Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Seahawks new OC saying all the wrong things

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
  • Seafan wrote:I don't care what you take from all this. The threat of a running game will make any offense better. Statistically, RW was one of the best passers in the league last year but without a threat of a running game the team was not a contender. You ignore the running game at your own peril. Pete understands the need for balance. So does Schott.


    The only "wow" stat RW had last year was TD/INT ratio. Completion percentage, passer rating, passing yards, and yards per attempt weren't good enough to sustain the offense at a contender-level.

    If our run game is going to be as bad as it was last year (nobody wants or expects this), he's going to have to throw for at least 40 TDs, 4500 (passing) yards, 8.0 ypa, 67% completion, 105 rating for us to be SB contenders. He's done the latter two in 2015 (high efficiency), but not at the volume required to sustain an offense with a bottom-five running game. With Pete's philosophy and our OL, I don't see Russ putting up those numbers.

    Thus, I agree with you and many other posters here. If the run game can contribute, say, 1500 non-RW rushing yards and he can run for around 300 additional yards, all we need is a high efficiency passing game that contributes 4000 yards and we should be a top-tier offense, at least in terms of moving the ball. 5800 total yards was right in the 6-11 range for offensive rankings last year. I think we can all be happy with that kind of offensive improvement for this coming season.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • hawknation2018 wrote:It's all conjecture. Bates wasn't getting stuff done. Bevell wasn't getting stuff done.

    Bevell wasn't getting stuff done. I don't know where you gather that the same issue plagued Bates.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 30056
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Phoenix, AZ


  • chris98251 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    ivotuk wrote:Usually I agree with your posts, but this one is way off and you're using only the negative aspects of Schottenheimer's past. He was so "rigid" about running the ball because that was his best chances at winning, and that's what Rex asked him to do.

    Rex Ryan's favorite saying was "Ground and Pound! Ground and Pound!" He and Brian set up the game plan against Detroit because Ryan prefers to play a strong defense, run the ball, and throw as little as possible. Why? Because his QB had a 53.8% completion rating.

    At one time in New York, they had the #9 ranked offense. People keep trashing him over his time with the Jets and the Rams! That is completely idiotic! You can't blame him for Rex Ryan and Jeff Fisher! Jeebus!

    I've gone back and looked at his offensive successes and failures, and they all have one thing that mirrors the results, the QB he had, and the completion percentage.

    When he had a healthy Chad Pennington or a healthy Brett Favre, Schottenheimer had very good offenses.

    But when he had Mark Sanchez or Austin Davis, he had to rely on the running game. It was all he had. Yet people choose to ignore the facts, and blame the failures of Jeff Fisher and Austin Davis on Brian. Rex Ryan and Mark Sanchez are his fault too, as was the ButtFumble.

    The only things he had going for him were Zac Stacy (who kicked our ass), Leon Washington and Thomas Jones.

    Brian Schottenheimer's philosophy is the same one that got us to our first SuperB Owl win. Run the ball and use play action passes to control time of possession, thereby keeping your defense fresh and fired up to go!

    It's a successful model that helped us have the number one defense 4 years in a row. Our offense wasn't ranked up there all the time, but that didn't matter. All that matterEd was T.O.P and wearing down the opposing defense.

    People need to stop pigeon holing Schottenheimer based on rigged and incomplete statistics!

    Where did that game plan get the New York Jets? They were playing right into the strength of the Lions. As soon as Rex Ryan told him to stop using the game plan they went on to win the game. I don't care if that was what Rex Ryan initially wanted, rarely do things go as you draw them up in practice. One of the things that defines offensive coordinators is their ability to adjust to what defenses are throwing at them. Schottenheimer has not demonstrated this ability in any of his stints. He does exactly what his HC asks of him, and this is his greatest weakness. He does not deviate from his game plans, he will continue down the path to hell unless he is specifically told to otherwise. I don't want that kind of guy on the Seahawks, especially with Pete Carroll as head coach. Carroll has proven time and time again that his judgement is questionable at best when it comes to the offensive side of the ball. I want a guy that is able to make his own decisions when the situation calls for it, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of that.

    As far as his past stints never did he have a "very good offense", his highest rated offense was 11th, most of the time he was hanging in the late teens, and 20s. The only thing Schottenheimer has consistently in the NFL is trot out mediocre offenses. His track record is not very good no matter which way you look at it. I don't see how you can reconcile this fact. I understand that people want to be pumped up about the Seahawks, but his track record is pretty bad.

    As far as the Super Bowl is concerned we had a few things going for us. The first thing is our defense. We had one of the best defenses that this NFL has ever seen. We are one of those defenses legendary defenses that even had a nickname that will forever be associated with it (legion of boom). We completely defined the way teams look at secondaries, and approached the game schematically. Now tall cornerbacks are in vogue, and many teams are aiming to copy the 2013 Seahawks defense, many with success. Pete Carroll is a bonafide defensive savant. What he did was unprecidented, and in the years 2013, and 2014 we boasted the number 1 defense. In 2015 and 2016 we were very close to being at that level as well.

    With this style of defense you want to lean on them, and limit mistakes on offense. What we did in those years was absolutely the best coarse of action. The question I'm going to ask is can we replicate that kind of success with our current roster? My answer is no.

