Is Pete Carrol laying the foundation to be a HOF head coach?

[RiverDog]

carroll built up 2 programs from scratch: the usc trojans and the seattle seahawks. he won titles with both those teams. at usc he had a national-record 33 consecutive weeks as the associated press's #1-ranked team.

I beg your pardon. Pete did not build the USC Trojans up from scratch. He already had Carson Palmer and Troy Polomalu on the roster. They went 6-6 and 8-5 in the two years prior, certainly not a good years by USC standards but a far cry from having to build from scratch like he would have had to have done had he gone to someplace like WSU. USC has some of the biggest recruiting advantages in CFB. Plus you have to consider that Pete skipped town just before the hammer came down on his program, that he left it in shambles, and that the NCAA subsequently took away his one NC title.

As a matter of fact, IMO Pete's rival Jim Harbaugh did a much more impressive job of turning Stanford from a doormat where the CW prior to his arriving was that the academic standards of the school prevented building it into a top 5 program and NC contender, and established a trend of Stanford being a perennial contender that continues to this day. That's something that even the legendary Bill Walsh couldn't do.

Besides, accomplishments in CFB are completely irrelevant when it comes to the professional football HOF.

 

[Anonymous]

If he gets two Lombardi's in a row, that'll do it.

 

[seatownlowdown]

Besides, accomplishments in CFB are completely irrelevant when it comes to the professional football HOF.

i was actually responding to a person comparing both harbaugh and carroll, and i was acknowledging that carroll was great overall coach based off his history. where did i say that his usc record will get him in the HOF? k, didnt think i did.

and yes, both built up there programs from scratch, i hever said harbaugh did a bad job at stanford, considering where they were at before he got there.

per wikipedia

By 2000, some observers surmised that USC football's days of national dominance were fading; the football team's record of 37–35 from 1996 to 2001 was their second-worst over any five-year span in history (only the mark of 29–29–2 from 1956–1961 was worse), and the period marked the first and only time USC had been out of the final top 20 teams for four straight years.

carroll arrived thereafter. do u know what happened after carroll took over?



and im not sure why you are attacking me, lmao. i simply called u out on something u stated/insinuated that was poposterous, which is that an nfl coach needs 15+ years as a coach to be qualified for the HOF, which is completely, utterly laughable. so is the notion that if a coach gets fired after he wins 2 superbowls he is less worthy... which is a joke, right?

 

[RiverDog]

Besides, accomplishments in CFB are completely irrelevant when it comes to the professional football HOF.

i was actually just comparing both harbaugh and carroll, and acknowledging that he was great overall coach based off his history. where did i say that his usc record will get him in the HOF? k, didnt think i did.

both built up there programs from scratch, i hever said harbaugh did a bad job at stanford, considering where they were at before he got there. im not sure why you are attacking me. i simply called u out on something that was poposterous, which is that an nfl coach needs 15+ years as a coach to be qualified for the HOF, which is completely, utterly laughable. so is the notion that if a coach gets fired after he wins 2 superbowls he is less worthy... which is a joke, right?

The title of the thread is about Pete's possible induction into the HOF, so your posting about Pete's USC experience makes it seem like you are including it as part of his resume. And once again, Pete DID NOT build up the USC program from scratch, certainly not when you compare him with Harbaugh at Stanford.

Even though I didn't say it was a prerequisite, if you will go back and look at that list of HOF coaches, one thing that you will note is that nearly all of them have 15+ years coaching in the NFL/CFL. I'm not sure why anyone would want to laugh at a fact like that.

 

[seatownlowdown]

The title of the thread is about Pete's possible induction into the HOF, so your posting about Pete's USC experience makes it seem like you are including it as part of his resume.

again-

i was actually responding to a person comparing both harbaugh and carroll, and i was acknowledging that carroll was great overall coach based off his history. where did i say that his usc record will get him in the HOF? k, didnt think i did.

And once again, Pete DID NOT build up the USC program from scratch, certainly not when you compare him with Harbaugh at Stanford.

uh, yes he did. based off of what i just posted, per wikipedia, most would say carroll did build up usc from scratch. and i already acknowledged harbaugh did well too. harbaugh collegiate record, however, pales in comparison to carrolls if u want to go there. carroll actually has notable, nationally recognized accomplishments from his time at usc.

next.

