Mina Kimes ranks Pete Carroll at #10 among coaches

CallMeADawg

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,121
It has nothing to do with how good of a coach or how bad of a coach Pete Carroll is. It was a point brought up that every QB under Pete Carroll takes an enormous amount of sacks and it wasn't just Russell Wilson. As somebody mentioned before, the sack numbers could be due to Carrolls philosophy that its better to take a sack than turn the ball over, who knows, but the numbers are there. My premise stands that a better job of protecting the QB could be done, but for whatever reason, that doesnt appear to be a high priority with Pete Carroll because the sacks keep coming or he has failed at fixing that area of concern.

I don't see Seattle being that much worse than the rest of the pack. I do see Denver being a magnitude worse than everyone else.

Hmm 🤔 I wonder why...
 
Last edited:

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
My refrigerator quit working because Pete Carroll can't coach ball well enough. He better fix the offense line otherwise my coffee maker might be next. 🤭
NO Gotdamit, it should be OBVIOUS to all who are paying attention!! this is all on my Icemaker going kaflooey and my Luke-warm mixed drinks tasting like crap, and that's all on Pete. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
 
Last edited:

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
How can something that results in Pro Bowls and a high level of play be a "level of concern?"

This is your disconnect, you're applying a subjective pre-conceived biased concept and trying to state it as a factual negative, when the larger picture tells you it's not a concern because Pete still develops and coaches up his QB's to Pro Bowl level of play.

And it's not even a premise most of us agree with, since the sample size is literally 11 years of the same QB who's been sacked a bajillion times over his college and pro career, including outside of Seattle.

It was already proved by stats that Wilson did not take a lot of sacks in college I believe in this very thread. That is your pre-conceived biased concept. The sample size had three other QB's before and beyond Wilsons tenure and those QB's were also among the league leaders in sacks. Its a premise that was important enough for a QB to publicly ask for more attention to be paid in that area as he was tired of getting killed week in and week out.

Yes Wilson carried a high level of play and Pro Bowls too and Geno had a dream season for him last year, but I wonder how much better it could be if they werent getting blasted every weekend. I also wonder why the issue has never been fixed unless the coach doesnt think its an issue at all. Apparently one of his QB's did.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957

I don't see Seattle being that much worse than the rest of the pack. I do see Denver being a magnitude worse than everyone else.

Hmm 🤔 I wonder why...

Geno was the 3rd most sacked QB in the league last year. TJack before Wilson was the 2nd most sacked QB in the league when he played. Coincidence or pattern?
 

CallMeADawg

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,121
It was already proved by stats that Wilson did not take a lot of sacks in college I believe in this very thread. That is your pre-conceived biased concept. The sample size had three other QB's before and beyond Wilsons tenure and those QB's were also among the league leaders in sacks. Its a premise that was important enough for a QB to publicly ask for more attention to be paid in that area as he was tired of getting killed week in and week out.

Yes Wilson carried a high level of play and Pro Bowls too and Geno had a dream season for him last year, but I wonder how much better it could be if they werent getting blasted every weekend. I also wonder why the issue has never been fixed unless the coach doesnt think its an issue at all. Apparently one of his QB's did.
Geno didn't take many more sacks than the average QB did. Russell Wilson was sacked on average 3.67 times per game last year while Geno was 2.71. That's a massive difference.

Again the data is there for you to have a real conversation rather than making things up like usual.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
Geno didn't take many more sacks than the average QB did. Russell Wilson was sacked on average 3.67 times per game last year while Geno was 2.71. That's a massive difference.

Again the data is there for you to have a real conversation rather than making things up like usual.

Geno Smith was sacked 46 times last year which was tied for 3rd most in the league. Thats about 10 more sacks on the season than the average NFL QB.


Less than one more sack a game is a massive difference?
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
It was already proved by stats that Wilson did not take a lot of sacks in college I believe in this very thread. That is your pre-conceived biased concept. The sample size had three other QB's before and beyond Wilsons tenure and those QB's were also among the league leaders in sacks. Its a premise that was important enough for a QB to publicly ask for more attention to be paid in that area as he was tired of getting killed week in and week out.

Yes Wilson carried a high level of play and Pro Bowls too and Geno had a dream season for him last year, but I wonder how much better it could be if they werent getting blasted every weekend. I also wonder why the issue has never been fixed unless the coach doesnt think its an issue at all. Apparently one of his QB's did.

