Good Field Gulls article on Pete

http://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/4/7/1522 ... were-right

The premise is that this is the first time that Pete is dealing with veteran players beyond 4-5 years buying into the plan and he needs to evolve to handle it. The topic is somewhat underlying most of the discussions of late regarding whether the veteran(s) are no longer listening.

To build upon this, I contend that we are in the middle of seeing the evolution on how Pete moves forward.

I do think he's going to more rigid on the protect the team mantra. Harvin clearly broke it in volatile fashion and they shipped him out. They coddled Lynch's quirks up until the production didn't exceed the PITA factor and were silently happy that he retired. With Sherman, they are taking a harder line that may result in trading him.

The system (Draft, Free Agency, Cap) leads you to roster turnover organically anyway as 10-20 players come and go annually. That said, the Seahawks have been as committed as anyone to keeping their core guys. Granted, some good players have left like Tate, Maxwell, McDonald, Irvin, Smith, etc. but no "star" player has not been retained for 2nd contracts.

Now, however, those core guys on big 2nd contracts are on the back end of those deals and in the 28-31 age group and you also have some younger guys coming up on possible 2nd contracts such as Britt, Clark, and Lockett.

If you look at the names of upcoming free agents for 2018 and 2019, the only core players excluded are Wilson, Wagner, Bennett, and Baldwin. There will be some guys not getting 3rd contracts among Kam, Graham, Earl, Sherman, Avril, etc.

I fully expect the draft to be heavy on defense to address this transition of the core as time marches on. Ironically, it also may be a huge factor in helping Pete ensure that his messaging gets through to everyone.

Excellent thought provoking article. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I tend to assume last year was an exercise in reloading with youth .... particularly on offense. Their post season review concluded they were too aggressive in becoming too young to fast. I'm intrigue with the thought that their 2017 efforts to reload on defense will need to be more measured and adjusted to capitalize on lessons learned in 2016.

In recent years, I've more closely followed changes to the coaching staff. Although rarely discussed, roster churn is also present with the coaching and scouting staff. Program changes make each season is unique. Change is good.

Thanks for posting :2thumbs:

I thought that was a fair, even-handed piece. Good vocabulary and style, too, that guy should be writing for ESPN. Pete is in new territory for him; he's never had to stick with a team for this long until the NFL.

I don't entirely blame Pete for the Sherman situation - I mean this is Richard Sherman for crying out loud. It's not as if Pete has had these kinds of problems with anyone else. As the writer mentioned, the Kam and Bennett issues have resolved themselves just fine. Sherman would present a unique problem for any coach. He's just a loudmouth, to a greater degree than anyone else on the team.

If any coach can adapt to Sherman, I imagine it's Pete. Pete has been at the forefront of numerous NFL adjustments already. He's redefined how the league plays.

I still refuse to believe that there's an emergency on this team. Take away the Sherman factor and the only issue is a handful of bandwagon fans who are traumatized over not getting T.J. Lang and think that making the playoffs every year is mediocrity. That's not a crisis.

interesting read...

I'll be curious to watch how Pete handles this next wave transition....I find quite odd currently with all the saber rattling with Sherman, on one hand clearly Pete is done with any outbursts.....but on the other hand---just WHAT is the plan if Sherm is gone, its not like we have guys to fill his shoes that have been shadowing our system, last season was enough evidence in just how thin we are at LOB depth ..... obviously PC/JS have a plan, and likely plan B too....I just find unusual to flaunt out our best player without solid backup (and no Lane or thorpe don't really qualify imo)....I really hope the team is actually addressing the problem and not just the symptom as it appears.

....and who know how well or when Earl is going to play post injury?.....Sure we can go deep into the draft pulling these positions, but that doesn't mean any or all can be starting positions.....just relying on the draft seems pretty thin strategy for right now positions.

The Post Dan Quinn era has already shown some challenges....I just hope the bottom was last season.

I actually think the way they are handling the Sherman situation is perfect and brilliant.

