Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Is "Always Compete" back?

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:04 am
  • Just curious if you think as I do that the "Always Compete" mantra is on the way back with the huge coaching turnover and the likelihood that at least some of the high profile players will also depart? Now that especially Cabevell is no longer there doesn't seem to be the double standard for accountability for players as opposed to coaches and Pete has reset the dial on putting his stamp on how he runs the team and what the rally cry is. I think it'll be interesting to see how he and the new staff approach the season.

    Thoughts?
    seabowl
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2390
    Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:20 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:03 am
  • No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:39 am
  • Wow, negative much? Reminds me of the glum character "it'lllll never worrrrrrrrk" :lol:
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8672
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:44 am
  • SoulfishHawk wrote:Wow, negative much? Reminds me of the glum character "it'lllll never worrrrrrrrk" :lol:

    Really.

    Image
    Talent can get you to the playoffs.
    It takes character to win when you get there.

    SUPER BOWL XLVIII CHAMPIONS
    User avatar
    sutz
    USMC 1970-77
     
    Posts: 17394
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:41 am
    Location: Kent, WA


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:51 am
  • It's really up to the players.

    The mantra is only worth what the players want to put into it. Blaming coaches for a lack of motivation by highly paid athletes is a bit naive. This isn't a junior high sports team.

    Placing blame on the coaches for not utilizing the players properly makes sense.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:41 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I've never agreed with this take. The idea that we're just supposed to make rash decisions and fire staff is why I'm glad fans don't get to make GM decisions. Pete did what any good employer does. He gave his coaches time to attempt to fix the problems, to get a chance to work with better personnel (We were trying to convert D-lineman to O-line for heaven's sake), and it still failed. What leader would fire Bevell for example, AFTER Russell went on that record breaking tear in 2015? Or last year when Russell was injured and presumably, couldn't return to late 2015 form? This year was the year it was clear that changes needed to be made. There were no personnel or injury situations to use as an excuse.

    Rash decision makers are often poor leaders. I don't know if it's the social media age, but some of you really want us to become the Browns. Just fire and replace people left and right and expect stability
    User avatar
    Scorpion05
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 600
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:44 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.
    In the old days the other O-linemen would have just taken Ifedi out back and beat the crap out of him.
    User avatar
    DomeHawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 349
    Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:20 am
    Location: Meadowdale


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:45 am
  • Yeah, because Pete and John clearly have no history of success. Let em do their jobs and enjoy the ride. Everyone wanted massive changes, now it has happened. Yet, people are still not satisfied because they didn't do it THEIR way.
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8672
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:53 am
  • DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:13 am
  • Always compete should mean "regardless of what happens around you, put out your best effort". Always does not mean that "only if coaches call your number" (ie see Jimmy Graham), Always does not mean "only when you are paid to your expectation", Always does not mean "only if the other side of the ball pulls their own"....it means always regardless.

    Unfortunately not all humans think that way, especially nowadays. now we look for reasons why others have it better, others get unfair preference "no fair", he didn't do this so I'm not...ect.

    Always compete is something that should not have to be said if you have well motivated and high integrity players. They should just trash that completely and substitute "100% for 60 minutes or 100-60." Yes 60 minutes not 30, yes 60 minutes not just in the red zone, yes 60 minutes not just when we run from the 1.....ect....ect. That puts the focus 100% on the player and not his surroundings.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4435
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:32 am
  • Seymour wrote:Always compete should mean "regardless of what happens around you, put out your best effort". Always does not mean that "only if coaches call your number" (ie see Jimmy Graham), Always does not mean "only when you are paid to your expectation", Always does not mean "only if the other side of the ball pulls their own"....it means always regardless.

    Unfortunately not all humans think that way, especially nowadays. now we look for reasons why others have it better, others get unfair preference "no fair", he didn't do this so I'm not...ect.

