Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Brian Schottenheimer

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 4:31 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The problem with logic is that we have to use the data.

    The data says that Brian isn't that great of a hire.

    Apparently his greatest accomplishment is not completely being terrible with supposedly terrible offensive personnel.

    But no real successes.


    We can extrapolate and make a suggestion that with better personnel he MIGHT be better. But then again, we supposedly have some terrible offensive personnel too.

    This is a hire that will likely end up being exactly what it seems.

    Generally, with a few fantastic exceptions, people are what their record says they are.

    Bevel was exactly the same guy that Minnesota warned us about. Harvin was too. They didn't change because they played for a different team. They brought the same strengths and weaknesses with them.

    Lynch was very different. That gamble worked. But it misses a lot more than it hits. And this team LOVES to bring on people that they feel can succeed here but that failed to succeed somewhere else.

    The fact the Rams fans are chortling over this supposed pick makes me worried. But maybe this will be the exception that proves the rule? Doubtful but if we are stuck with it then hope is what we got.

    I would rather bring in someone rising with potential and the ability to contribute new ideas/tactics than a nobody with a mediocre resume that hasn't really done much anywhere he landed. But we might apparently be stuck with him.

    Nothing about this selection screams SuperBowl or even, ready to get past the Wildcard round (assuming we make the playoffs again). More like 'Tread water so people don't stop watching or blow off renewing season tickets'. But the joke is the NFL also stands for Not For Long, so Win Forever wasn't likely to last anyway.


    You can use that logic for not bringing in Pete Carroll also, failed in the NFL, went to the College game and had his pick of talent in the Nation and won with it.

    Chemistry of a collective group of people many times shines brighter then the one individual, that's what we have to hope happens here going forward.

    Old groups message went stale as the promotions happened and things were not quite the same after each one. Pete is hitting the full reset button here I think. Hard to catch lighting in a bottle once, doing it twice at least you know it can be done.

    There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2636
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:12 pm
  • Spin Doctor wrote:There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

    As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2245
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:33 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

    As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.



    He was with Andrew Luck for only one season in 2016 and if you look at the numbers he held back Drew Brees's development to a point that the team used the 1st overall pick in the draft on a QB.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2058
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:38 pm
  • I'm quite confused... If Schottenheimer places a "complex" system in place, is that not similar to, or even the same as, being creative, and thus difficult to defend? Isn't that the exact opposite of Bevell whose routes were so simple and predictable?
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1855
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 5:53 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

    As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.

    These "unfair" opportunities seem to follow the man around. Is it the places themselves, or Schottenheimers failure as a coach? There is a bad trend that is going on 10 years now. He has been a coach with the Jets, Rams, and the Georgia Bull Dogs, and in each of these instances his offense has woefully underachieved. Also, your version of what happened in 09/10 was much different than Jets fans:

    http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/ ... mer.89799/

    Maybe he keeps taking these opportunities because that is all he can get. He is not a good OC, and quite frankly I think he is a downgrade from Bevell.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2636
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:03 pm
  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

    As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.

    These "unfair" opportunities seem to follow the man around. Is it the places themselves, or Schottenheimers failure as a coach? There is a bad trend that is going on 10 years now. He has been a coach with the Jets, Rams, and the Georgia Bull Dogs, and in each of these instances his offense has woefully underachieved. Also, your version of what happened in 09/10 was much different than Jets fans:

    http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/ ... mer.89799/

    Maybe he keeps taking these opportunities because that is all he can get. He is not a good OC, and quite frankly I think he is a downgrade from Bevell.


    The 2009/10 Jets play calling showed great creativity in mixing the run with the pass. Fans only care about results, not process and circumstances. Sanchez has since proven himself to be an inept QB who was greatly aided by his OC.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2245
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:15 pm
  • hawknation2018 wrote: Fans only care about results, not process and circumstances. Sanchez has since proven himself to be an inept QB who was greatly aided by his OC.



    0-16 Browns feel the same way.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2058
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:16 pm
  • sdog1981 wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote: Fans only care about results, not process and circumstances. Sanchez has since proven himself to be an inept QB who was greatly aided by his OC.



    0-16 Browns feel the same way.


    No idea of the relevance here. But congrats on being 'pithy.'
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2245
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:24 pm
  • WindCityHawk wrote:Who could have been hired to make some of you happy? Seriously.

    I agree it would have been fun to roll the dice on an up-and-coming position coach, but that's no guarantee of success.

    Experienced, winning coaches don't drop from trees and wait around for job offers. And they don't make lateral moves. If you ever thought a HC cadidate like Josh McDaniels, or even DeFilipo, were going to fill this post, you were never going to be happy.

    Todd Haley is now available.

    He won't be available for much longer.
    "Awww, you so weak!" Richard Sherman to Joe Webb

    "Uh, huh, you suck!" Richard Sherman to Pierre Garçon

    "Don't f***** try me--I'm the best!" Richard Sherman

    Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    TheLegendOfBoom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:12 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:33 pm
  • Blitzer88 wrote:Can we go get Todd Haley???