They made it clear that he crossed the line last year in his behavior. His reaction to Pete was poor and was to request them to explore trade options, which they complied to while explaining that they will only deal him for fair value. He's involved in the process so he's aware of what the options are and how they value him in terms of trade compensation. That enables Sherman to see what true options and value he has as opposed to the traditional being told method. The outcome is either a reinvigorated, dedicated Sherman or they get a reasonable haul for him.

And then there’s the example of USC, where Carroll didn’t have to deal with inculcating aging malcontents or millionaires—and still failed to enjoy the same burst of success the program reached in its first half of his decade there. The Trojans won two national championships and appeared in a third epic title game between the 2001 and 2005 seasons. Despite three more Pac-10 crowns and four more bowl wins, the team never afterward met the lofty expectations established during the crest of Carroll’s time in Los Angeles. By Carroll’s final year (and before the NCAA sanctions) USC was merely 9-4, its first season with more than two losses since his initial season when he was rebuilding that fallen program.

Click to expand...

As someone who follows college football intently, I find this to be a gross characterization of Carroll's tenure at USC.

Carroll's USC teams finished ranked in the Top 4 of the AP Poll for SEVEN-consecutive years. For seven years, they were arguably THE best team in the nation. No other head coach in the modern era of college football has every accomplished that feat . . . not Nick Saban, not even Bear Bryant. Saban has also had seven-Top 4 finishes in his 20+ year career, but not consecutively.

In addition to Carroll's National Championships in 2003 (split with LSU, due to a controversial computer formula, which overruled the coaches and AP voters who both had USC ranked #1) and 2004, Carroll also constructed championship-caliber football teams in 2006, 2002, 2007, and 2008.

Had the current college football playoff system existed during that time, those teams would have had the opportunity to compete for more titles on the field. But instead, they were bypassed in favor of other teams with similar qualifications and the same records (LSU in 2007, Florida in 2008). Carroll's 2008 team, in particular, may have been his best all-around team and perhaps the most dominant defense in college football history.

Carroll went 103-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points at USC (an NCAA record). He then went on to set the same record in the NFL: 76-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points, until Earl Thomas went down this passed season.

To say Carroll never "met the lofty expectations" after 2005 is an overly simplistic caricature of what was actually an historically successful college football tenure.

hawknation2017":vfgqj652 said:

And then there’s the example of USC, where Carroll didn’t have to deal with inculcating aging malcontents or millionaires—and still failed to enjoy the same burst of success the program reached in its first half of his decade there. The Trojans won two national championships and appeared in a third epic title game between the 2001 and 2005 seasons. Despite three more Pac-10 crowns and four more bowl wins, the team never afterward met the lofty expectations established during the crest of Carroll’s time in Los Angeles. By Carroll’s final year (and before the NCAA sanctions) USC was merely 9-4, its first season with more than two losses since his initial season when he was rebuilding that fallen program.

Click to expand...

As someone who follows college football intently, I find this to be a gross characterization of Carroll's tenure at USC.

Carroll's USC teams finished ranked in the Top 4 of the AP Poll for SEVEN-consecutive years. For seven years, they were arguably THE best team in the nation. No other head coach in the modern era of college football has every accomplished that feat . . . not Nick Saban, not even Bear Bryant. Saban has also had seven-Top 4 finishes in his 20+ year career, but not consecutively.

In addition to Carroll's National Championships in 2003 (split with LSU, due to a controversial computer formula, which overruled the coaches and AP voters who both had USC ranked #1) and 2004, Carroll also constructed championship-caliber football teams in 2006, 2002, 2007, and 2008.

Had the current college football playoff system existed during that time, those teams would have had the opportunity to compete for more titles on the field. But instead, they were bypassed in favor of other teams with similar qualifications and the same records (LSU in 2007, Florida in 2008). Carroll's 2008 team, in particular, may have been his best all-around team and perhaps the most dominant defense in college football history.

Carroll went 103-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points at USC (an NCAA record). He then went on to set the same record in the NFL: 76-consecutive games without losing by more than 10 points, until Earl Thomas went down this passed season.