    Always compete is something that should not have to be said if you have well motivated and high integrity players. They should just trash that completely and substitute "100% for 60 minutes or 100-60." Yes 60 minutes not 30, yes 60 minutes not just in the red zone, yes 60 minutes not just when we run from the 1.....ect....ect. That puts the focus 100% on the player and not his surroundings.



    Nailed it
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:37 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.


    Bingo - there were some excuses that could be made the past couple of seasons which kept coaching staff in tact, while still making the playoffs. This year not much. They're up to what, 7 coaching firings so far? Much needed and with legitimate reasons as the team continued it's downward trend.

    I'm excited for the roster churn this offseason as well. I think a light went off in Pete's head watching Blair's final kick (probably in the NFL) lose the game week 17. Get the chip on their shoulder, hard workers that fill specific roles into camp. They need to start finding more Chris Clemons' and show the door to those who don't buy in.

    All in all, this is still Pete's vision. He will keep coaching this way until he retires. I think he takes over the defense and lets Norton Jr motivate. BS will run the ball (interviews i've seen say his playbook is actually quite innovative) and hopefully new OL coach apply the same success he had with the Giants past two years.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3856
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:29 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.


    I dont want to argue and not stating my opinion as fact, but I feel somebody needed fired immediately after SB49 (Bevell) for player morale if nothing else. Nothing happened and the locker room hasent been the same since. The people that denied that before certainly cant deny it now. Its real. Also, it didnt take a genius to see the team regressing shortly afterwards. When the Panthers destroyed us in the playoffs in 2015 I knew it was over. The draining of the coaching staff now may show accountability to an extent, but its still to late in happening in my opinion.
    Last edited by pittpnthrs on Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:39 am
  • mistaowen wrote: and hopefully new OL coach apply the same success he had with the Giants past two years.


    Good lord, I hope not. Well better than us, the Giants were still ranked 20th in the league in both 2016 and 2017 under Solari. I'm hoping he does a bit better than that while he's here..
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:43 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.


    I dont want to argue and not stating my opinion as fact, but I feel somebody needed fired immediately after SB49 (Bevell) for player morale if nothing else.


    I appreciate how you've put this...but you don't fire SB coaches for one play in order to create a scapegoat (which is what you really mean when you say morale).

    Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

    I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

    Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16905
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:19 am
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.


    I dont want to argue and not stating my opinion as fact, but I feel somebody needed fired immediately after SB49 (Bevell) for player morale if nothing else.


    I appreciate how you've put this...but you don't fire SB coaches for one play in order to create a scapegoat (which is what you really mean when you say morale).

    Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

    I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

    Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.


    Agree. And not to continue to compare us to the Patriots, but did they fire someone when they gave up that ridiculous play to David Tyree? It was like 4th and forever if I remember correctly.

    I'd have been more concerned if the Hawks lost that game by 3 scores and the offense never adjusted at halftime (remember how bad the team was struggling right up until the last 5 minutes or so)... or the next season they busted at like 7-9.

    If you were going to fire someone because of the play, it would've been PC
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:40 am
  • You know which other coach emphasized competition? All of them in the history of football.

    It's funny that Seahawks fans think Pete Carroll invented the concept of competition. It's just a meaningless buzz word slogan.
    User avatar
    Rat
    * NET Cynic *
     
    Posts: 4940
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:42 pm
    Location: Grand Rapids, MI


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:44 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.



    These low standards drive me crazy...

    this team should have been a dynasty
    irfuben32
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 90
    Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:07 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:01 pm
  • irfuben32 wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.


    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.



    These low standards drive me crazy...

    this team should have been a dynasty


    the "low standards" of the football fans?

    Because I'm pretty sure PC was trying to win as many games as he could, and will continue to do so.

    Here's the thing..

    If they run or the pass is successful and win Super Bowl 50. They are a dynasty... and are probably still right where they are today. the difference in what you think of it is one play.

    The classifications of the fans mean little. It's the players and coaches that do the work.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:09 pm
  • Low standards? Since when we have had the right to even hold our team to a high standard? Some of y'all spoiled man. Be glad we made 2 superbowls in a row and won 1. Some teams have never even sniffed the ship.

