My concern with Pete was that he was going to get us at .500 or near. And regardless of the roster, we would be bobbing around at mediocrity but still not getting the kind of draft slots we needed to get a top QB to turn this into a contending team again.
And as predicted, that is precisely what Pete is doing.
But not as predicted, it was the defense that struggled not the offense. The implications are pretty severe. Replacing the QB does not fix that. Especially when our QB is producing which was another unpredicted outcome.
So we don't have to worry about losing to get the QB, and things get more complicated from here. There is no clear answer, anotherwords.
Someone made the comparison between Pete and Al Davis (I think Fade?) and that is a perfect comparison. Al Davis exerted so much control over the team, he hurt it in his later years.
Maybe Pete flipped things, he is making some changes. But five games is not enough time to know. We will see.
The urgency isn't as significant because there was no loss of the top QB concern. Just as we aren't worried about a playoff slot. So we let it play out.
But one good game after some real disasters is not enough to allay concern. Can this at least be an average defense over time? That is the question.
This thread has been one of the more interesting ones in a while. Lots of gold from a lot of posters!
I understand why several people laughed at and mocked the above post from Twisted, e.g., the Al Davis comparison, I don't really see, but at the same time it had some elements of truth.
* Our defense has now had ONE good game. Can they follow that up with more good games? Or was this a one-off based on the state of the Cards offense, injured OLine and missing weapons? That IS pretty much how the Cards media is spinning it, that the Hawks D caught them in a weakened state. Not necessarily MY view, just a data point to consider. And as Twisted asked, "Can this at least be an average defense over time?" In 2005 an average-but-improving D took us all the way to the Owl with Holmgren's O.
* ...Pete IS making changes. Six games absolutely isn't enough time to know which ones will stick.
The old dog is not necessarily "learning new tricks", but the old dog brought in new pack lieutenants (Waldron, Desai) that bring new tricks, new schemes with them, Xs and Os, that Pete feels align with his overall philosophy.
* I am mildly concerned that we'll see too much Pete-Ball when I enjoy watching Shane-Ball much more. Vs Cards, 3rd down conversion was 28%, which felt like Pete-Russ-Ball. But, Cards game was a sample size of "1" with a lot of unique circumstances, rookie RB, high-pressure Vance Joseph defense.
Personally, I enjoy Fade's posts without necessarily agreeing with all the content, or even any of the content, to try out his viewpoints as a thought exercise, and sort of run them against the data to see which ones could be true. He might say 3 interesting "true" things and 5 catchy-sounding but fails-the-eye-test things in a single post, and his next post could be 6 "true" and 2 "fails", or even 8 "true" and "0" fails. Whatever else, his thread-starter post here led to a thread with a lot of terrific posts from a lot of different contributors.
Can anyone corroborate Fade's data point on the Waldron offense, that the standard operation is to call a pass play and run play at the same time in the huddle and then go with whichever one is best for the pre-snap D alignment, run vs light box, pass vs heavy box? And if true, do the plays look similar to the D when the play first starts? It was stated we are passing more on early downs because of this approach, that over 50% of the time, the pass play is the best option based on what the defense is showing us on 1st down.
The best part of this season so far is that the truth with regard to Pete and Russell is becoming abundantly clear: Russell held back Pete far more than Pete held back Russell, Pete protected and coddled Russell, etc. Sucks to be a Broncos fan right now. "So long, and thanks for all the picks!". It's exciting to be a Seahawks fan again, simple pleasures like feeling we have a 50-50 chance to convert 3rd-and-4 instead of a 10% chance as it felt like with Russell.