    Yet another name that would have been a better choice.

    It's just great that we rushed out and grabbed BS before anyone else did. I hear that he was in huge demand.
    Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!
    GO 'HAWKS!!
    User avatar
    WmHBonney
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1573
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:51 pm
  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The problem with logic is that we have to use the data.

    The data says that Brian isn't that great of a hire.

    Apparently his greatest accomplishment is not completely being terrible with supposedly terrible offensive personnel.

    But no real successes.


    We can extrapolate and make a suggestion that with better personnel he MIGHT be better. But then again, we supposedly have some terrible offensive personnel too.

    This is a hire that will likely end up being exactly what it seems.

    Generally, with a few fantastic exceptions, people are what their record says they are.

    Bevel was exactly the same guy that Minnesota warned us about. Harvin was too. They didn't change because they played for a different team. They brought the same strengths and weaknesses with them.

    Lynch was very different. That gamble worked. But it misses a lot more than it hits. And this team LOVES to bring on people that they feel can succeed here but that failed to succeed somewhere else.

    The fact the Rams fans are chortling over this supposed pick makes me worried. But maybe this will be the exception that proves the rule? Doubtful but if we are stuck with it then hope is what we got.

    I would rather bring in someone rising with potential and the ability to contribute new ideas/tactics than a nobody with a mediocre resume that hasn't really done much anywhere he landed. But we might apparently be stuck with him.

    Nothing about this selection screams SuperBowl or even, ready to get past the Wildcard round (assuming we make the playoffs again). More like 'Tread water so people don't stop watching or blow off renewing season tickets'. But the joke is the NFL also stands for Not For Long, so Win Forever wasn't likely to last anyway.


    You can use that logic for not bringing in Pete Carroll also, failed in the NFL, went to the College game and had his pick of talent in the Nation and won with it.

    Chemistry of a collective group of people many times shines brighter then the one individual, that's what we have to hope happens here going forward.

    Old groups message went stale as the promotions happened and things were not quite the same after each one. Pete is hitting the full reset button here I think. Hard to catch lighting in a bottle once, doing it twice at least you know it can be done.

    There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    How many wins as a DC and DB coach did he have in the NFL ? Josh McDaniel's is suppose to be a great offensive talent as OC, how well did his stint in Denver go?

    Dick Jauron was a good DC as well, how well did his stints as HC go, respected but does that translate to Wins?
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24726
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 8:35 pm
  • Haley would have been a great choice!

    But Schottenheimer?!?!

    Haley is proven!

    Hawks need reassurance on offense with proven credentials, a guy with some fire and some edge to him (Haley), not some "Yes" man, like Schottenheimer.
    "Awww, you so weak!" Richard Sherman to Joe Webb

    "Uh, huh, you suck!" Richard Sherman to Pierre Garçon

    "Don't f***** try me--I'm the best!" Richard Sherman

    Seattle Seahawks Super Bowl XLVIII Champions
    User avatar
    TheLegendOfBoom
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 703
    Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:12 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Wed Jan 17, 2018 10:22 pm
  • I'd almost talked myself into this... "Yea, it'll be ok after all..."

    But those Jets fans comments are brutal.

    i hope the 12th man enjoys 5 wide all 4 yard curls on 3rd and 8.


    ...or running a reverse EVERY SINGLE GAME...

    ...or only passing against teams that can't stop the run...

    ...And only running against teams that can't stop a pass...

    ...and if something works, never running that play again...
    User avatar
    The_Z_Man
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1940
    Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm
    Location: Tucson, AZ


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:28 am
  • chris98251 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    chris98251 wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:The problem with logic is that we have to use the data.

    The data says that Brian isn't that great of a hire.

    Apparently his greatest accomplishment is not completely being terrible with supposedly terrible offensive personnel.

    But no real successes.


    We can extrapolate and make a suggestion that with better personnel he MIGHT be better. But then again, we supposedly have some terrible offensive personnel too.

    This is a hire that will likely end up being exactly what it seems.

    Generally, with a few fantastic exceptions, people are what their record says they are.

    Bevel was exactly the same guy that Minnesota warned us about. Harvin was too. They didn't change because they played for a different team. They brought the same strengths and weaknesses with them.

    Lynch was very different. That gamble worked. But it misses a lot more than it hits. And this team LOVES to bring on people that they feel can succeed here but that failed to succeed somewhere else.

    The fact the Rams fans are chortling over this supposed pick makes me worried. But maybe this will be the exception that proves the rule? Doubtful but if we are stuck with it then hope is what we got.

    I would rather bring in someone rising with potential and the ability to contribute new ideas/tactics than a nobody with a mediocre resume that hasn't really done much anywhere he landed. But we might apparently be stuck with him.

    Nothing about this selection screams SuperBowl or even, ready to get past the Wildcard round (assuming we make the playoffs again). More like 'Tread water so people don't stop watching or blow off renewing season tickets'. But the joke is the NFL also stands for Not For Long, so Win Forever wasn't likely to last anyway.


