Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Pete Carroll Doesn't Anticipate Coaching Changes

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • Pete just doesn't get it and won't change his ways which means he needs to be fired. He should have been gone after SB INT vs Pats. Carroll has done nothing but cost Hawks in big games. This team hasn't been the same since SB INT and that's a proven fact with 4 straight divisional losses. Ask Lynch, Sherman, Bennett about SB INT. Pete sucks up to Beast Mode bringing him back for PR.

    Most of this fan base and Seattle media especially that little fella Aaron Levine kisses Pete's ass. How anyone can take Carroll seriously after SB Int is beyond me. His phony Rah Rah act is so old and yesterday.

    Since Hawks lost Super Bowl vs New England this team has been mediocre at best.

    Everyone crying for Norton to be fired well Pete brought him back so he should be fired right along with him on that alone.

    https://www.12up.com/posts/pete-carroll ... dygw53n89k

    The Seattle Seahawks are still wildly confident heading into the NFL offseason following their second-round defeat at the hands of the Green Bay Packers this past Sunday. While several other teams in the league are completely jumping ship and have undergone extreme makeover processes for their coaching staffs, Seattle reportedly has no plans to make changes.

    When asked about potential changes to his staff, Pete Carroll's response was simple and blunt: "nothing to talk about."

    Pete Carroll said he doesn't anticipate any changes to the #Seahawks coaching staff, at least not yet.

    "Nothing to talk about," Carroll said.
    — Joe Fann (@Joe_Fann) January 13, 2020

    So either there really are no transitional moves in the works for the Hawks, or Carroll's keeping one heck of a poker face on in lieu of a desired secretive coaching shift.

    While indications point to the former, Carroll made a similar statement heading into the offseason before firing both Tom Cable and Darrell Bevel just a few years earlier.

    Once Bevell departed from the team in 2017, new offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer arrived and immediately became a formidable pairing with Carroll, effectively opening up Seattle's passing airways for an MVP-caliber season for quarterback Russell Wilson. Wilson threw for 4,110 yards and 31 touchdowns in 2019, while the 'Hawks passing attack was third-best in the NFL.

    View this post on Instagram

    The play that sent the @packers to the NFC Championship. #SEAvsGB #NFLPlayoffs

    A post shared by NFL (@nfl) on Jan 12, 2020 at 7:00pm PST

    Many called for the firing of defensive coordinator Ken Norton Jr. after Green Bay's bludgeoning of their secondary Sunday night, especially after he chose not to rush defensive end Jadeveon Clowney on a deciding third-and-nine that gave Aaron Rodgers enough time to complete a first down hook-up with Jimmy Graham. His defense, though, was ranked fourth-best all season in terms of total yards given up before the playoffs.

    Both men, along with the remaining staff members are safe according to Carroll. History, though, may prove otherwise, and it could be Carroll himself whose job is in the most danger up north.
    hawksfansince90
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 179
    Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 5:06 pm


  • Many called for the firing of defensive coordinator Ken Norton Jr. after Green Bay's bludgeoning of their secondary Sunday night, especially after he chose not to rush defensive end Jadeveon Clowney on a deciding third-and-nine that gave Aaron Rodgers enough time to complete a first down hook-up with Jimmy Graham.

    This alone should be the single offense that fires Norton. Your best defensive lineman and rusher and you make him drop back to defend against the pass, and the entire game he's chased after Erin and knocked him around. That is the single dumbest decision for a defensive coach. Period.