To say Carroll never "met the lofty expectations" after 2005 is an overly simplistic caricature of what was actually an historically successful college football tenure.

Click to expand...

Great post!

What happened in 2009 to Carroll is reminiscent of the last couple seasons in that injuries played a predominant role. In 2009, basically USC's entire defensive two-deep left for the NFL and the freshmen newcomers suffered a series of injuries after being thrust prematurely into starting roles.

The same thing happened to Carroll in 2005, but that year he could lean on his dynamic offense to win games. Mark Sanchez also declared for the draft in 2009, which meant Carroll would have to start a true freshman at QB. And thus, much to Carroll's chagrin, he would not be able to lean on a veteran offense while his defense matured.

USC still led the conference in scoring defense in 2009 and won their bowl game (versus a young Matt Ryan), but they were a far cry from the dominant standard they had set during the prior seven years. Much like the defense that Seahawks fans witnessed after the Earl Thomas injury was hardly recognizable as the NFL's #1 scoring defense Carroll had led for the previous 4.5 years, 76-consecutive games.

Great article and further confirms the idea first voiced by some last season that Carroll was facing an increasingly daunting task in trying to keep the team moving forward.

The idea that his considerable college experience makes him a 3-4 season coach player-wise, and interesting one. Hadn't thought of that before.

Great thread, great dialogue. Gives me hope for this place.

Yes, definitely a good article that's certainly very thought provoking. I'll give you guys a bit different spin on this -- and maybe one that a lot of us can relate to. Why is it that children often appear to completely tune us out? They DO and that's because as parents, very often we can find ourselves having the same lecture, the same sermon with your son or daughter -- over and over again. They've heard the same message ... the same song and dance REPEATEDLY -- so much so that they can eventually probably perform it for you. Like the teacher in Peanuts, it's like this is all they hear from us eventually ...

[youtube]XrbumvF-Oe4[/youtube]

Same exact thing happens with coaches. If you look back through the history of the NFL, why is it that the tenure of most coaches is around 4 years or so? I would argue part of the reason is because players get used to ... and then eventually tune out coaches. The message that worked at first is no longer effective because they've heard it all before.

The key to long term sustained success is then is for coaches:

1) to get a core group of players on board who truly buy in (these are your guys who will espouse the same message as you)

2) To adapt and constantly come up with new insights or find ways to repackage the same message in different ways

3) To say goodbye to players who for whatever reason stop buying in and become a hindrance to the rest of the team.

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

semiahmoo":3e7r32yc said:

Great article and further confirms the idea first voiced by some last season that Carroll was facing an increasingly daunting task in trying to keep the team moving forward.

The idea that his considerable college experience makes him a 3-4 season coach player-wise, and interesting one. Hadn't thought of that before.

Click to expand...

The simplified version of this is that it comes down to good drafting or recruiting (college sense). The NFL system allows you to have control of a player for 4 or 5 years. I think people really gloss over a big part of the problem with the last 2 Seahawks teams (and even the 2014 team had some major flaws) is that the drafting in 2013 and 2014 specifically was just bad. Hence when it came time for those guys to step up, they were not there come 2015 and 2016. Thankfully, 2015 and 2016 drafts look to have been more productive.

Personally, I think the idea of veteran players tuning him out is somewhat exaggerated but it's clear that it does happen in cases like Harvin, Lynch, and Sherman 2016. Even so, I think Pete saw that he needs to be firmer on the boundaries as time goes on. Likewise, much to some people's chagrin, we are going to see some churn in the core as the 3rd contracts start coming up when these guys hit 30 ish.