    You can use that logic for not bringing in Pete Carroll also, failed in the NFL, went to the College game and had his pick of talent in the Nation and won with it.

    Chemistry of a collective group of people many times shines brighter then the one individual, that's what we have to hope happens here going forward.

    Old groups message went stale as the promotions happened and things were not quite the same after each one. Pete is hitting the full reset button here I think. Hard to catch lighting in a bottle once, doing it twice at least you know it can be done.

    There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    How many wins as a DC and DB coach did he have in the NFL ? Josh McDaniel's is suppose to be a great offensive talent as OC, how well did his stint in Denver go?

    Dick Jauron was a good DC as well, how well did his stints as HC go, respected but does that translate to Wins?

    Who, Carroll? Quite a bit as a DC, and DB coach. That is why he got two head coaching opportunities before coaching the USC Trojans. He was at the helm of some good defenses in NY, and San Francisco. Carroll had a great track record as a positional coach, and defensive coordinator. Moreover, Carroll also built one of the most successful NCAA teams at the time. He brought home, what? Two national championships? Carroll had to prove himself before he got his first, second, and third shot in the NFL.

    McDaniels is an awful comparison. He had a big track record of success as OC, LOOONG before he got his HC job. We're talking about Schottenheimers merits as an offensive coordinator, not headcoach. They are two, completely different skill sets. Not really an apples to apples comparison. Some guys are great coordinators, but awful as HC's. Dick LaBeau, and yes, McDaniels past comes to mind. Likewise, other guys are better off just staying as positional coaches, Schottenheimer is one of those people. He has proven to be bad at this job three times, and not just in the NFL either. He did an awful job as OC for the Georgia Bulldogs. Don't just take my word for it: https://www.dawgnation.com/football/tea ... oordinator

    We replaced Bevell with a dud. I'm already missing the guy, I've seen him in action, and the more I dig into his performance, or lack thereof the more I'm dumbfounded at this decision.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2636
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:04 am
  • WmHBonney wrote:
    Blitzer88 wrote:Can we go get Todd Haley???


    Yet another name that would have been a better choice.

    It's just great that we rushed out and grabbed BS before anyone else did. I hear that he was in huge demand.


    That like saying circus peanuts were in high demand at the candy store.
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2865
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:42 am
  • It’s disappointing that we grabbed BS so quickly. Seems like a knee jerk reaction. Similar feeling to when we grabbed sowell, webb, joeckel and tobin despite everyone else thinking they stunk. I am also disappointed that BS is the best we can do at OC. With Wilson at QB you would assume that this gig would be more attractive to other candidates. 5 years ago they would be lined up trying to get this gig.
    NJlargent
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1413
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:02 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 7:13 am
  • If Brian is the OC, and it sure looks like it, the question to ask is why this selection was made?

    Is it because the team believes we can get better results from the selection and because it will shore up some specific weaknesses?

    Sure, then we have to give it a chance.

    But, if this this is just change being made to address fan unrest and try to stem the growing apathy at the unpalatable offense? Then it will become obvious very quickly, as we continue to try to shove square pegs in round holes.

    We will see.

    I am disappointed that we did not take a bigger chance on someone with a strong background in great offenses that is rising, say from the college ranks or one of the better offenses.

    This selection feels more like change for the sake of change, and not really change to address the problem.

    And the problem is not really the inability to run the ball, though that is A big problem.

    The problem is that with the aging of the defense, and the lack of great playmakers on the defense (or the aging of those playmakers so they can no longer make the impact they once had) - this team is going to have to win with offense instead of defense. That is where we have our advantages, but that is where we are not taking advantage of them.

    Does bringing an average OC in really give you the ability to do this? I doubt it, since coaching and the strength of the coordinators is often a massive factor in the success of an offense or defense. But we are going to find out.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3271
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:29 am
  • Ultimately, Pete wants to run the ball and wants his vision in place. It's proven to work, just look at this years playoffs. It travels well and they actually have a franchise QB here to hit the big plays. He's brought in a guy who has proven to stick to the running game.

    I don't even necessarily think there's a big difference between him and Bevell, this comes down to a new OL coach implementing better blocking and having one guy run the show. I like what I've seen from people reviewing the Giants run game under him (pass blocking has been a plus too), teams can't pin their ears back knowing a run is coming. Get some creativity in the run game and suddenly Russell doesn't have 3rd and 10 every single drive. I'd say this is the most talented roster BS has inherited, so I am hopeful.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4099
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:41 am
  • mistaowen wrote:
    I don't even necessarily think there's a big difference between him and Bevell, this comes down to a new OL coach implementing better blocking and having one guy run the show. I like what I've seen from people reviewing the Giants run game under him (pass blocking has been a plus too), teams can't pin their ears back knowing a run is coming. Get some creativity in the run game and suddenly Russell doesn't have 3rd and 10 every single drive. I'd say this is the most talented roster BS has inherited, so I am hopeful.


    There isn't a big difference between him and Bevell because Pete won't allow there to be.

    What Pete's trying to fix is the dysfunctional scheme/playcalling battle that was going on between Bevell and Cable.