 

[RiverDog]

Besides, accomplishments in CFB are completely irrelevant when it comes to the professional football HOF.

i was actually just comparing both harbaugh and carroll, and acknowledging that he was great overall coach based off his history. where did i say that his usc record will get him in the HOF? k, didnt think i did.

both built up there programs from scratch, i hever said harbaugh did a bad job at stanford, considering where they were at before he got there. im not sure why you are attacking me. i simply called u out on something that was poposterous, which is that an nfl coach needs 15+ years as a coach to be qualified for the HOF, which is completely, utterly laughable. so is the notion that if a coach gets fired after he wins 2 superbowls he is less worthy... which is a joke, right?

The title of the thread is about Pete's possible induction into the HOF, so your posting about Pete's USC experience makes it seem like you are including it as part of his resume. And once again, Pete DID NOT build up the USC program from scratch, certainly not when you compare him with Harbaugh at Stanford, and left his program in terrible shape.

Since the merger, there has only been two coaches admitted to the HOF with less than 15 years, John Madden and Bill Walsh, each with 12 years. Most are names with way more years, like Chuck Knoll, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Marv Levy, Bill Parcells, Bud Grant, etc. In light of those facts, I'm not sure why my statement that 15 years being an unwritten standard is laughable, but if you have nothing better to laugh at, then be my guest.

It's only my opinion, but if Tom Coughlin gets fired after this season, it will ruin his chances of gaining entry into the HOF and raise that 2 Lombardi standard.

 

[seatownlowdown]

Since the merger, there has only been two coaches admitted to the HOF with less than 15 years, John Madden and Bill Walsh, each with 12 years. Most are names with way more years, like Chuck Knoll, Don Shula, Tom Landry, Marv Levy, Bill Parcells, Bud Grant, etc.

ugh, u just cant take the fact that assumptions dont actual equal reality. show me something written where 15+ years of coaching is prerequisite for the HOF. and then show me where a coach can be stricken from the HOF because he got fired from a team after winning 2 superbowls.

do it, and u get brownie points!

 

[RiverDog]

...show me something written where 15+ years of coaching is prerequisite for the HOF. and then show me where a coach can be stricken from the HOF because he got fired from a team after winning 2 superbowls.

do it, and u get brownie points!

Come on, guy. I specifically said the 15+ years was an "unwritten rule". Of course it isn't a written prerequisite.

And I specifically said that it was "my opinion" that Coughlin's getting fired would disqualify him from HOF consideration. I never stated it as fact.

 

[Sac]

PC's college career is irrelevant to this argument. It's called the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame. Not the Pro and College Hall of Fame.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

 

[RiverDog]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

Using that standard, Mike Holmgren would qualify, but he's not even in the discussion.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

Using that standard, Mike Holmgren would qualify.

Nope...

Head coaching record[edit]
NFL Champions
Team Year Regular season Post-season
Won Lost Ties Win % Finish Won Lost Win % Result
GNB 1992 9 7 0 .563 2nd in NFC Central - - - -
GNB 1993 9 7 0 .563 3rd in NFC Central 1 1 .500 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Divisional Game.
GNB 1994 9 7 0 .563 2nd in NFC Central 1 1 .500 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Divisional Game.
GNB 1995 11 5 0 .688 1st in NFC Central 2 1 .667 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Championship Game.
GNB 1996 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC Central 3 0 1.000 Won Super Bowl XXXI.
GNB 1997 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC Central 2 1 .667 Lost to Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII.
GNB 1998 11 5 0 .688 2nd in NFC Central 0 1 .000 Lost to San Francisco 49ers in NFC Wild-Card Game.
GNB Total 75 37 0 .670 9 5 .643
SEA 1999 9 7 0 .563 1st in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to Miami Dolphins in AFC Wild-Card Game.
SEA 2000 6 10 0 .375 4th in AFC West - - - -
SEA 2001 9 7 0 .563 2nd in AFC West - - - -
SEA 2002 7 9 0 .438 3rd in NFC West - - - -
SEA 2003 10 6 0 .625 2nd in NFC West 0 1 0.000 Lost to Green Bay Packers in NFC Wild-Card Game.
SEA 2004 9 7 0 .563 1st in NFC West 0 1 0.000 Lost to St. Louis Rams in NFC Wild-Card Game
SEA 2005 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC West 2 1 0.667 Lost to Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XL.
SEA 2006 9 7 0 .563 1st in NFC West 1 1 0.500 Lost to Chicago Bears in NFC Divisional Game.
SEA 2007 10 6 0 .625 1st in NFC West 1 1 0.500 Lost to Green Bay Packers in NFC Divisional Game.
SEA 2008 4 12 0 .250 3rd in NFC West - - - -
SEA Total 86 74 0 .541 4 6 .400
Total 161 111 0 .592 13 11 .542

