"Pete" ball defined -

[Uncle Si]

Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

Asking for a friend.

So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.

The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

Asking for a friend.

So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.

Perhaps you can show me were I said we should keep him?

Maybe be more clear when you post, instead of just writing a rhetorical statement about Pete's coaching accomplishments insinuating that you support him.

 

[mistaowen]

I will forever trust Pete Carroll running the defense and for the most part the entire team. His vision as a HC has absolutely been successful. The offensive side of the ball worked when we had a guy like Marshawn who got better as the game went, turned a tackle for loss into a 4 yard play, and had a defense setting historic records. As players got older, other teams learned how to attack the defense and these close game the Hawks would win turned into close losses. Given all the turnover, this defense is playing at a much higher level than I ever expected.

However, the offense is getting worse and has been for 2.5 years. There are no adaptations or new wrinkles to what has been figured out. The route trees are insanely simple and defenders beat the receivers to their spot regularly. We brought in a new, boring guy who takes 75% of Pete's already declining offense and seem to be putting Russell into game manager mode. Russell throwing for under 200, maybe 1 or 2 TD's, and winning a low scoring ball controlled game is Pete's dream. Today's offenses are throwing for 300+ yards a game with ease by combination of scheme and personnel. I don't see a roster currently that can win against the new era of offense and needs something new on offense to compete. Cards dropped a handful of huge passes yesterday that likely change the outcome of the game, above average teams will capitalize every time.

*Edit - I know firing coaches mid season can be hit or miss but I really wish they pulled a Bengals and fired Schotty to bring in a new guy who fits Russell better. I forever thought Dalton would be the reason the Bengals are 1 and done in the playoffs but he's been lights out since that change last year. I couldn't tell you a specific name of someone to bring in, there are a bunch in college I would be interested in, but we have to bring someone in who can build an offense around Russell's strengths.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Someone mentioned the defense looks good.

It doesn't look great.

Pete needs great players to win. Not good.

Pete used to be very good at finding and developing great players. But he has not done that in years - at least not much better than other teams that can also do the normal HC stuff too.

Without that ability to contribute that additional value, he does not have any because most of the other things you want in a HC he cannot do or does below average to poorly. He was always so good at that turning diamonds in the rough into Top 5 players at their position, he could get by on it. But that no longer applies. It is like when a speedster WR loses his speed, but never had the route running or hands otherwise.

Pete is a 2 trick pony that hasn't shown or been able to do his best trick in a while. Not even sure he can anymore.

Without that, Pete ball cannot work and doesn't. So we get this record-breaking garbage that we call an offense.

Breaking records like:

Least TDs over a span of games.
Lowest scoring in the 1st half over a season.
Longest span of 1st drives without a score.

And shooting for # of 3rd downs in a row without a conversion.

These are all symptoms of an offense that is either ill-suited to the personnel or poorly schemed/conceived in the first place. And yet Pete is still focusing on 'his' preferred offense that does not work and won't work because he never bothered to hire a good OC, he hired an obedient one instead.

 

[rjdriver]

Unfortunately, for the most part I agree. Pretty frustrating at times.

The OP did omit the part of Pete ball that deals with challenging calls that clearly should not be challenged at a prodigious rate.

 

[Mad Dog]

I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

But my view of Pete Ball is this:
1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
4) It's all about the ball

It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.

 

[brimsalabim]

I would add that the number one goal of the offense it to limit putting the defense into bad positions. The number two goal is to keep the score low. The number three goal is to shorten the game by taking time off the clock. Scoring points is actually goal number 4. Winning is still the end goal number 5 though.

 

[pittpnthrs]

The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.

Si's right. This is where the fanbase gets split. Some believe Pete can rebuild and turn the team around and some dont (not getting into reasons for either side). The big question is how long of a leash does Paul Allen allow him? The guys the oldest coach in the league and his contract is up after next season. If he's going to be successful in rebuilding the team, he doesnt have long to do it in my opinion.

 

[Seymour]

I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

But my view of Pete Ball is this:
1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
4) It's all about the ball

It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.