    So while we probably won't see any drastic scheme or playcalling changes, what we SHOULD see out of Schottenheimer and Solari is a more unified front in fixing the run game, and hopefully that leads to a more successful consistently balanced offense in general.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13344
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:53 am
  • ^Absolutely.

    Having Solari and Schottenheimer working in harmony will work wonders for the offense.
    www.hawk-talk.com

    Image

    Richard Sherman wrote:People look forward to writing us off. Our demise was greatly overstated.
    User avatar
    original poster
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 3161
    Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:04 am
  • Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3271
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:13 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    Flip side of that coin is that the main culprit for not having the personnel (Cable blowing draft and FA assets) is now gone. So the odds they can get there should go up. Even if Schotty and Bev are a wash, we still get better and lose the dysfunction between dual coordinators (run / pass).

    Other than that, I agree that Pete will still force his vision regardless of the indications of strength or weakness.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5314
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:17 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    You're right, it all matters...........coaching, scheme and personnel.

    From what we've seen with the coaching turnover, I think we're also going to see the biggest turnover of the roster since year #1.

    As far as "outdated philosophy?" This is football, nasty defense and running the ball successfully will ALWAYS work. EVERY team in the top 10 of rushing this year were playoff teams.

    Pounding the rock has always worked, and will always work. THAT'S what Pete is trying to fix.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13344
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:21 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    You're right, it all matters...........coaching, scheme and personnel.

    From what we've seen with the coaching turnover, I think we're also going to see the biggest turnover of the roster since year #1.

    As far as "outdated philosophy?" This is football, nasty defense and running the ball successfully will ALWAYS work. EVERY team in the top 10 of rushing this year were playoff teams.

    Pounding the rock has always worked, and will always work. THAT'S what Pete is trying to fix.


    So do I (regarding the roster turnover). Think there was over 200 transactions in year 1, don't expect anywhere near that amount, but definitely see a huge roster churn built around Wilson and Wagner.
    www.hawk-talk.com

    Image

    Richard Sherman wrote:People look forward to writing us off. Our demise was greatly overstated.
    User avatar
    original poster
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 3161
    Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:55 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:27 am
  • I feel like we also need to tweak our demands on Schottenheimer as well.

    We had the #15 ranked offense (YPG) this year with no real running game. Our QB was our leading rusher. And I believe Chris Carson, who only appeared in 4 games, was still our leading rusher halfway through the season. That's abysmal. And we still won 9 games.

    It's true that Schottenheimer may not be great, but we don't need him to be great. We just need him to not actively work against the team (Cable). If we have even a modicum of a running game--like, a RB leading the team in rushing yards--this can be a top ten offense.
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2502
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:29 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    You're right, it all matters...........coaching, scheme and personnel.

    From what we've seen with the coaching turnover, I think we're also going to see the biggest turnover of the roster since year #1.

    As far as "outdated philosophy?" This is football, nasty defense and running the ball successfully will ALWAYS work. EVERY team in the top 10 of rushing this year were playoff teams.

    Pounding the rock has always worked, and will always work. THAT'S what Pete is trying to fix.


    Yep - plus all the coaching churn is to bring in guys who buy in. It sounds like Pete is taking back control of the defense while Norton Jr will fix the attitude. Pete will handle X's and O's, Ken motivates and gets everyone in line.

    Same as the offense. BS is another yes man but it will be with a new OL coach who fits what Pete wants and will gut Cable's design. Watching Cardinals o-line scrubs look competent in the final game of the year accompanied with Duane Brown's steady decline proves this falls on Cable. The running game lacked any creativity and for a team that wants to beat you into submission, that's an issue. I think Pete would be happy running on first and second down (with moderate success) every single drive and hitting two or three big plays when the defense bites. Russell still carried this team with zero offensive identity or run game, getting him a competent rushing attack will only help.

    I also agree on roster moves, I think Pete/JS will take a hard look at who is buying in and who isn't.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4099
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:22 am
  • People say they want a inspiring College Guy that has something new, problem is the good ones such as Peterson are not going to quit a HC job to be a OC in the NFL, most college offense is a form of the spread now, not something that has been really successful in the NFL. There is a reason the running game is coming back into the forefront, speed on defense has caught up to the offense which makes spreads harder to run. Why you counter with a run game that relies on Power.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24726
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:42 am
  • I get the team wants to be the power running team that controls the clock and intimidates the other team. However, their are other coaches who can do the same thing. Why not Greg Roman? That guy loves to run the ball and dose a bunch of unique things in the running game. They could have also hired Jim McElwain who was the OC at Alabama during the late 2000's. Both coaches like running the ball. Just seems like a panic hire to me.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2058
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:46 am
  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:There is a major difference here -- Pete Carroll found success in college, and in the NFL was a well respected DC and DB coach. He had built one of the strongest programs in the nation at the collegiate level, and even brought home a few national championships.