Of course, you have to be in position to replace them with comparable talent or your hosed no matter how great the coach is.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not convinced we have a clear picture of Pete and Richard's relationship. What message, if any, the trade talks are supposed to deliver. What I do know (at least I think I know) is Pete's style of "parenting" is positive, but it also rely's on personal responsibility. Be who you are, be all you can be, but perform at your highest level or your gone. So whatever discord exists for Richard, I believe Pete's way of dealing with it will be to continue to deliver his message of always compete, and even if they tune it out, as all teenagers eventually do, they will, if they continue to grow, find new meaning and relevance to the message. Pete treats them like adults, he's not interested in strong arming players to act a certain way. He's willing to let them make mistakes as he thinks he can use that to continue learning, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the core of his style. A bit high wire act, a bit clown and more than bit of heart.

Hawkscanner":kqyiw5t7 said:

You know, I know that in New England that Bill Belichick has seemingly jettisoned players each and every year throughout the years. I know that in a lot of cases, that's because of cap space issues. BUT, I just wonder, just wonder, if part of the reason is ALSO because Belichick doesn't want guys hanging around too long. Better to have a constant supply of fresh blood who is always hearing the message anew (constantly having fresh sets of hears to hear the same old message) ... than to have too many crusty old veterans hanging around who could have the potential to spread negativity and spoil things. When people hang around too long, that's when they start to see the chinks in the armor.
Veterans KNOW where the weak spots are and are at greater risk of becoming that complainer -- that rotten apple that just might spoil the rest of the bunch. Just a thought.

Click to expand...

---------------------

Belichik is a genius and top 3 NFL coach of all time.

Pete is not. The article sort of makes your point. Pete has a college-heavy coaching experience career in which there is natural player turnover so his message doesn't risk getting stale like it would in the pro ranks.

Last year's training camp showed some definite issues management-wise. I came into it thinking the year before was bad but last year, there were times it was a joke out there. Players were clearly tuning him out. He was doing his clapping thing with the music blasting, but half the team was like "meh" been here done that already, Pete.

Also noted how little players paid attention to Russel Wilson, too - and how little he said out there. His fiance was there walking on the field with her son, which was kind of strange, and it seemed to annoy some of the players and the coaches the way she floated around out there. (I was more concerned with the extra weight Russel was carrying. My daughter said she didn't realize he was "so short and fat." He wasn't fat, but he was pushing chunky.)

The O-Line drills proved it was going to be a long season. Russel's passing was so-so. Made me wonder if he was already injured. The defense was lofing it for most the practice. All in all, it was vastly different than the tone and mood of training camps past.

If Pete can turn this around in 2017 it will be a remarkable accomplishment.

The NFL system is largely based on turning over the roster every 3-5 years based on the FA rules and the cap. The Hawks have probably committed more to a large core of players than most teams do and that's where the shift in how they do it going to happen IMO. The core is going to change in the next year or so. Some core guys are not getting 3rd deals. Of course, in order to do that you have to draft like 2010-2012 and not 2013-2014.

In addition, I see competition as a huge theme of this offseason. They have added players and put them in position to truly compete for PT whereas the last couple of teams certainly had more of star starters and meh backups which was highlighted when injuries occurred.

As for the dealings with Sherman, I think it's a clear line that Pete laid out there for him. The sad fact is that Sherman's position is wrong and he refused to acknowledge that and move on. That's where the big beef happened between Carroll and Sherman IMO moreso than the actual incident. I also don't believe that Sherman is speaking for others either like some want to make out of it.

StoneCold":1xxofzpo said:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not convinced we have a clear picture of Pete and Richard's relationship. What message, if any, the trade talks are supposed to deliver. What I do know (at least I think I know) is Pete's style of "parenting" is positive, but it also rely's on personal responsibility. Be who you are, be all you can be, but perform at your highest level or your gone. So whatever discord exists for Richard, I believe Pete's way of dealing with it will be to continue to deliver his message of always compete, and even if they tune it out, as all teenagers eventually do, they will, if they continue to grow, find new meaning and relevance to the message. Pete treats them like adults, he's not interested in strong arming players to act a certain way. He's willing to let them make mistakes as he thinks he can use that to continue learning, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the core of his style. A bit high wire act, a bit clown and more than bit of heart.

Click to expand...