Wrong! Penalty on defense can be huge, and we just got spotted on the 1 in fact.

1) Complete to offense
2) Incomplete
3) Intercepted
4) Penalty on defense
5) Penalty on offense

 

[adeltaY]

I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

But my view of Pete Ball is this:
1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
4) It's all about the ball

It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.

The Eagles played two games with Nick Foles at QB and they just got Wentz back off an injury he sustained around ten months ago. They also played the red-hot Bucs with Fitzmagic and a 3-1 Titans team. It's not a good comparison.

 

[West TX Hawk]

There's also a Pete Ball component of "feeling out the other team," rope-a-dope and "not wanting to show our hand early"-the concept of you can only win the game when you're in a mad panic desperation mode late in the 4th.

Under the Pete Ball Federal Code, Chapter 48, Sections 25- 31, intimidating defense with strong press coverage is the cornerstone and foundation for success. For situational cuteness on offense, also a Pete Ball staple, see Chapter 49, Sections 3-83 sans section 24 (withdrawn).

 

[hawkfan68]

Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

Asking for a friend.

So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.

The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.

Si, I believe you meant ownership rather than FO. Is that correct? Because Pete, as Executive VP of Football Operations, is part of the FO. So there would be some trust in Pete unless he doesn't trust himself. https://www.seahawks.com/team/coaches-roster/

 

[Mad Dog]

I might be on board with some of this if we get lambasted by the Rams in our house again.

But my view of Pete Ball is this:
1) Stop the Run on defense and Run the ball on offense
2) Nothing Deep, Nothing Cheap in pass defense
3) Risk Averse passing (only 3 things can happen when you pass and 2 of them are bad)
4) It's all about the ball

It's really that simple. Is it unwatchable at times? Depends on what you consider unwatchable. I really liked our running game yesterday and was stoked after Davis' first TD with Russell leading the way.. The passing attack was remedial at times but that doesn't make a game unwatchable for me. I've been a Seahawk fan a long time and tough defense and good rushing attack has defined this franchise for 35 yrs.

Anyways, since we've not had a losing record in the Wilson era, I'm not ready to pull the plug on Pete Ball at this point. Saying the game has passed Pete by when he has the same record as the Eagles, is more wishful thinking, than reality.

The Eagles played two games with Nick Foles at QB and they just got Wentz back off an injury he sustained around ten months ago. They also played the red-hot Bucs with Fitzmagic and a 3-1 Titans team. It's not a good comparison.

Not sure a team that won 2 games at the beginning of the season can be considered "red hot". And that same Bucs team got blasted by a Bears team that barely beat us.

And I'm pretty sure Nick Foles won the SB last year.

All NFL teams are hard and the gaps between best and worst are not the same as college football. Which is why, "Any Given Sunday" is a thing. Fact is, you are what your record says you are. Right now we are 2-2 on a 2 game win streak and haven't lost by more than 7 yet.

I think the rumors of Pete's demise may be a bit premature. We shall see if all the nay-sayers are right but I'm not throwing in the towel this soon in a season.

 

[Uncle Si]

Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

Asking for a friend.

So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.

The simple question here is does the FO trust Pete to guide the team back through the talent development and acquisition process and into the playoffs again.

He was successful once. The team is not up to it at the moment.

What now? Blaming PC takes some work. But saying it's time to move on doesn't really.

Si, I believe you meant ownership rather than FO. Is that correct? Because Pete, as Executive VP of Football Operations, is part of the FO. So there would be some trust in Pete unless he doesn't trust himself. https://www.seahawks.com/team/coaches-roster/

yes... that is what I was meaning.

Thanks!

 

[Steve2222]

Can anyone of you here tell me another Seahawks HC who has taken us to multiple SBs? Or has won a SB with this team?

Asking for a friend.

So we should keep him because we won a SB five years ago and made another four years ago? After which we made it to the divisional round twice, got beat cleanly twice, and then missed the playoffs.

We now no longer have the talent to play Pete Ball and he hasn't adapted the offense. Defense looks good, I must say, for the talent and experience level. The offense was supposed to carry though, and they simply haven't.