    Brian Schottenheimer on the other hand has not shown us even a modicum of success in the NFL, or the collegiate game. He is nothing more than a "yes man" which concerns me greatly, as Pete Carroll is an awful offensive mind. He can identify talent on offense, but his ideas are an old relic from the past. Furthermore, Schottenheimers playbooks are very complex, and often time confuse his players. He also has a tendency to try to attack opponents strengths to "catch them off guard" or use players that are bad at a certain task to do the same thing. We hired an even worse version of Bevell.


    I have to strongly disagree with this. Brian is a GREAT QB Coach. Look what he did with Drew Brees and Andrew Luck.

    As an OC, he hasn't had a fair opportunity due to the bad programs & QBs he was coaching for. His play calling in 2009/10 was excellent, despite having Sanchez at QB.

    These "unfair" opportunities seem to follow the man around. Is it the places themselves, or Schottenheimers failure as a coach? There is a bad trend that is going on 10 years now. He has been a coach with the Jets, Rams, and the Georgia Bull Dogs, and in each of these instances his offense has woefully underachieved. Also, your version of what happened in 09/10 was much different than Jets fans:

    http://forums.theganggreen.com/threads/ ... mer.89799/

    Maybe he keeps taking these opportunities because that is all he can get. He is not a good OC, and quite frankly I think he is a downgrade from Bevell.


    Isn't the very definition of a good coach someone who has a bad situation and makes it not so bad?
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3062
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:48 am


  • The fact that they had to mention how great his Dad was is just a sign that they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and find nice things to say.

    Seriously, can anyone say anything positive about Brian Schottenheimer as an OC other than the fact that his Jets teams finished in the Top 3 in rushing 3 times or that he coached Drew Brees 12 years ago?

    I don't think there is a single thing anyone can say positive about his work other than that. I have been actively looking. It's depressing.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16348
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:48 am
  • TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    Outdated? That's ignorant of the facts of how teams win. Strong defense, Running game, and controlling the clock are essential to winning long-term, through all seasons/weather, and in the playoffs.

    Second, we may have the personnel, you just haven't seen them trained correctly or put in a scheme where they can actually be successful.

    Third, it doesn't "look" this way at all; you only perceive it that way based on flawed assumptions.

    Change the assumptions, and you can enjoy the game much more. Why would you actually want to continue being pessimistic?
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1855
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:57 am
  • HawkFan72 wrote:
    The fact that they had to mention how great his Dad was is just a sign that they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to try and find nice things to say.

    Seriously, can anyone say anything positive about Brian Schottenheimer as an OC other than the fact that his Jets teams finished in the Top 3 in rushing 3 times or that he coached Drew Brees 12 years ago?

    I don't think there is a single thing anyone can say positive about his work other than that. I have been actively looking. It's depressing
    .


    I'm hoping this is not the same mistake they made with Cable. Pete was so hell bent on building a run game, he completely overlooked the shitty pass protection he has provided his entire career. Again with the Schotty pick I think we see a run game obsession that is willing to turn a blind eye to overall numbers.

    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5314
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:51 am
  • Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 13344
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:16 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.


    The topic does not include Cable and Solari so throw them out.

    Beyond that I can answer that with one word....Pete.

    Newer models of the same cars have new features....don't overthink my post and strike the negative drum out of reaction is my suggestion.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5314
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:16 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.


    We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

    If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

    If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.
    Image
    Radish and Cheinhill — Gone, but not forgotten
    User avatar
    HawkFan72
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 16348
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:50 am
    Location: Antioch, CA


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:28 pm
  • HawkFan72 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.


    We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

    If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

    If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.


    Context matters though. You can't judge Schottenheimer without also noting that the best QB he's worked with was Sam Bradford, whom was hurt for most of Schottenheimer's time with him. After that it was Mark Sanchez. I guess you could include an ancient and wildly inconsistent Farve here, too. Talent matters.

    Bruce Arians is known to be a good offensive coordinator. His offenses failed without Palmer. Mike McCarthy's offenses failed without Rodgers. Shannahan's offense looked awful without Ryan. I can go on and on. Offensive coordinators look as good as their starting quarterbacks, of which Shottenheimer has had amazingly bad luck.

    Now you can say the reason his quarterbacks failed was due to his failings as a coordinator but that is a chicken and the egg argument, and we've seen enough of Bradford, Sanchez, and the plethora of other career backups that he's worked with to know that it wasn't just Shottenheimer.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3224
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:44 pm
  • HawkFan72 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.


    We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

    If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

    If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.



    I agree with everything but the second to last sentence. Even if it is more of the same (and I find it likely it will be) Bevell needed to go. If it does end up being more of the same, hopefully it will be enough to enough to send Pete riding off into the sunset. I think in the end, that is what is going to have to happen to make progress here. I really hope I do have to eat crow though.
    I used to be Bitter.
    User avatar
    JustTheTip
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1396
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 12:38 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:19 pm
  • This is a pretty underwhelming hire but it's an understandable hire. Pete wants a yes-man, and a guy who's only coaching in the NFL because of his last name is likely highly adept at the art of yes-mannery.

    Regarding the obsession with the running game, it only works if you have the personnel to actually run a run-heavy offense, and you don't become predictable. The most successful teams aren't the ones that pound da rawk on two-thirds of their snaps, it's the teams with balance.