    Back on topic -

    I think this sent a message to the players as well. Cause of your performance and execution we wiped out the coaching staff. If this happens again, you're next.

    I love it.
    ApnaHawk
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:24 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:15 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

    I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

    Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.


    Yeah, as a fan I've wanted Cable gone for years, but even so the back-to-back offseasons losing 2 OL starters forcing the re-shuffle on 3-or-more OL spots was something I couldn't discount. If Cable had a fault it was not being realistic about what he could accomplish under those circumstances.

    But from Pete's standpoint, when Lynch left was eliminating the HOF RB variable, which allowed him to evaluate Cable a little better. Then, this year, actually spending money at 2 anchor spots eliminated (or at least mitigated) the poor-resources variable, further allowing him to evaluate Cable. I think Pete took a cautious approach evaluating Cable, but it's defensible as much as I hated waiting for it.

    Ditto on Bevell in terms of being okay with the timing. Actually, I'd have been fine with keeping Bevell since we know Pete is just going to get another Bevell. But this was an okay time to pull the trigger on that move if he had to. Bevell's big crime to you and I was always pretending he had better protection than he did and failing to make adjustments.
    hawk45
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 8340
    Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 1:08 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:16 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.


    I totally agree with this. My big fear going into this offseason was that he'd stubbornly double-down to try to prove that missing the playoffs in 2017 was a fluke. Instead, he's totally rebooted the thing. He may also be thinking that this is the last time in his coaching career that he has a chance to ("re") build a program.
    User avatar
    Jac
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 724
    Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:50 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:28 pm
  • He's either on the comeback trail or on his last leg.

    I wish for the former but am betting on the latter...
    semiahmoo
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1448
    Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 12:10 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:14 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Uncle Si wrote:
    DomeHawk wrote:
    I don't know if I'm willing to buy into this 100% but there certainly is something there. If you are really selling "always compete" above everything else there can only be so much room for loyalty.



    This is the first year the Seahawks did not make the playoffs... and it appears literally every coach under PC is being replaced.

    That is accountability.


    I dont want to argue and not stating my opinion as fact, but I feel somebody needed fired immediately after SB49 (Bevell) for player morale if nothing else.


    I appreciate how you've put this...but you don't fire SB coaches for one play in order to create a scapegoat (which is what you really mean when you say morale).

    Once you really step back from the one play and examine everything else that's gone on, you still have a team that's reached the Super Bowl twice, one once, and never missed the playoffs until this year. Was more of that on Russell Wilson and the defense than Darell Bevell? You could argue that. But it still seems ridiculous to argue that kind of success.

    I was always more willing to argue that Cable should go, but there were too many other existing factors (drafting poorly on the OL after 2015) to point it out to them.

    Personally, I find Pete's timing in getting rid of people to be pretty good. It took him only one miss of the postseason to do it; he waited until it was obvious that player acquisition wasn't up to snuff and that coaching might be an issue; and it didn't look knee-jerk.


    The only issue about creating a scapegoat as you say is that some of the players (high profile players at that) have come out during the last 3 years feeling the same way I do about the issue. Bennett just mentioned the play again a few days ago and he wont be the last player to do so. I still say it needed to be done.

    Yeah we reached the playoffs 2 straight years after 49, but we were never competitive when we finally had to play one of the top tier teams. Carolina crushed us (score looking better than it really was because they went total cruise control mode in the 2nd half), the Falcons humiliated us, and then we have this season in which it all came crushing down.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but when casual fans can see the decline, its hard to believe the owner, front office and head coach don't see it too.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:16 pm
  • semiahmoo wrote:He's either on the comeback trail or on his last leg.

    I wish for the former but am betting on the latter...


    I'm with you. I don't expect much next season, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and time to get acclimated. After that, its results or time to move on.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:17 pm
  • pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

    This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 89
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:45 am
    Location: Idaho


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:41 pm
  • Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

    This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.


    I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:23 pm
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

    This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.