IMHO, the team's response was a warning shot across Sherman's bow to "stay in his lane".
The smartest scenario is to draft a couple or 3 stud corners and everyone competes for a spot. If they are HONESTLY better than Sherm (not likely) then they play and you trade Sherm next year if you feel you need to.

I'm not talking "OK at best" corners like Maxwell and Shead who never got their heads turned around, I'm talking at least
One that is better or equal to better Sherm that get their heads turned around and play the ball.

You don't trade an All-pro CB and create a huge hole because he hurt an assistant coach's and some radio jackholes feelings, that's beyond dumb IMHO! Pete wants players with chips on their shoulders, which means you need to take the "bad" with the good when you have that type of player on your team.

As for Sherm "wanting to be traded" I think that is Sherm just being defiant and stubborn, though he is probably tired of dealing with a certain assistant offensive coach who shall remain nameless.

Sports Hernia":2ku81r0j said:

StoneCold":2ku81r0j said:

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'm not convinced we have a clear picture of Pete and Richard's relationship. What message, if any, the trade talks are supposed to deliver. What I do know (at least I think I know) is Pete's style of "parenting" is positive, but it also rely's on personal responsibility. Be who you are, be all you can be, but perform at your highest level or your gone. So whatever discord exists for Richard, I believe Pete's way of dealing with it will be to continue to deliver his message of always compete, and even if they tune it out, as all teenagers eventually do, they will, if they continue to grow, find new meaning and relevance to the message. Pete treats them like adults, he's not interested in strong arming players to act a certain way. He's willing to let them make mistakes as he thinks he can use that to continue learning, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if that's at the core of his style. A bit high wire act, a bit clown and more than bit of heart.

Click to expand...

IMHO, the team's response was a warning shot across Sherman's bow to "stay in his lane".
The smartest scenario is to draft a couple or 3 stud corners and everyone competes for a spot. If they are HONESTLY better than Sherm (not likely) then they play and you trade Sherm next year if you feel you need to.

I'm not talking "OK at best" corners like Maxwell and Shead who never got their heads turned around, I'm talking at least
One that is better or equal to better Sherm that get their heads turned around and play the ball.

You don't trade an All-pro CB and create a huge hole because he hurt an assistant coach's and some radio jackholes feelings, that's beyond dumb IMHO! Pete wants players with chips on their shoulders, which means you need to take the "bad" with the good when you have that type of player on your team.

As for Sherm "wanting to be traded" I think that is Sherm just being defiant and stubborn, though he is probably tired of dealing with a certain assistant offensive coach who shall remain nameless.

Click to expand...

You are making a mountain out of a molehill by pitting Sherm against Bevell, but your prior posts indicate you have an agenda, so this is par for the course for you. Fact of the matter is that Sherm just didn't want to see us throw from the 1. Period. Which is kind of weird, but it's a burr in his saddle.

But his discontent stretched over a number of coaches and media type. Maybe even players.

I have great respect for Richard's accomplishments on and off the field. But that respect has waned slightly this past season due to his outbursts on the sidelines and the incident with Moore.

If Richard were a guy working a "real" job rather than a highly paid NFL cornerback, he'd quite possibly be looking for a new position right now. You don't get in your boss' face like that and you don't make your employer's company look bad. In my opinion he has violated both rule one and rule two—he hasn't protected the team and he most definitely was complaining.

By all accounts his parents brought him up to be a thoughtful, hard working young man. Last I'd read, Richard's dad was still working his trash collecting job despite the money now available to the family. I feel Richard needs to look to his father's example and grow up a bit. He's lucky that Pete lets guys be who they are. Most coaches don't. I hope that Richard takes a step back and appreciates just how good he has it right now. If he can't do that, perhaps he does need to go and discover the grass isn't always greener elsewhere.

Whatever happens, I hope things work out well for all.

It's been festering for a while. Sherman became the most vocal critic but others likely feel the same as he does but the team as a whole likely wanted him to chill out as it was becoming on issue on the field.

The team is fractured. Gonna take a whole lot of work to fix that.

The team is fractured because Richard Sherman is upset about stuff?

Drama...