    All that being said Norton isn't going anywhere.
    Seahawk_Dan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1066
    Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:12 am
    Location: Bremerton, WA


  • I watched his season ending press conference and when he said “nothing to talk about,” he sort of hesitated just before he said it. I personally took it as there COULD be a change and he wasn’t trying to give away too much. Why not just say “no” without hesitation if he planned on keeping everyone on? Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    James in PA
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1537
    Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:36 pm


  • I would be open to Richard coming back in as a DB coach for us, he is dead nuts on in teaching guys.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 32729
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • I've been trying to find stats on Buckner. I know he had the one year with the Raiders and vastly improved their D-Line play and that people were pretty shocked that Gruden up and fired him. One hit wonder or does he have consistency as a coach?
    Seahawk_Dan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1066
    Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:12 am
    Location: Bremerton, WA


  • I doubt PC fires any assistant coaches now. His greatest strength is loyalty, his biggest weakness is loyalty.
    He had to have his arm twisted by those above to jettison Cable and Bevell. Our best hope is under performing assistant coaches get hired for a head coaching position.
    Sports Hernia
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 30765
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:36 pm
    Location: The pit


  • Too bad he doesn't seem open to a philosophy change on offense.
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 31743
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:39 am
    Location: North Miami Beach, FL


  • Petes gonna be Pete...too old to change, too successful to change. He believes that his way gives him the best chance to win and he's always brought in coordinators who are essentially yes men and as long as they play his ball they'll stay.
    flmmkrz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1983
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:13 pm


  • I don't think it's about change although as I said with Richard unemployed would throw an offer at him to come back and work with the DB'S.

    I would like Pete to look at his approach, he doesn't have to change his philosophy as much as his mentality about the offense in the first half, let them run and get a lead and keep it coming, since the GB game, Wilson and Griffin have both said they want or we need to start faster. This is a rare separation from team speak by Wilson aside from being Pissed off that he was given a piss test and another test while they were cleaning out their lockers after the loss.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 32729
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • chris98251 wrote:I don't think it's about change although as I said with Richard unemployed would throw an offer at him to come back and work with the DB'S.

    I would like Pete to look at his approach, he doesn't have to change his philosophy as much as his mentality about the offense in the first half, let them run and get a lead and keep it coming, since the GB game, Wilson and Griffin have both said they want or we need to start faster. This is a rare separation from team speak by Wilson aside from being Pissed off that he was given a piss test and another test while they were cleaning out their lockers after the loss.

    Wow..
    I have been waiting forever for RW to be the man when it comes
    to PC and this is what I meant..Speak up and force the change.
    It never had to be a lot but that first half crap is what I think we
    all totally agree on...
    IndyHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5500
    Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:42 pm


  • Not rushing Clowney is indefensible.
    hawksfansinceday1
    Silver Supporter
    Silver Supporter
     
    Posts: 24628
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:38 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • I would like to see him bring in an offensive coordinator who wants to run more. I think we got away from it too much.
    endzorn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2748
    Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:14 pm


  • Nobody remembers the '90s around here. Sure, just fire the most successful coach in team history and get a new one! Hell, they grow on trees, you can find them everywhere at a dime-a-dozen!

    One thing to remember about things like Norton's failure to rush Clowney at the end, is that as long as he truly faces facts he will improve. It's a long-standing maxim in auto racing that if a pit crew member screws up and forgets to tighten the lug nuts or something, you don't fire him. You pretty much *know* that particular guy will never do that again. Now if he keeps doing the same thing then he's gone. Meanwhile, if you fire him at the first screwup then the next one may make the same mistake, and firing the offender actually made things worse not better.

    As long as Norton faces facts and owns his screwup.
    GeekHawk
    US Navy ET Nuc
     
    Posts: 7482
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:29 pm
    Location: Orting WA, Great Northwet


  • I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • xray wrote:I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .


    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.
    Tusc2000
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 435
    Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:33 am


  • Tusc2000 wrote:
    xray wrote:I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .


    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.

    No changes = no SB appearances .
    xray
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:29 am
    Location: AZ


  • James in PA wrote:I watched his season ending press conference and when he said “nothing to talk about,” he sort of hesitated just before he said it. I personally took it as there COULD be a change and he wasn’t trying to give away too much. Why not just say “no” without hesitation if he planned on keeping everyone on? Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    +100. :2thumbs:

    Read between the lines and consider the source people! Carroll's choice of words and response indicated change IS coming IMO. It was as close to a yes as you will ever get from Pete at this early stage.
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7251
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:41 pm


  • xray wrote:
    Tusc2000 wrote:
    xray wrote:I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .


    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.

    No changes = no SB appearances .


    It's Pete's team, so changes = no SB appearances too. Because any change would be another Pete disciple or like minded coordinator that's running Pete's schemes and playbooks.

    I have no problem with Norton or Schotty. IMO the reason we didn't make the SB this year was a talent and depth deficit, not scheme or coaching.

    This was not a SB caliber defense, it just wasn't. That was on full display Sunday night in GB against a team that's going to get utterly destroyed in SF.

    Spend 80% of our cap space and draft picks on defense. If that unit doesn't get younger, faster and stronger, next season is going to look a lot like this season.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17455
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    xray wrote:
    Tusc2000 wrote:
    xray wrote:I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .


    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.

    No changes = no SB appearances .


    It's Pete's team, so changes = no SB appearances too. Because any change would be another Pete disciple or like minded coordinator that's running Pete's schemes and playbooks.

    I have no problem with Norton or Schotty. IMO the reason we didn't make the SB this year was a talent and depth deficit, not scheme or coaching.

    This was not a SB caliber defense, it just wasn't. That was on full display Sunday night in GB against a team that's going to get utterly destroyed in SF.

    Spend 80% of our cap space and draft picks on defense. If that unit doesn't get younger, faster and stronger, next season is going to look a lot like this season.

    There is a giant delta between superbowl defense and one of the worst defenses in the league AND one of the worst defenses in franchise history. I dont think that talent is amazing, but its not one of the 3 worst in the league. I think Norton gets $h!t canned.
    Chukarhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2607
    Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 5:14 pm


  • Chukarhawk wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    xray wrote:
    Tusc2000 wrote:
    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.

    No changes = no SB appearances .


    It's Pete's team, so changes = no SB appearances too. Because any change would be another Pete disciple or like minded coordinator that's running Pete's schemes and playbooks.

    I have no problem with Norton or Schotty. IMO the reason we didn't make the SB this year was a talent and depth deficit, not scheme or coaching.

    This was not a SB caliber defense, it just wasn't. That was on full display Sunday night in GB against a team that's going to get utterly destroyed in SF.

    Spend 80% of our cap space and draft picks on defense. If that unit doesn't get younger, faster and stronger, next season is going to look a lot like this season.

    There is a giant delta between superbowl defense and one of the worst defenses in the league AND one of the worst defenses in franchise history. I dont think that talent is amazing, but its not one of the 3 worst in the league. I think Norton gets $h!t canned.


    Believe me, I'm not absolving Pete or Norton, they're culpable with how poorly the defense played this year. But tell me other then Clowney and Wagner who the elite defenders are on the defense?

    D-line was just a bunch of dudes, Wright and Kendricks are good, but not elite. Griffin and Diggs are good, but not elite, and Diggs was only healthy for what, three games?

    Our lack of speed was STARTLINGLY on display in the Arizona game. When your entire defense can't even catch a 220 lb RB running down the field on an 80 yard TD run? That's embarassing dude.

    So make all the coaching and scheme changes you want, it's not going to fix the lack of elite talent and playmakers on defense.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17455
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • James in PA wrote:I watched his season ending press conference and when he said “nothing to talk about,” he sort of hesitated just before he said it. I personally took it as there COULD be a change and he wasn’t trying to give away too much. Why not just say “no” without hesitation if he planned on keeping everyone on? Maybe just wishful thinking on my part.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    He undoubtedly hesitated because of the absurd, & insulting question being asked of him.
    Why would he be any more talkative than Billycheat or any other PROVEN & successful Coach?
    Everybody, KNOWS that Clowney was playing with a core injury ,and until they went out and acquired Diggs, the Defense was in dire need of help in the Secondary, AND, even WITH DIGGS, they were a hell of a long ways from having anything resembling the LOB back there.
    The Run game went into the CRAPPER as soon as Carson & Penny went down, the numerous Offensive Line injuries and yet they still managed to get to the 2nd round of the post season, played a THIRTEEN & THREE Packers IN THEIR HOUSE, and only lose by 5 points, and people are calling for heads to roll? …$.crew that.
    I swear to the tiki god that some Pete haters have unfixable & un-Coachable Learning Disabilities.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7373
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:48 pm