    The Titans are a prime example of what happens when the scheme goes wrong. They became so obsessed with playing big strong manly man smashmouf footbaw that it completely backfired and their QB regressed. Implementing a run, run, pass, repeat system also doesn't make sense given that Russ needs around 7-10 reps to find his rhythm, which implies that we should be using the pass to set up the run, not vice-versa, as the Mularkey's and Carroll's of the world seem to think. The longer we wait to get Russ into a rhythm the more the offense will struggle, and I actually think a renewed focus on the running game with our mediocre personnel will lead to an even worse offense this year.
    ducks41468
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 302
    Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:41 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:20 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    HawkFan72 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Doesn't mean it can't work. It just means we are heading down that same road, in a newer model of the same car.


    How is a totally difference coordinator who ran a totally different scheme with totally different coaches AND doesn't have to co-coordinate with Cable the same car?

    I'm not exactly doing cartwheels over Schottenheimer either, but you guys are REALLY negative over something we haven't even seen yet.


    We've seen him as an O-Coordinator for 9 years, and he wasn't Top 10 in any of them. Top 20 twice. And that's not even taking into account his terrible year in College at Georgia which was another failure. That's why we can be negative over it. Other than Brees saying he liked him as a QB coach 12 years ago, and Rex Ryan saying he's "loyal", it is really difficult to find anything else positive about him as a Coordinator and a developer of talent. You can choose to be optimistic, but if you are looking at the numbers and the history, it is very difficult. He was brought in to run the ball, but that's it. His passing games have been a failure every year at every stop. Criticized for being uncreative and over complicated throughout his career. And our Offense will be learning all new terminology.

    If this guy's dad wasn't Marty Schottenheimer, I find it hard to believe he still gets an NFL Coordinator's job based on his track record. There, I said it.

    If I have to eat crow, I'll eat crow. But we'll be crying for Bevell to come back by the end of next year. And I wanted Bevell gone.


    Context matters though. You can't judge Schottenheimer without also noting that the best QB he's worked with was Sam Bradford, whom was hurt for most of Schottenheimer's time with him. After that it was Mark Sanchez. I guess you could include an ancient and wildly inconsistent Farve here, too. Talent matters.

    Bruce Arians is known to be a good offensive coordinator. His offenses failed without Palmer. Mike McCarthy's offenses failed without Rodgers. Shannahan's offense looked awful without Ryan. I can go on and on. Offensive coordinators look as good as their starting quarterbacks, of which Shottenheimer has had amazingly bad luck.

    Now you can say the reason his quarterbacks failed was due to his failings as a coordinator but that is a chicken and the egg argument, and we've seen enough of Bradford, Sanchez, and the plethora of other career backups that he's worked with to know that it wasn't just Shottenheimer.



    Well to counter that argument or to at the very least...play devil's advocate. I can argue that especially in an increasingly pass first league, there are other coordinators who ELEVATED talent. Look no further than Case Keenum, Nick Foles, or even Blake Bortles for example. Andy Reid also elevated Jeff Garcia and Alex Smith. There are many examples of great coordinators elevating their talent. And Mike McCarthy is questionable as a play caller. Arians made Drew Stanton look far more competent and at times, the Cardinals were actually competitive
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 727
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:34 pm
  • Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.
    Last edited by Trrrroy on Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3224
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:40 pm
  • Coaching is as critical to development of players as well as putting them in situations to succeed. Run first and pound and ground are all things that are formulas, but there are situations where they may not work. How you scheme and draw up plays to adapt to situations is the greatest value a coach can bring to the table. To follow a vision and formula is great, but teams adapt to your scheme and you need to find a way to adapt to it. And of course you need some luck and home field advantage to make it to the Super Bowl.

    I don't know if this will work, but it is what it is, just wait and see what the future holds for our beloved Seahawks!
    seahawks08
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1027
    Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:15 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:44 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.


    Alex Smith was average with Harbaugh, and even worse before Harbaugh. A complete bust

    Garcia was always an average QB. He did however have Terrell Owens and Andy Reid's scheme..I guess

    Case Keenum, well that speaks for itself

    The Eagles were 2nd in total offense and number 1 in rushing in 2013, with Pat Shurmer as the Offensive coordinator. With Mark Sanchez and Nick Foles leading the way. In 2014 the Eagles were # 5 in total offense. 2015 was Shurmer's worse year, and even that was better than Schotty's best years

    So saying the Eagles offense was "utterly mediocre" is not even remotely accurate, or factual. There is at minimum, a glimmer of success that far exceeds Schotty. Again, I will support him, but I am going on blind faith
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 727
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:37 pm
  • Scorpion05 wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.