Perhaps you can show me were I said we should keep him?

Oh stop with your passive agrresive non sense. Your post is clearly implying that he should not be fired.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Someone mentioned the defense looks good.

It looks better than most of us including myself thought it'd look.

Unfortunately the offense still looks like the same old frustrating offense we've come to know and hate over the past couple of years.

Which makes sense, cause Pete knows how to develop defenses, he knows body types, fits and how to scheme on defense. But he's stuck in the stone age on offense still, and that's probably never going to change.

He's said it many many times, he wants to control the ball, run, be physical........and not have an offense dependent on the QB. Voila, I give you our offense in a nutshell.

 

[semiahmoo]

Pete Ball is a slogging, barely watchable offensive system that relies on rare talent at RB and a generational defense to be effective. Otherwise, you just end up with the most boring .500 team in the league

Agreed.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Pete Carroll views his offense as having one job: keeping the toxic differential low. All of his routes, and offensive concepts are designed specifically to minimize turnover potential. This is why short yardage timing passes over the middle that are the bread and butter of modern NFL teams are missing from the Seahawks playbook. He also favors the big play, to him that is what breaks teams. One of the way he tries to catch teams off balance is to run plays at times where it makes the most sense to run something else. Occasionally it works, but most of the time it provides us with stalled drives. Teams are expecting this from the Seahawks.

I think the biggest indictment against Pete ball is the fact that we haven't scored a TD on our first possession in over two years. No other NFL team has accomplished this feat. An indication of how bad an offense is, is the scripted plays.

The problem with Pete is he approaches the game the same way every time with no regard for personnel or match ups. Even the rigid Mike Holmgren was capable of abandoning, and changing up his philosophy based on the enemies strengths/weaknesses and his own teams strengths/weaknesses. A good example of this is in 2007. He saw that our line was bad, and our running game was non-existent. He said "i'm going to go back to my roots" and he implemented a Bill Walsh style west coast offense that used the shotgun quite frequently, a formation he did not like much. As a result the Seahawks had a very good offense that year despite lacking WR talent and a running game.

 

[mrt144]

Pete Carroll views his offense as having one job: keeping the toxic differential low. All of his routes, and offensive concepts are designed specifically to minimize turnover potential. This is why short yardage timing passes over the middle that are the bread and butter of modern NFL teams are missing from the Seahawks playbook. He also favors the big play, to him that is what breaks teams. One of the way he tries to catch teams off balance is to run plays at times where it makes the most sense to run something else. Occasionally it works, but most of the time it provides us with stalled drives. Teams are expecting this from the Seahawks.

I think the biggest indictment against Pete ball is the fact that we haven't scored a TD on our first possession in over two years. No other NFL team has accomplished this feat. An indication of how bad an offense is, is the scripted plays.

The problem with Pete is he approaches the game the same way every time with no regard for personnel or match ups. Even the rigid Mike Holmgren was capable of abandoning, and changing up his philosophy based on the enemies strengths/weaknesses and his own teams strengths/weaknesses. A good example of this is in 2007. He saw that our line was bad, and our running game was non-existent. He said "i'm going to go back to my roots" and he implemented a Bill Walsh style west coast offense that used the shotgun quite frequently, a formation he did not like much. As a result the Seahawks had a very good offense that year despite lacking WR talent and a running game.

The puckish sprite in me says "Isn't a 3 and Out a turnover as well?" :evil:

 

[justafan]

I love an offense that rams the ball down peoples throats.I will take a team winning 23 17 and running for 170 yds over winning 45 42.

We all knew after the huge turnover we had from last year we couldnt replace the all that talent that was lost.We were going to have a mediocre team.As long as these guys keep playing as hard as they are things will get better.

With a QB like Wilson Bevel was actually a better oc than Schotty. Wilson wont be a QB like the Bradys or even Goff.He is one of a kind. I want him out there being the playmaker he has been. I want him out there running for 4 or 500 yds a season putting pressure on the perimeter.

It reminds me of his first years, low on talent he circled around a strong running game while building a young D.

I hope Pete retires here myself.I will take the good with the bad.