Largent80]

Seattle won as many games as Green Bay and was one missed kick away from winning as many as Atlanta. Atlanta and Green Bay were good, but thinking they were out of our reach in order to justify demands for a coaching change? You're going off sentiment, dude. Sentiment and frustration.

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

Jethro Tull had a song called living in the past. I guess they wrote It about you?

 

[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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

But aren't you ignoring the fact that we probably would have been playing Atlanta at home (where we already beat them)?

We are undefeated at home in the playoffs during the Carroll era. We haven't lost a home playoff game since the 2004 season, when Bobby Engram dropped a would-be TD on the final play. It's the only playoff game ever lost at CenturyLink. We're 10-0 since then.

The biggest difference between '13-14 and '15-16 has been the failure to secure home field advantage.

 

[nash72]

Seattle won as many games as Green Bay and was one missed kick away from winning as many as Atlanta. Atlanta and Green Bay were good, but thinking they were out of our reach in order to justify demands for a coaching change? You're going off sentiment, dude. Sentiment and frustration.

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

Jethro Tull had a song called living in the past. I guess they wrote It about you?

No, they wrote Teacher about me.

 

[nash72]

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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

But aren't you ignoring the fact that we probably would have been playing Atlanta at home (where we already beat them)?

We are undefeated at home in the playoffs during the Carroll era. We haven't lost a home playoff game since the 2004 season, when Bobby Engram dropped a would-be TD on the final play. It's the only playoff game ever lost at CenturyLink. We're 10-0 since then.

The biggest difference between '13-14 and '15-16 has been the failure to secure home field advantage.

Arent you ignoring the fact that Atlanta should have beaten us the first game and they were playing much better during the playoffs? The team also had the whole never losing by more than 10 or something during the Carroll/Wilson era, but that got thrown into wind last year when we got pummeled by GB and the,,,,,,,,Falcons.

 

[Largent80]

Seattle won as many games as Green Bay and was one missed kick away from winning as many as Atlanta. Atlanta and Green Bay were good, but thinking they were out of our reach in order to justify demands for a coaching change? You're going off sentiment, dude. Sentiment and frustration.

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

Jethro Tull had a song called living in the past. I guess they wrote It about you?

No, they wrote Aqualung about me.

 

[nash72]

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

Jethro Tull had a song called living in the past. I guess they wrote It about you?

No, they wrote Aqualung about me.

Wow. Now that was clever.

The Jethro Tull song that best reminds me of you would be Nothing Is Easy.

 

[Largent80]

They both handed us our worse beatings in years. Next.

Jethro Tull had a song called living in the past. I guess they wrote It about you?

No, they wrote Aqualung about you.

Wow. Now that was clever.[/quote]

...Is snot dripping down your nose?....I would say yes since you are so negative about every single thing you write about. Can I suggest a snot rag?

 

[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.

We're ignoring it because it doesnt mean anything. Are you trying to suggest that Earl Thomas would have made all the difference when we played Atlanta and would have led us to victory? If so, i'm going to laugh at you. Let me remind you that the Falcons were playing even better than the first time they played us when they should have won.

Here's the difference Thomas made
1st encounter at home with Thomas = Matt Ryan - 335 and 3 TD's
2nd encounter without Thomas - Matt Ryan - 338 and 3 TD's

Hmmmm

Take it for what you will

But aren't you ignoring the fact that we probably would have been playing Atlanta at home (where we already beat them)?

We are undefeated at home in the playoffs during the Carroll era. We haven't lost a home playoff game since the 2004 season, when Bobby Engram dropped a would-be TD on the final play. It's the only playoff game ever lost at CenturyLink. We're 10-0 since then.

The biggest difference between '13-14 and '15-16 has been the failure to secure home field advantage.

Arent you ignoring the fact that Atlanta should have beaten us the first game and they were playing much better during the playoffs?

#1 Why should they have beaten us in the first game? Our comeback was classic Seahawks football.

#2 Atlanta was already playing at an extremely high level the first time. They were on pace to break all kinds of offensive records for yardage and scoring output before our first meeting. Julio Jones had a 300-yard receiving game earlier that month and Matt Ryan had a 500-yard passing game. They were averaging 35 points and 450+ yards per contest, for god's sake.

Yes, I agree that their defense was starting to play a little better. But as we all saw in the Super Bowl, the strength of their team was still all about offensive output. They might have still beaten us, but I think we definitely would have been favored playing at home.

Edit to reply to your edit:

The team also had the whole never losing by more than 10 or something during the Carroll/Wilson era, but that got thrown into wind last year when we got pummeled by GB and the,,,,,,,,Falcons.

That is beside the point because the streak was alive and well until Earl Thomas was injured, which is the hypothetical we have been discussing. I maintain that there is a good chance the streak would stand now had Thomas not been hurt.

 

[nash72]

#1 Why should they have beaten us in the first game? Our comeback was classic Seahawks football.

Oh you must have forgotten about the obvious PI call on the last play by Sherman. That's ok.

#2 Atlanta was already playing at an extremely high level the first time. They were on pace to break all kinds of offensive records for yardage and scoring output before our first meeting. Julio Jones had a 300-yard receiving game earlier that month and Matt Ryan had a 500-yard passing game. They were averaging 35 points and 450+ yards per contest, for god's sake.

Yes, I agree that their defense was starting to play a little better. But as we all saw in the Super Bowl, the strength of their team was still all about offensive output. They might have still beaten us, but I think we definitely would have been favored playing at home.

You answered your own question. The defense played much better later in the year.

That is beside the point because the streak was alive and well until Earl Thomas was injured, which is the hypothetical we have been discussing. I maintain that there is a good chance the streak would stand now had Thomas not been hurt.

This coming from the guy who's made up all kinds of hypothetical scenarios relating to Thomas being uninjured. I don't believe the streak would have stood regardless if Thomas was on the field or not.