    Alex Smith was average with Harbaugh, and even worse before Harbaugh. A complete bust

    Garcia was always an average QB. He did however have Terrell Owens and Andy Reid's scheme..I guess

    Case Keenum, well that speaks for itself

    The Eagles were 2nd in total offense and number 1 in rushing in 2013, with Pat Shurmer as the Offensive coordinator. With Mark Sanchez and Nick Foles leading the way. In 2014 the Eagles were # 5 in total offense. 2015 was Shurmer's worse year, and even that was better than Schotty's best years

    So saying the Eagles offense was "utterly mediocre" is not even remotely accurate, or factual. There is at minimum, a glimmer of success that far exceeds Schotty. Again, I will support him, but I am going on blind faith


    Alex Smith was better than average with Harbaugh. Look at his stats. He had a QB rating of 104 before he was traded. I agree that he's been better in KC, but that's not really my point. Garcia was an above average QB no matter what way you slice it. He's a 4x pro bowler. And like I said, He had his Pro Bowl years before and after Reid.

    I stand corrected on Shurmer's Eagles offenses. I remember his 2013 year being very good, but for some reason thought that offense dropped off in 2014. It's a moot point anyways. That was not Shurmer's offense, it was Chip Kelly's and though that scheme masked QB flaws it proved to be unsustainable.

    Anyways, this is getting off topic. My point is very rarely do you get top 15 offenses without at least an average qb. Shottenheimer has had the priveledge of working with an average QB once, maybe twice in his career as an OC.
    I hate Tim Ruskell.
    User avatar
    Trrrroy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3224
    Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:24 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:10 am
  • As long as he doesn't have HIS own players flipping him off from the field of play, I think we're moving forward.
    2018 Adopt a Rookie: Rashaad Penny

    Image
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1899
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:25 pm
  • Trrrroy wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:
    Trrrroy wrote:Alex smith was good before Reid, look at his Harbaugh years. Garcia was a pro bowl QB before and after Reid. Bortles is essentially Sanchez, who also made the AFC championship game riding an elite defense and running game under Shottenheimer. I'll give you Case Keenum under Pat Shurmer, but that's the exception to the rule. But you can't give Shurmer that without also noting how utterly mediocre his offenses looked with the eagles and browns. As for Foles, we'll see. It's been three games.


    Alex Smith was average with Harbaugh, and even worse before Harbaugh. A complete bust

    Garcia was always an average QB. He did however have Terrell Owens and Andy Reid's scheme..I guess

    Case Keenum, well that speaks for itself

    The Eagles were 2nd in total offense and number 1 in rushing in 2013, with Pat Shurmer as the Offensive coordinator. With Mark Sanchez and Nick Foles leading the way. In 2014 the Eagles were # 5 in total offense. 2015 was Shurmer's worse year, and even that was better than Schotty's best years

    So saying the Eagles offense was "utterly mediocre" is not even remotely accurate, or factual. There is at minimum, a glimmer of success that far exceeds Schotty. Again, I will support him, but I am going on blind faith


    Alex Smith was better than average with Harbaugh. Look at his stats. He had a QB rating of 104 before he was traded. I agree that he's been better in KC, but that's not really my point. Garcia was an above average QB no matter what way you slice it. He's a 4x pro bowler. And like I said, He had his Pro Bowl years before and after Reid.

    I stand corrected on Shurmer's Eagles offenses. I remember his 2013 year being very good, but for some reason thought that offense dropped off in 2014. It's a moot point anyways. That was not Shurmer's offense, it was Chip Kelly's and though that scheme masked QB flaws it proved to be unsustainable.

    Anyways, this is getting off topic. My point is very rarely do you get top 15 offenses without at least an average qb. Shottenheimer has had the priveledge of working with an average QB once, maybe twice in his career as an OC.


    Okay so in a passing league, Alex Smith got benched for a more explosive Kaepernick, in his best year with the Niners. Fine, I'll take it

    We're not gonna agree on Jeff Garcia, so we'll leave that alone

    Pat Shurmer was the Offensive coordinator for the Eagles. If we're gonna conveniently say that it was Chip Kelly's offense and therefore, dismiss that. Then well, that's still a whole lot more than Schotty has shown, logically.

    I don't question that Schotty can call good games. Bevell called good games. You'll always be able to call a good game with a great QB. What I question is Schotty's consistency. Shurmer has proven that he's a capable coordinator. He's had success in more than one location. So he's at least proven something. Schotty has proven nothing. I have to literally nitpick at games to find something good. Look at Blake Bortles and Case Keenum. Look at Nick Foles under Andy Reid and now under Doug Pederson. THAT is coaching. No one is questioning the importance of QB talent, but basically we're saying that Schotty needs PERFECT circumstances to succeed. A good coach can still elevate talent. Even with injuries, or obstacles. I don't see that in Schotty. If he has grown, fantastic. But if I was a gambling man I'd call the first Uber home before I lose any money

    What's also sad, is that we selected a coordinator with a clear track record. So we can't even fully evaluate Wilson's ceiling. What a shame, we may be wasting Wilson's prime years and it's pitiful
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 727
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:37 pm
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    Outdated? That's ignorant of the facts of how teams win. Strong defense, Running game, and controlling the clock are essential to winning long-term, through all seasons/weather, and in the playoffs.