    I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

    I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 89
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:45 am
    Location: Idaho


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:16 pm
  • pittpnthrs wrote:The only issue about creating a scapegoat as you say is that some of the players (high profile players at that) have come out during the last 3 years feeling the same way I do about the issue. Bennett just mentioned the play again a few days ago and he wont be the last player to do so. I still say it needed to be done.


    The fact that players are mouthing off doesn't establish a credible reason for firing the OC of a perennial playoff team. All it means is that these guys have lost their championship mentality by being unable to get it out of their heads.

    And FWIW, a lot of other players have come out and supported Bevell. Doug Baldwin, for example, has shown that the play is behind him.

    pittpnthrs wrote:Yeah we reached the playoffs 2 straight years after 49, but we were never competitive when we finally had to play one of the top tier teams. Carolina crushed us (score looking better than it really was because they went total cruise control mode in the 2nd half), the Falcons humiliated us, and then we have this season in which it all came crushing down.

    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but when casual fans can see the decline, its hard to believe the owner, front office and head coach don't see it too.


    You're exaggerating the nature of our playoff losses in order to strengthen your argument. For cripes' sakes, 11 playoff teams fall short every year. Should their coaches be fired after one such miss, too? You get to the playoffs and it's a new season. Nobody was saying "we don't belong" in 2010.

    Pete waited until the decline was actually a decline. Two years of winning a playoff game every January doesn't qualify.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16905
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:27 pm
  • Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:No

    It lost its meaning and aura when Pete didnt hold the coaching staff to the same standards as the players. The coaches are gone now, but its 3 years to late.

    This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.


    I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

    I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.


    Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.
    Last edited by pittpnthrs on Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:33 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:The fact that players are mouthing off doesn't establish a credible reason for firing the OC of a perennial playoff team. All it means is that these guys have lost their championship mentality by being unable to get it out of their heads.

    And FWIW, a lot of other players have come out and supported Bevell. Doug Baldwin, for example, has shown that the play is behind him.


    The same Doug Baldwin that was on the sidelines shoving Tom Cable? Like Russ, Doug always reads from the script.

    You're exaggerating the nature of our playoff losses in order to strengthen your argument. For cripes' sakes, 11 playoff teams fall short every year. Should their coaches be fired after one such miss, too? You get to the playoffs and it's a new season. Nobody was saying "we don't belong" in 2010.

    Pete waited until the decline was actually a decline. Two years of winning a playoff game every January doesn't qualify.


    No exaggeration, we were getting crushed. Nobody was saying anything in 2010, but there were plenty saying we didn't belong last year and certainly this season (of course we didn't make it anyways). The writing was on the wall for everybody to see. Whether one chose to ignore it was on them.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:26 pm
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:This logic is completely absurd. Does Pete have to cut or bench RW if he throws an interception, a defender if he misses a tackle, a receiver if he drops a pass, or a d-lineman if he losses contain? Always compete has never meant removing someone from their role based on a mistake. You are suggesting that holding the coaches to an impossible standard is the only way to always compete. The reality is, many fans were, and still are, frustrated by the play and, unable to deal with it in a mature fashion, have been clamoring for a scapegoat.


    I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

    I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.


    Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

    So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 89
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:45 am
    Location: Idaho


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:34 pm
  • Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    I guess none of the coaches should have been let go even this year then right?

    I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.


    Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

    So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.


    The coaches have had the same glaring weaknesses since their duration. It was when the talent could no longer cover for them anymore that it became more apparent and that was 3 years ago.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:30 am
  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Sun Tzu wrote:I believe they were let go this year based on a body of work rather than a single mistake. There is a big difference. Nice try with the straw man though.


    Cripes sake man, don't you think a coach would bench players that constantly threw interceptions, missed constant tackles, dropped passes left and right, or d-lineman that never contained? You use single instance examples and call me a straw man. Lol.

