Is "Always Compete" back?

[hawk45]

Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.

Yeah, as a fan I've wanted Cable gone for years, but even so the back-to-back offseasons losing 2 OL starters forcing the re-shuffle on 3-or-more OL spots was something I couldn't discount. If Cable had a fault it was not being realistic about what he could accomplish under those circumstances.

But from Pete's standpoint, when Lynch left was eliminating the HOF RB variable, which allowed him to evaluate Cable a little better. Then, this year, actually spending money at 2 anchor spots eliminated (or at least mitigated) the poor-resources variable, further allowing him to evaluate Cable. I think Pete took a cautious approach evaluating Cable, but it's defensible as much as I hated waiting for it.

Ditto on Bevell in terms of being okay with the timing. Actually, I'd have been fine with keeping Bevell since we know Pete is just going to get another Bevell. But this was an okay time to pull the trigger on that move if he had to. Bevell's big crime to you and I was always pretending he had better protection than he did and failing to make adjustments.

 

[Jac]

Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.

I totally agree with this. My big fear going into this offseason was that he'd stubbornly double-down to try to prove that missing the playoffs in 2017 was a fluke. Instead, he's totally rebooted the thing. He may also be thinking that this is the last time in his coaching career that he has a chance to ("re") build a program.

 

[semiahmoo]

He's either on the comeback trail or on his last leg.

I wish for the former but am betting on the latter...

 

[pittpnthrs]

I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.

This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

That is accountability.

I dont want to argue and not stating my opinion as fact, but I feel somebody needed fired immediately after SB49 (Bevell) for player morale if nothing else.

I appreciate how you've put this...but you don't fire SB coaches for one play in order to create a scapegoat (which is what you really mean when you say morale).

Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.

The only issue about creating a scapegoat as you say is that some of the players (high profile players at that) have come out during the last 3 years feeling the same way I do about the issue. Bennett just mentioned the play again a few days ago and he wont be the last player to do so. I still say it needed to be done.

Yeah we reached the playoffs 2 straight years after 49, but we were never competitive when we finally had to play one of the top tier teams. Carolina crushed us (score looking better than it really was because they went total cruise control mode in the 2nd half), the Falcons humiliated us, and then we have this season in which it all came crushing down.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but when casual fans can see the decline, its hard to believe the owner, front office and head coach don't see it too.

 

[pittpnthrs]

He's either on the comeback trail or on his last leg.

I wish for the former but am betting on the latter...

I'm with you. I don't expect much next season, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and time to get acclimated. After that, its results or time to move on.

 

[Sun Tzu]

No

It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.

 

[pittpnthrs]

No

It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.

I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

 

[Sun Tzu]

No

It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.

I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The only issue about creating a scapegoat as you say is that some of the players (high profile players at that) have come out during the last 3 years feeling the same way I do about the issue. Bennett just mentioned the play again a few days ago and he wont be the last player to do so. I still say it needed to be done.

The fact that players are mouthing off doesn't establish a credible reason for firing the OC of a perennial playoff team. All it means is that these guys have lost their championship mentality by being unable to get it out of their heads.

And FWIW, a lot of other players have come out and supported Bevell. Doug Baldwin, for example, has shown that the play is behind him.

Yeah we reached the playoffs 2 straight years after 49, but we were never competitive when we finally had to play one of the top tier teams. Carolina crushed us (score looking better than it really was because they went total cruise control mode in the 2nd half), the Falcons humiliated us, and then we have this season in which it all came crushing down.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but when casual fans can see the decline, its hard to believe the owner, front office and head coach don't see it too.

You're exaggerating the nature of our playoff losses in order to strengthen your argument. For cripes' sakes, 11 playoff teams fall short every year. Should their coaches be fired after one such miss, too? You get to the playoffs and it's a new season. Nobody was saying "we don't belong" in 2010.

Pete waited until the decline was actually a decline. Two years of winning a playoff game every January doesn't qualify.

 

[pittpnthrs]

No

It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.

I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.

Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

 

[pittpnthrs]

The fact that players are mouthing off doesn't establish a credible reason for firing the OC of a perennial playoff team. All it means is that these guys have lost their championship mentality by being unable to get it out of their heads.

And FWIW, a lot of other players have come out and supported Bevell. Doug Baldwin, for example, has shown that the play is behind him.