So Russ deflecting blame for his own inadequacies is proof that Pete neglects the o-line?

Wasn't Matt sacked 29 times? That's less than his average over a career with Mike Holmgren coaching him as a starter. And Matt played behind one of the best o lines in league history.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Tjack wasn't exactly known as a processor of the game? He was a mobile qb. Elusive.

Same with Russ. He's not a processor either. He was elusive. Creating time to make a play.

So if they are getting sacked, it's due in part to their own play.

So from Hass (sacked below his career average), we went to TJack, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more. To Russ, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more.

To now, Geno, who was sacked a lot, but can read defenses. So if Geno CAN get the ball out and doesn't hold it unnecessarily what's the reason?

Maybe a center that was overpowered and two young tackles who hit their rookie wall.

But your supposing Pete has an issue protecting QBs woukd logically assume he sees it as less a priority.

He took two top players at the position in the draft, last year, used draft capital to pick up another lineman this year, and signed a solid lineman in FA.

And measuring Pete against his coaching stints from eons ago is as relevant as using Belichicks stint in Cleveland as proof he's not good at X or Y.

Or like using Geno's performance in NY for the same.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
So Russ deflecting blame for his own inadequacies is proof that Pete neglects the o-line?

Wasn't Matt sacked 29 times? That's less than his average over a career with Mike Holmgren coaching him as a starter. And Matt played behind one of the best o lines in league history.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Tjack wasn't exactly known as a processor of the game? He was a mobile qb. Elusive.

Same with Russ. He's not a processor either. He was elusive. Creating time to make a play.

So if they are getting sacked, it's due in part to their own play.

So from Hass (sacked below his career average), we went to TJack, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more. To Russ, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more.

To now, Geno, who was sacked a lot, but can read defenses. So if Geno CAN get the ball out and doesn't hold it unnecessarily what's the reason?

Maybe a center that was overpowered and two young tackles who hit their rookie wall.

But your supposing Pete has an issue protecting QBs woukd logically assume he sees it as less a priority.

He took two top players at the position in the draft, last year, used draft capital to pick up another lineman this year, and signed a solid lineman in FA.

And measuring Pete against his coaching stints from eons ago is as relevant as using Belichicks stint in Cleveland as proof he's not good at X or Y.

Or like using Geno's performance in NY for the same.

The Oline has been a revolving door with Carroll. New pieces are always put into place and it never seems to work out. Is it the philosophy and schemes or is it poor coaching and development? What if Smith is atop of the most sacked QB's again next season (which I believe he will be)? What will the excuses be? At some point the inadequacies of the QB blame need to be put to rest as the answers lay somewhere else.
 

rcaido

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
491
So Russ deflecting blame for his own inadequacies is proof that Pete neglects the o-line?

Wasn't Matt sacked 29 times? That's less than his average over a career with Mike Holmgren coaching him as a starter. And Matt played behind one of the best o lines in league history.

Why are you ignoring the fact that Tjack wasn't exactly known as a processor of the game? He was a mobile qb. Elusive.

Same with Russ. He's not a processor either. He was elusive. Creating time to make a play.

So if they are getting sacked, it's due in part to their own play.

So from Hass (sacked below his career average), we went to TJack, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more. To Russ, who couldn't read defenses and was sacked more.

To now, Geno, who was sacked a lot, but can read defenses. So if Geno CAN get the ball out and doesn't hold it unnecessarily what's the reason?

Maybe a center that was overpowered and two young tackles who hit their rookie wall.

But your supposing Pete has an issue protecting QBs woukd logically assume he sees it as less a priority.

He took two top players at the position in the draft, last year, used draft capital to pick up another lineman this year, and signed a solid lineman in FA.

And measuring Pete against his coaching stints from eons ago is as relevant as using Belichicks stint in Cleveland as proof he's not good at X or Y.

Or like using Geno's performance in NY for the same.

Matt got sacked 29 times but he only played 14 games. If you include the playoffs, Matt got sack a total of 33 times w/ a sack average of 2.29 per game which he was in the top 10 most sacked that season. What's alarming though is when Matt played for Tennessee the following season, he only got sacked 19 times in a full 16 game season. He was ranked #1 LEAST sacked starting QB that season.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
The Oline has been a revolving door with Carroll. New pieces are always put into place and it never seems to work out. Is it the philosophy and schemes or is it poor coaching and development? What if Smith is atop of the most sacked QB's again next season (which I believe he will be)? What will the excuses be? At some point the inadequacies of the QB blame need to be put to rest as the answers lay somewhere else.