    So when you said, "The coaches are gone now, but it's 3 years too late," Were you suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), or were you suggesting the coaches, or a coach, should have been fired for one particular incident within one particular game? If you were suggesting the coaches should have been fired 3 years ago for the body of work (which included back to back super bowls), then my argument holds no weight. However, if that is not what you were saying, then you have yet again attacked a straw man with your opening sentence.


    The coaches have had the same glaring weaknesses since their duration. It was when the talent could no longer cover for them anymore that it became more apparent and that was 3 years ago.

    You honestly had enough football and coaching background and knowledge of the inner workings of the team, during the Seahawk ascension and back to back super bowl appearances, to be able to see through all of the results and make an intelligent informed evaluation based on that background and knowledge, and that evaluation was that the coaches were under-performing?

    I thought the coaches were great during the team's ascension. Pete and John were finding undervalued talent in the late rounds of the draft, in UDFA, and through trades; the coaches were developing that talent and finding unique ways to maximize the player's strengths. I did not see any, other than a few ignorant malcontents, calling for coaches' heads during that time.
    Sun Tzu
    NET Practice Squad
     
    Posts: 89
    Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:45 am
    Location: Idaho


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:03 pm
  • To be honest we or the board has been bitching about slow starts on offense since Pete took over and the constant O line churn as well as QB pressures, be it Hass, Whitehurst, Tjack, JP Losman or Wilson. Just bought into the game is won in the 4th quarter mantra but had concerns overall as far as defense wins championships sure but ya have to score also and a offense that can't hold the ball makes a defense tired.
    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: 24009
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:34 pm
  • Sun Tzu wrote:You honestly had enough football and coaching background and knowledge of the inner workings of the team, during the Seahawk ascension and back to back super bowl appearances, to be able to see through all of the results and make an intelligent informed evaluation based on that background and knowledge, and that evaluation was that the coaches were under-performing?

    I thought the coaches were great during the team's ascension. Pete and John were finding undervalued talent in the late rounds of the draft, in UDFA, and through trades; the coaches were developing that talent and finding unique ways to maximize the player's strengths. I did not see any, other than a few ignorant malcontents, calling for coaches' heads during that time.


    Absolutely I feel they under performed. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a coaching staff do so little with so much. Only winning one Super Bowl with that much talent is a crime. This staff will be remembered more for their failures than their achievements in my opinion.

    I thought the staff was decent with the talent hiding a lot of their shortcomings (which can no longer be hidden hence the firings). I also give them kudo's for assembling such a roster during the beginning of their tenure, but will say they havent really drafted very well once McCloughan left and Pete was no longer familiar with the college players. To many gambles with not enough rewards. As for maximizing player strengths, I again have to disagree. That was the biggest problem with that staff. Instead of adapting to a players strengths, they wanted the players to adapt to their scheme and it didnt work a lot of the time. Take our Oline for example. Its obvious they dont have the talent to execute Cables ZBS scheme, so why do they continue to try? A coaches job is to formulate something that works, not trying something that fails over and over again in hopes that it might eventually work. Jimmy Graham is another example, but we wont get into all of that.

    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I feel the firings should have taken place much earlier when it was plainly obvious the team wasnt going anywhere and you seem to feel no changes were needed at all. It is what it is.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 668
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:38 pm
  • It's laughable that some of you think the greatness of this team was due to done empty coaching philosophy and not the fact that we had one of the toughest and most dangerous running backs in the league, a tremendously deep DL, great LB and perhaps one of the best secondaries in the history of the NFL
    TwistedHusky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2802
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:48 pm


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 4:59 pm
  • TwistedHusky wrote:It's laughable that some of you think the greatness of this team was due to done empty coaching philosophy and not the fact that we had one of the toughest and most dangerous running backs in the league, a tremendously deep DL, great LB and perhaps one of the best secondaries in the history of the NFL


    I think most are steady enough to recognize the value of all those factors in contributing to the teams success, including the coaches
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 13425
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Is "Always Compete" back?
Fri Jan 26, 2018 5:32 pm
  • Pete did coach all those players up, especially the secondary guys.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2032
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR




It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 8:30 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online