The same Doug Baldwin that was on the sidelines shoving Tom Cable? Like Russ, Doug always reads from the script.

You're exaggerating the nature of our playoff losses in order to strengthen your argument. For cripes' sakes, 11 playoff teams fall short every year. Should their coaches be fired after one such miss, too? You get to the playoffs and it's a new season. Nobody was saying "we don't belong" in 2010.

Pete waited until the decline was actually a decline. Two years of winning a playoff game every January doesn't qualify.

No exaggeration, we were getting crushed. Nobody was saying anything in 2010, but there were plenty saying we didn't belong last year and certainly this season (of course we didn't make it anyways). The writing was on the wall for everybody to see. Whether one chose to ignore it was on them.

 

[Sun Tzu]

This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.

I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.

Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.

Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.

The coaches have had the same glaring weaknesses since their duration. It was when the talent could no longer cover for them anymore that it became more apparent and that was 3 years ago.

 

[Sun Tzu]

I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.

Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.

The coaches have had the same glaring weaknesses since their duration. It was when the talent could no longer cover for them anymore that it became more apparent and that was 3 years ago.

You honestly had enough football and coaching background and knowledge of the inner workings of the team, during the Seahawk ascension and back to back super bowl appearances, to be able to see through all of the results and make an intelligent informed evaluation based on that background and knowledge, and that evaluation was that the coaches were under-performing?

I thought the coaches were great during the team's ascension. Pete and John were finding undervalued talent in the late rounds of the draft, in UDFA, and through trades; the coaches were developing that talent and finding unique ways to maximize the player's strengths. I did not see any, other than a few ignorant malcontents, calling for coaches' heads during that time.

 

[chris98251]

To be honest we or the board has been bitching about slow starts on offense since Pete took over and the constant O line churn as well as QB pressures, be it Hass, Whitehurst, Tjack, JP Losman or Wilson. Just bought into the game is won in the 4th quarter mantra but had concerns overall as far as defense wins championships sure but ya have to score also and a offense that can't hold the ball makes a defense tired.

 

[pittpnthrs]

You honestly had enough football and coaching background and knowledge of the inner workings of the team, during the Seahawk ascension and back to back super bowl appearances, to be able to see through all of the results and make an intelligent informed evaluation based on that background and knowledge, and that evaluation was that the coaches were under-performing?

I thought the coaches were great during the team's ascension. Pete and John were finding undervalued talent in the late rounds of the draft, in UDFA, and through trades; the coaches were developing that talent and finding unique ways to maximize the player's strengths. I did not see any, other than a few ignorant malcontents, calling for coaches' heads during that time.

Absolutely I feel they under performed. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a coaching staff do so little with so much. Only winning one Super Bowl with that much talent is a crime. This staff will be remembered more for their failures than their achievements in my opinion.

I thought the staff was decent with the talent hiding a lot of their shortcomings (which can no longer be hidden hence the firings). I also give them kudo's for assembling such a roster during the beginning of their tenure, but will say they havent really drafted very well once McCloughan left and Pete was no longer familiar with the college players. To many gambles with not enough rewards. As for maximizing player strengths, I again have to disagree. That was the biggest problem with that staff. Instead of adapting to a players strengths, they wanted the players to adapt to their scheme and it didnt work a lot of the time. Take our Oline for example. Its obvious they dont have the talent to execute Cables ZBS scheme, so why do they continue to try? A coaches job is to formulate something that works, not trying something that fails over and over again in hopes that it might eventually work. Jimmy Graham is another example, but we wont get into all of that.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel the firings should have taken place much earlier when it was plainly obvious the team wasnt going anywhere and you seem to feel no changes were needed at all. It is what it is.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It's laughable that some of you think the greatness of this team was due to done empty coaching philosophy and not the fact that we had one of the toughest and most dangerous running backs in the league, a tremendously deep DL, great LB and perhaps one of the best secondaries in the history of the NFL

 

[Uncle Si]

It's laughable that some of you think the greatness of this team was due to done empty coaching philosophy and not the fact that we had one of the toughest and most dangerous running backs in the league, a tremendously deep DL, great LB and perhaps one of the best secondaries in the history of the NFL

I think most are steady enough to recognize the value of all those factors in contributing to the teams success, including the coaches

 

[adeltaY]

Pete did coach all those players up, especially the secondary guys.