You didn't respond to the points I made to the contrary.

Matt didn't suffer the same sack fate as the others.

The lines that were assembled in front of TJack and Russ were put together ahead of qbs who were challenged to do the one thing that great qbs who play behind perennially 'great' o lines can - get the ball out.

Evaluating an OC and O line play is murky when the common denominator in their respective success is one player doing his job correctly.

That's not to say we haven't had some duds on the O line. But the notion that there's some embedded flaw on the team is at best, difficult to prove.

The failure of the O line last year are plainly obvious (unlike prior years). Not stout at center and waning performance from the rookies.

To say that it's unlikely Geno will get sacked any less next year because Pete is his coach, just flatly ignores evidence right in front of you.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Matt got sacked 29 times but he only played 14 games. If you include the playoffs, Matt got sack a total of 33 times w/ a sack average of 2.29 per game which he was in the top 10 most sacked that season. What's alarming though is when Matt played for Tennessee the following season, he only got sacked 19 times in a full 16 game season. He was ranked #1 LEAST sacked starting QB that season.

And what was his average over his tenure with Holmgren?
 

rcaido

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
2,213
Reaction score
491
And what was his average over his tenure with Holmgren?
2.2 sacks

Going from top 10 most sacked to being the least sack is kind of surprising don't you think. I just found that out today.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Are you saying that holmgren was less capable at building an o line and giving the qb what he needed than whoever the Titans coach was when Hass was there?
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
The Oline has been a revolving door with Carroll. New pieces are always put into place and it never seems to work out. Is it the philosophy and schemes or is it poor coaching and development? What if Smith is atop of the most sacked QB's again next season (which I believe he will be)? What will the excuses be? At some point the inadequacies of the QB blame need to be put to rest as the answers lay somewhere else.
On the matter of Pete not doing his best to protect his Quarterbacks, you again are allowing your strong disliking for Pete Carroll to cloud you from the truth of the matter.
As I said in other posts, Wilson is not your typical Quarterback, and there are no such O-Linemen who can REALISTICALLY hold off a Defensive attack indefinitely.
Russ has conditioned his play to what has worked best for HIM, in the past, and when he was younger & faster, the trade-off was scrambling his way OUT of Pass Protection and being sacked a bunch more than was necessary.
As far as your asserting that Pete not doing anything to bolster the O-Line? that is just false, IN THE PAST, Pete went out and got Tom Cable to develop his Run First Offensive attack, He did that because he knew that Pounding Defenses like that not only wore those Defenses out, it softened up the opposition so the Quarterback would have a much easier time closing out the game in "The Fourth Quarter", and Russ, with his ability (& youth) this was a great fit for his Sandlot Style of Play.
So now is where you say, well then, how come Geno Smith is getting sacked so much?, Easy answer, The O-Line that he played behind was pretty much the SAME line, and in a transition away from a Scrambling Russell Wilson style of play.
Don't believe me?, then explain why the very first guy they go after in last years Draft was LT Charles Cross, and then bring in Lucas in the same Draft, and then follow up with Drafting Olu Olu & Bradford in this years retooling Draft.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
You didn't respond to the points I made to the contrary.

Matt didn't suffer the same sack fate as the others.

The lines that were assembled in front of TJack and Russ were put together ahead of qbs who were challenged to do the one thing that great qbs who play behind perennially 'great' o lines can - get the ball out.

Evaluating an OC and O line play is murky when the common denominator in their respective success is one player doing his job correctly.

That's not to say we haven't had some duds on the O line. But the notion that there's some embedded flaw on the team is at best, difficult to prove.

The failure of the O line last year are plainly obvious (unlike prior years). Not stout at center and waning performance from the rookies.

To say that it's unlikely Geno will get sacked any less next year because Pete is his coach, just flatly ignores evidence right in front of you.

So you want me to reflect on an anomaly season in which Hass only started 14 games and Pete Carrolls first as coach? Hass left the following season so there isnt a lot to go by.

Yes, its a murky subject, but one that seems legit. Especially when a QB went publicly about it.