  • I love Pete and hope he can be our HC as long as possible. I was not impressed with Norton however and wouldn’t mind seeing a change at DC. Our defensive stats in so many categories were embarrassing and unacceptable. I don’t think he got the most out of that group by any stretch.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    James in PA
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1537
    Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 3:36 pm


  • GeekHawk wrote:Nobody remembers the '90s around here. Sure, just fire the most successful coach in team history and get a new one! Hell, they grow on trees, you can find them everywhere at a dime-a-dozen!


    We remember the 90s. Watching the games on your rear projection TV, and driving to work in the mad bad totally rad Bronco II. Bag phones still work but may not be the best application.

    Wilson won more games off script than coaching did on script. No Wilson is more detrimental than no Pete. Wilson picks himself off the turf a lot that is a recipe. Every year we seem to talk about injuries.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
    NOLAHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 303
    Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:55 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    xray wrote:
    Tusc2000 wrote:
    xray wrote:I think the term " coaching changes " has 2 meanings...the present staff remains much the same and the present scheme of coaching remains the same ...same old same old .


    We were 10-2 and had the #1 seed before we lost our 3 RBs to injury, not to mention Diggs, our best DB. So sure, let's fire a bunch of coaches just to please a few crazies in the fan base. That makes all the sense in the world.

    No changes = no SB appearances .


    It's Pete's team, so changes = no SB appearances too. Because any change would be another Pete disciple or like minded coordinator that's running Pete's schemes and playbooks.

    I have no problem with Norton or Schotty. IMO the reason we didn't make the SB this year was a talent and depth deficit, not scheme or coaching.

    This was not a SB caliber defense, it just wasn't. That was on full display Sunday night in GB against a team that's going to get utterly destroyed in SF.

    Spend 80% of our cap space and draft picks on defense. If that unit doesn't get younger, faster and stronger, next season is going to look a lot like this season.


    Damn, I want to look to the sky and declare, Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

    This team did not have the talent defensively to compete in the NFC Championship game or Super Bowl, especially with the injuries to Clowney and Diggs. What it did have was the coaches to get them there, but as we have seen repeatedly when a team has two weeks to prepare a game plan to attack the players in our scheme that can be exploited, those teams always have a three score lead after moving up and down the field against us before our coaches can adjust to what they are doing after halftime.

    Offensively, without the injuries we definitely had the horses to compete with anybody in the conference, but I doubt we would do any better than the Texans did against KC if they get past the Titans.
    BASF
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1870
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 3:07 pm


  • Teams that win super bowls have health, coaching, and either a good QB or relentless pass rush.

    We lacked at least 2 of those things.

    So many things have to go right to win a SB. I think from a staff standpoint, our strength and conditioning coach needs to go and so does either the DL coach or Norton. Those were our areas of biggest failure.

    We may like to think that GB is going to the NFCCG because they fired McCarthy but in reality they are going there because Rodgers, Jones, Adams, Graham, the Smith brothers, Clark were healthy. I think they were just missing an OT and CB from their normal starting lineup. The injury gods derail seasons frequently and blaming coaching in that setting is fan blindness.

    You just have to look at our SB season. we walked into that game with a very healthy team and destroyed the Broncos who'd had some late injuries. We then lost two SB's walking in there with significant secondary injuries. Most other times we lost before the SB, we had injuries affecting key areas.

    Next Man Up is a philosophy to keep people thinking positively when stars go down. But it's not a reality.
    Mad Dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1918
    Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:12 am




It is currently Wed Sep 23, 2020 3:03 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information