I see 1 Superbowl win and 2 Superbowl losses that's a killer, you have to win those Superbowl chances, it changes the conversation entirely. Though in my opinion Holmgren should be in and hopefully he will do so someday.

 

[hawkfan68]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

Using that standard, Mike Holmgren would qualify.

Nope...
Head coaching record[edit]
NFL Champions
Team Year Regular season Post-season
Won Lost Ties Win % Finish Won Lost Win % Result
GNB 1992 9 7 0 .563 2nd in NFC Central - - - -
GNB 1993 9 7 0 .563 3rd in NFC Central 1 1 .500 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Divisional Game.
GNB 1994 9 7 0 .563 2nd in NFC Central 1 1 .500 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Divisional Game.
GNB 1995 11 5 0 .688 1st in NFC Central 2 1 .667 Lost to Dallas Cowboys in NFC Championship Game.
GNB 1996 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC Central 3 0 1.000 Won Super Bowl XXXI.
GNB 1997 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC Central 2 1 .667 Lost to Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII.
GNB 1998 11 5 0 .688 2nd in NFC Central 0 1 .000 Lost to San Francisco 49ers in NFC Wild-Card Game.
GNB Total 75 37 0 .670 9 5 .643
SEA 1999 9 7 0 .563 1st in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to Miami Dolphins in AFC Wild-Card Game.
SEA 2000 6 10 0 .375 4th in AFC West - - - -
SEA 2001 9 7 0 .563 2nd in AFC West - - - -
SEA 2002 7 9 0 .438 3rd in NFC West - - - -
SEA 2003 10 6 0 .625 2nd in NFC West 0 1 0.000 Lost to Green Bay Packers in NFC Wild-Card Game.
SEA 2004 9 7 0 .563 1st in NFC West 0 1 0.000 Lost to St. Louis Rams in NFC Wild-Card Game
SEA 2005 13 3 0 .813 1st in NFC West 2 1 0.667 Lost to Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XL.
SEA 2006 9 7 0 .563 1st in NFC West 1 1 0.500 Lost to Chicago Bears in NFC Divisional Game.
SEA 2007 10 6 0 .625 1st in NFC West 1 1 0.500 Lost to Green Bay Packers in NFC Divisional Game.
SEA 2008 4 12 0 .250 3rd in NFC West - - - -
SEA Total 86 74 0 .541 4 6 .400
Total 161 111 0 .592 13 11 .542


I see 1 Superbowl win and 2 Superbowl losses that's a killer you have to win those Superbowl chances it changes the conversation entirely. Though in my opinion Holmgren should be in and hopefully he will do so someday.

I'm not so sure SB wins weigh in the HOF as much. How many SB wins do Bud Grant and Marv Levy have? Not winning SB didn't kill their chances. They are both in the HOF w/o superbowl wins.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

It's so subjective really like any HOF. I'm just saying if he were to have 8 division titles, 4 conference titles, 3-4 Superbowl wins and a Seahawk coaching record of 105-55 over a 10 year span he would have a fair shot at it. Much fairer then most.

 

[hawkfan68]

It's so subjective really like any HOF. I'm just saying if he were to have 8 division titles, 4 conference titles, 3-4 Superbowl wins and a Seahawk coaching record of 105-55 over a 10 year span he would have a fair shot at it. Much fairer then most.

Good point. I don't like the fact it's so subjective. It's the media who votes and I have a big issue with mediots deciding who gets in or not. It is what it is. Hopefully Carroll, Knox, and Holmgren get in someday. All three have their merits why they should be included in the HOF.