To think Geno will not be one of the most sacked QBs next season is flatly ignoring evidence that is right in front of you.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
On the matter of Pete not doing his best to protect his Quarterbacks, you again are allowing your strong disliking for Pete Carroll to cloud you from the truth of the matter.
As I said in other posts, Wilson is not your typical Quarterback, and there are no such O-Linemen who can REALISTICALLY hold off a Defensive attack indefinitely.
Russ has conditioned his play to what has worked best for HIM, in the past, and when he was younger & faster, the trade-off was scrambling his way OUT of Pass Protection and being sacked a bunch more than was necessary.
As far as your asserting that Pete not doing anything to bolster the O-Line? that is just false, IN THE PAST, Pete went out and got Tom Cable to develop his Run First Offensive attack, He did that because he knew that Pounding Defenses like that not only wore those Defenses out, it softened up the opposition so the Quarterback would have a much easier time closing out the game in "The Fourth Quarter", and Russ, with his ability (& youth) this was a great fit for his Sandlot Style of Play.
So now is where you say, well then, how come Geno Smith is getting sacked so much?, Easy answer, The O-Line that he played behind was pretty much the SAME line, and in a transition away from a Scrambling Russell Wilson style of play.
Don't believe me?, then explain why the very first guy they go after in last years Draft was LT Charles Cross, and then bring in Lucas in the same Draft, and then follow up with Drafting Olu Olu & Bradford in this years retooling Draft.

Once again, its not about Wilson. Its about the other QB's under Carroll that also take large amount of sacks.

Is Cable really a defense for your point? Good lord, he was terrible in Seattle. Heck the first year he went back to the Raiders, Carr was sacked 51 times. I understand what you are saying about the Run First Offense but that in turn has low regards for QB protection. In order to set up your QB to close the game out in the fourth, the QB has to make it to the fourth. Seattle was very lucky that Wilson was so resilient for so long because the guy got killed out there.

And you say that the line was broken because of Wilson and thats why Geno was sacked so much and the reason they drafted tackles and brought in free agents, etc,,,? I think the real answer is that it just wasnt any good and Pete is trying to retool it once again. We'll see how successful it is this time around.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
So you want me to reflect on an anomaly season in which Hass only started 14 games and Pete Carrolls first as coach? Hass left the following season so there isnt a lot to go by.

Yes, its a murky subject, but one that seems legit. Especially when a QB went publicly about it.

To think Geno will not be one of the most sacked QBs next season is flatly ignoring evidence that is right in front of you.
There's no evidence other than drawing circumstantial parallels. And this I say in the context of the position that an increased number of sacks negatively impacting win probability. I say that, because in a system where the philosophy is to take a sack over an int or at best, dangerous incompletion, sacks are going to be higher.

To judge whether the philosophy in practice is successful, you'd have to correlate completion percentage and int rate. It woukd stand to reason, that if you are telling your qb to take a sack, that his int rate shoukd be lower, and completion percentage, higher.

How does that stack up? Geno set the franchise record for completion percentage and Russ was always great with keeping the ball safe.

Another correlation to sacks in a system that prefers them to turning over the ball? Team DVOA - the idea being that if your philosophy is to lean on a team approach where a punt, and relying on defense and special teams is preferred to tossing an int, your overall strength of performance as a team shoukd be higher. What was the result with Pete ? Until 2019, the only coach in league history to place 3 teams in the top 20. When did we divert from the path we were on and the team Pete originally built (and all the momentum that went along with it)? 2015.

But let's just ignore that for the sake of framing Pete as blind when it comes to contributing to the poor performance of his qb and team due to his ignorance in being able to provide adequate protection.

The O line will be a strength this year. IF Geno keeps his Sh+t together, he will be better, and like the pre 2016 teams, we will have a high ranking DVOA monster.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
 
Last edited:

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,409
Reaction score
1,957
There's no evidence other than drawing circumstantial parallels. And this I say in the context of the position that an increased number of sacks negatively impacting win probability. I say that, because in a system where the philosophy is to take a sack over an int or at best, dangerous incompletion, sacks are going to be higher.

To judge whether the philosophy in practice is successful, you'd have to correlate completion percentage and int rate. It woukd stand to reason, that if you are telling your qb to take a sack, that his int rate shoukd be lower, and completion percentage, higher.

How does that stack up? Geno set the franchise record for completion percentage and Russ was always great with keeping the ball safe.

Another correlation to sacks in a system that prefers them to turning over the ball? Team DVOA - the idea being that if your philosophy is to lean on a team approach where a punt, and relying on defense and special teams is preferred to tossing an int, your overall strength of performance as a team shoukd be higher. What was the result with Pete ? Until 2019, the only coach in league history to place 3 teams in the top 20. When did we divert from the path we were on and the team Pete originally built (and all the momentum that went along with it)? 2015.