    Second, we may have the personnel, you just haven't seen them trained correctly or put in a scheme where they can actually be successful.

    Third, it doesn't "look" this way at all; you only perceive it that way based on flawed assumptions.

    Change the assumptions, and you can enjoy the game much more. Why would you actually want to continue being pessimistic?

    This is an absolutely perfect response ^
    Some people WANT to assume the worst; And because Pete didn't hire some sexy name that's been floating around here on the NET for a Week or so, they've fallen into despair, and you're sure as hell ain't going to talk them out of feeling cruddy about the unknown.
    I'm feeling optimistic about the big changes, going to take the wait and see if the chemistry comes together.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6503
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:09 pm
  • scutterhawk wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:
    TwistedHusky wrote:Maybe.

    But this looks more like Pete trying to force an outdated offensive philosophy on a team that does not have the personnel to execute it.


    Outdated? That's ignorant of the facts of how teams win. Strong defense, Running game, and controlling the clock are essential to winning long-term, through all seasons/weather, and in the playoffs.

    Second, we may have the personnel, you just haven't seen them trained correctly or put in a scheme where they can actually be successful.

    Third, it doesn't "look" this way at all; you only perceive it that way based on flawed assumptions.

    Change the assumptions, and you can enjoy the game much more. Why would you actually want to continue being pessimistic?

    This is an absolutely perfect response ^
    Some people WANT to assume the worst; And because Pete didn't hire some sexy name that's been floating around here on the NET for a Week or so, they've fallen into despair, and you're sure as hell ain't going to talk them out of feeling cruddy about the unknown.
    I'm feeling optimistic about the big changes, going to take the wait and see if the chemistry comes together.

    You are misconstruing the problem most fans have with this hire. It isn't because we didn't hire a "sexy name" it is because we hired a re-tread with a long history of failure under his resume. People are calling Pete's ideas on the offense outdated, because his ideas about the passing game are a relic from the 70s. I'm not talking about having a balanced attack either, I'm talking about the idea that you need to keep attacking deep down the field with little regard given to the short, and intermediate routes, and the intricacies of a modern day offensive attack.

    We hired two re-treads in Norton, and Schottenheimer. We hired proven mediocrity, I suspect not much will change with this offense. The only hire that really has a good resume behind them is Solari.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2636
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:43 pm
  • Prior to Petes run here you could say the same about him and his antiquated ideals of offense and Simple defense. Yet he made it work, Belichek failed in Cleveland so must be a retread also, most coaches fail before they succeed, many times it's the staff around them that help make them successful and not completely the Coach. Mora was pretty damn good in Atlanta for a while yet we seen what happened in Seattle, although he had a corrupt dealer at the table that set him up for failure before he got a chance really.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 24726
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:57 pm
  • chris98251 wrote:Prior to Petes run here you could say the same about him and his antiquated ideals of offense and Simple defense. Yet he made it work, Belichek failed in Cleveland so must be a retread also, most coaches fail before they succeed, many times it's the staff around them that help make them successful and not completely the Coach. Mora was pretty damn good in Atlanta for a while yet we seen what happened in Seattle, although he had a corrupt dealer at the table that set him up for failure before he got a chance really.

    You keep making this comment, but I'm not seeing it. First of all, Mora only had one season in the NFL above .500. Each year he progressively got worse. Carroll had a record of success everywhere he went as defensive coordinator in the NFL, nobody ever called his defense "antiquated". Carroll was also regarded as one of the best secondary coaches/mentors. He had also built one of the most successful college programs. Carroll, as head coach had a record above .500 in the NFL as well. You keep making this comparison, it holds ZERO ground.

    Lets compare Schottenheimers decade long cycle of failures. His most recent being the offensive coordinator of the Bulldogs, which was arguably his biggest failure -- especially when you consider how much the team dipped in offensive production while he was coordinator, and how it jumped back up after he was fired. Carroll, and yes even Belichick had some success in the NFL, Schottenheimer has had none. You're not giving any solid evidence that supports the guys, and that is because there is none. You're just holding out hope that he will magically "get it".

    Unfortunately, we heard the warnings about Bevell, and we heard the warnings about Cable from Viking, and Raider fans. Now we are hearing the same kind of rumblings from other fans about Schotenheimer. What makes you think his tenure will be any different? Our head coach has already demonstrated that he has a streaky track record of hiring offensive coaches. You can be hopelessly optimistic, but I predict that you will be one of those screaming loudest of Schottenheimer's head come regular season.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2636
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


Re: Brian Schottenheimer
Sun Jan 21, 2018 6:57 pm
  • There’s still nothing yet but speculation still sooo thats how I feel lol
    Conference Championship: NFC: 2005, 2013, 2014
    Division Campionship: AFC West: 1988, 1999 NFC West: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014
    Superbowl Championship: 2013 XLVIII Final Score: Sea 43 Den 8

    The Radish
    Thu Sep 11, 2014 1:10 pm: Please don't offend The Fonz like that. :roll:
    :les:
    User avatar
    Exittium
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3027
    Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:53 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


PreviousNext


It is currently Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:30 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information