 

[RiverDog]

In other words, Holmgren has 1 SB title, 3 conference titles, 8 divisional titles, and a 161-111 regular season record in 19 years as a HC, not to mention the rings he got with the Niners as OC and QB coach, yet he's still not even in the conversation.

Using the above resume Holmgren has achieved as a yardstick, I don't see how 1-2 SB wins and 3 conference titles would put a candidate far enough beyond the HOF discussion stage that Holmgren isn't even in. Plus don't forget that Pete's tenure with the Jets and Pats is part of his resume, too.

IMO Pete's going to have to win 3 Lombardis to get in, and let's all agree that he achieves that standard!

 

[Bigbadhawk]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

Using that standard, Mike Holmgren would qualify, but he's not even in the discussion.

Whenever I hear chatter on sports radio or even tv about the HOF and Holmgren it is how he is borderline atm. They go on to say if he would have won Super Bowl with the Hawks that it would have put in over the hump. Taking 2 different teams to the Super Bowl is nice but taking 2 differant teams and winning the Super Bowl with each would have been the icing on the cake for him

That is also why I believe it would take 2 more Super Bowl visits and at least one being a win for Pete but even then that may only make him borderline himself.

 

[RiverDog]

I would say 5 more years at the top (division titles, 3 conference titles) with 1-2 Superbowl wins probably has him in the conversation if not in.

Using that standard, Mike Holmgren would qualify, but he's not even in the discussion.

Whenever I hear chatter on sports radio or even tv about the HOF and Holmgren it is how he is borderline atm. They go on to say if he would have won Super Bowl with the Hawks that it would have put in over the hump. Taking 2 different teams to the Super Bowl is nice but taking 2 differant teams and winning the Super Bowl with each would have been the icing on the cake for him

That is also why I believe it would take 2 more Super Bowl visits and at least one being a win for Pete but even then that may only make him borderline himself.

Agreed. And I should make a correction. Holmgren is "in the discussion", as you correctly noted that the subject does come up from time to time. But he has never been nominated.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

In other words, Holmgren has 1 SB title, 3 conference titles, 8 divisional titles, and a 161-111 regular season record in 19 years as a HC, not to mention the rings he got with the Niners as OC and QB coach, yet he's still not even in the conversation.

Using the above resume Holmgren has achieved as a yardstick, I don't see how 1-2 SB wins and 3 conference titles would put a candidate far enough beyond the HOF discussion stage that Holmgren isn't even in. Plus don't forget that Pete's tenure with the Jets and Pats is part of his resume, too.

IMO Pete's going to have to win 3 Lombardis to get in, and let's all agree that he achieves that standard!

That's my point Pete will have topped those numbers concerning winning Superbowls, division and conference titles with a better winning pct both regular season and the playoffs. In a far shorter period of time.

 

[RiverDog]

In other words, Holmgren has 1 SB title, 3 conference titles, 8 divisional titles, and a 161-111 regular season record in 19 years as a HC, not to mention the rings he got with the Niners as OC and QB coach, yet he's still not even in the conversation.

Using the above resume Holmgren has achieved as a yardstick, I don't see how 1-2 SB wins and 3 conference titles would put a candidate far enough beyond the HOF discussion stage that Holmgren isn't even in. Plus don't forget that Pete's tenure with the Jets and Pats is part of his resume, too.

IMO Pete's going to have to win 3 Lombardis to get in, and let's all agree that he achieves that standard!

That's my point Pete will have topped those numbers concerning winning Superbowls, division and conference titles with a better winning pct both regular season and the playoffs. In a far shorter period of time.

OK, I see where we didn't understand each other. You originally said "1-2 SB titles" where you meant to say "1-2 more SB titles."

But a far shorter time? Holmgren was a HC for 19 years, 5 more years would give Pete 14 years (4 years with Pats/Jets, 5 currently with Hawks + your 5 more). That's a shorter amount of time, but I wouldn't call it "far shorter", unless you plan to expunge Pete's HC record with the Jets/Pats. Plus don't forget that Holmgren had far better results as an assistant than Pete did, and his coaching tree, with guys like Gruden and Reid, were more successful than Pete's understudies have been to date.

You can't just cherry pick the best years off a resume and ignore the rest, you have to look at their entire career as a coach.