But let's just ignore that for the sake of framing Pete as blind when it comes to contributing to the poor performance of his qb and team due to his ignorance in being able to provide adequate protection.

The O line will be a strength this year. IF Geno keeps his Sh+t together, he will be better, and like the pre 2016 teams, we will have a high ranking DVOA monster.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

There is a lot of variables to take into account. The amount of sacks the QBs take under Pete Carroll was staggering to me and for a QB to go publicly asking for better protection was eye opening.

They diverted from the original approach after a single play call destroyed it all. The locker room was lost and people left or didnt buy in anymore. Who's fault was that? They still had good to great regular seasons but failed in the post season afterwards.

Asking the present team to have a DVOA like the pre 2016 teams is asking a lot. The make-up is totally different. Right now the team seems to have a deep backfield but who knows how effective it will be. The defense is suspect at best and will be nowhere near what those pre 2016 defenses were.

I dont know where this overwhelming evidence is coming from that you see.
 
Last edited:

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,810
Location
Cockeysville, Md
There is a lot of variables to take into account. The amount of sacks the QBs take under Pete Carroll was staggering to me and for a QB to go publicly asking for better protection was eye opening.

They diverted from the original approach after a single play call destroyed it. The locker room was lost and people left or didnt buy in anymore. Who's fault was that? They still had good to great regular seasons but failed in the post season afterwards.

Asking the present team to have a DVOA like the pre 2016 teams is asking a lot. The make-up is totally different. Right now the team seems to gave a deep backfield but who knows how effective it will be. The defense is suspect at best and will be nowhere near what those pre 2016 defenses were.

I dont know where this overwhelming evidence is coming from that you see.

To Russ bringing up the protection. It's not evidence of how bad it was. It was Russ diverting blame from himself and placing it on the offense. The same offense Russ failed in, Geno excelled. The same offense Russ got sacked 40 plus times in, Geno did as well, AND set franchise records in a few categories, garnered MVP attentio and won CPOTY, while relying on 2 rookies and an outmatched center.

Russ blames the running centric attack as well. Too conservative he said. What was credited in turning the 2021 team around? The running game. 2020? Same.

Did Geno have issues with the running game? No. Other than when it broke. Was he slinging it, bent on accumulating stats? No.

You are taking the arguments of a player who was trying to position himself for his next big payday, knowing he wasnt going to get it from his current team. Why? Because they knew his game. Who didnt know? The Broncos, Eagles and anyone but the DCs and players who faced Russ on a regular basis. To all but them he'd reached HOF status.

So he went about solidifying the positive spin, and casting any doubt in his game to his coaches.

Did Russ suffer some tough years behind the line? Yes. But if it was the abomination you and he claimed, he nor Geno wouldnt have put up all time numbers behind it.

1.Some sacks are due to failure of blocking.

2. Some sacks are due to poor play on the qbs part.

3. And some are due to philosophy.

In Seattle, the proportion of those in category 2 and 3 was likely considerably higher than average given the overall attitude toward TOs and the player who was under center.

So every conversation about line play, in retrospect, needs to start with those three basic ideas. And if you are taking whatever Russ said, you have to take it with the understanding that ANY admission that his game was ANYTHUNG other than HOF worthy was a dollar out of his pocket. If he agreed with Seattle's perspective on his play, that woukd resulted in him swallowing his pride and taking less money.

If he openly said, ' we struggle at times because I STRUGGLE to decipher defense and can't always see my Wr's' , that would be money out of his pocket from whatever team he was going to and diminish his ability to go where he wanted.

You just can't look at these things in isolation.

What you can definitely say, is that the protection was good enough for Geno to out up all franchise type numbers. And, the weaknesses we suffered last year will no doubt be addressed by our tackles having more experience, bringing on two interior lineman (and by all measures, outstanding players) to man Center and Guard.

That's direct evidence. That's cause and effect. That's directly addressing a weakness that isn't muddled over by slow qb play and is helped immensely by being able to see game in and game out how okays are designed, which work and which don't. Which blocking schemes are effective, which lineman played well and which didn't. ALL OF THAT was exceedingly difficult to determine with Russ running his own offense.

That's gone. The players and system we gave in place now are solid, and can grow through adjustments game to game and season to season.

It's obvious.
 
Top