    We have a host of wholesale changes, a few things need to happen in order for the Seahawks to reclaim their greatness on the defensive side of the ball. Griffin had a good rookie year, he needs to build upon that and become a true shutdown cornerback. We need to have a safety that is able to adequately fill in for Chancellor. He may never play another snap again, and if he does he has a less than stellar recent history with injuries. We need another pass rusher to develop next to Clark, and we need his pass rush to be more consistent. I think Maxwell will be fine with Thomas shading him. Realistically I don't think every single one of these things will happen.

    I do not think we have the personnel on the offense to have a great running game on offense. I don't think Solari will magically fix that with one season of work, and a huge hold over of Cable guys. We really should be looking to structure this offense around Russell Wilson, and his unique talents. Again, I don't think Schottenheimer is capable of accomplishing this task or rather, I don't think Carroll is capable of making this a reality. Schottenheimer is just a rank and file guy. He is really going to be running Pete's offense. That doesn't mean abandoning the run. What I'm saying is we need to be playing to our strengths as a team. The team will be better at running this year, no doubt, but I don't think we have the personnel to run a full on ground and pound style of offense like we had in 2013, nor do I think we should run that style due to big question marks on our defense.


    Jeremy Bates was fired for not doing what Pete wanted, go against the Head Coach at your peril, he also had a incident I heard at a party but his pushing the deep ball instead of the run was a major factor as well.

    Bates was fired because he showed up drunk at an important function that Paul Allen was hosting, and he made a fool of himself and Paul Allen. Bates was running the style of offense that Carroll wanted, something akin to the Shannahan style of WCO. The Seahawks were not able to run the ball well during 2010, even with Marshawn Lynch due to poor O-Line play. Bates's philosophy was to open the running lanes by forcing defenses to play back, and it worked in many cases. Bates also butted heads with Gibbs.

    What I'm saying here is that OC's are granted a fair bit of autonomy to adjust the playcalls if the original plan isn't working. Just look at some of Bevell balls to the wall passing games, even with Lynch around. Those weren't what Pete originally had in his mind, no doubt. The reason why the Jets example is talked about a lot is because it is quite rare to see somebody not deviate. Rex Ryan had to go over and say "We're down 20, do you want to win, or do you want to run the ball 40 times?". Schottenheimer then said "we gotta get those 40 carries coach". Rex Ryan tells him to "forget it, we can pass on them now".

    That is the kind of thing that has derailed Schotty's carrier wherever he has been. It's unfortunate because his play designs aren't half bad, and he seems like an intelligent guy. He is a great QB coach as well. He just does not adjust or waver from the initial game plan even if it is not working. This has been a reoccurring theme since his first stint as an OC. I really hope that this time he gets it, and Pete doesn't have an iron grip over the offense.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:It's all conjecture. Bates wasn't getting stuff done. Bevell wasn't getting stuff done.

    Bevell wasn't getting stuff done. I don't know where you gather that the same issue plagued Bates.


    The horrible offensive results for Bates in college and the NFL?
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2811
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • It's rare that I ever agree with Ben Baldwin or most of the writers on FG, the new lead writer maybe most of all. They only believe in passing the ball because they are impatient fools who never played and most importantly, never felt the game. Their "analytics" are specifically skewed towards their agenda of a high octane passing attack. FG went downhill extremely badly when Danny Kelly left. Arthur and Baldwin take the football out of the NFL, and most importantly, they are almost always wrong. They are the NW weathermen of "football" writing, i.e. wrong so often that they might as well not be there and wonder how they have jobs.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4616
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • vin.couve12 wrote:It's rare that I ever agree with Ben Baldwin or most of the writers on FG, the new lead writer maybe most of all. They only believe in passing the ball because they are impatient fools who never played and most importantly, never felt the game. Their "analytics" are specifically skewed towards their agenda of a high octane passing attack. FG went downhill extremely badly when Danny Kelly left. Arthur and Baldwin take the football out of the NFL, and most importantly, they are almost always wrong. They are the NW weathermen of "football" writing, i.e. wrong so often that they might as well not be there and wonder how they have jobs.



    Couldn't you say that about anything statistics apply to though? Basketball, baseball, etc. The point of stats is to take the feeling out of whatever you're analysing. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I think there's something to be said for the human element of the game and stats can't capture that.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • adeltaY wrote:
    vin.couve12 wrote:It's rare that I ever agree with Ben Baldwin or most of the writers on FG, the new lead writer maybe most of all. They only believe in passing the ball because they are impatient fools who never played and most importantly, never felt the game. Their "analytics" are specifically skewed towards their agenda of a high octane passing attack. FG went downhill extremely badly when Danny Kelly left. Arthur and Baldwin take the football out of the NFL, and most importantly, they are almost always wrong. They are the NW weathermen of "football" writing, i.e. wrong so often that they might as well not be there and wonder how they have jobs.



    Couldn't you say that about anything statistics apply to though? Basketball, baseball, etc. The point of stats is to take the feeling out of whatever you're analysing. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I think there's something to be said for the human element of the game and stats can't capture that.

    Okay.

    There is a balance to all things. We see this throughout human history in actions and reactions. It is evident in religion, sociology, politics, and basically every part of human life. A majority will have its way for a period of time, but it's very existence gives cause and reason for the opposite reaction. Belief tries to deny these things, but inevitably fall to opposition that its very existence inevitably creates.

    I think for a time, it was a passing league, as teams adapted to rules to literally try to make it so.

    But then teams can still be willfully dominated. The Seahawks showed the NFL as much quite literally. The last two years of playoff teams and the more dominant teams in years prior support that.

    The reason why I bring up opinions of those who have never played the game is because the lack of experience of getting the ish knocked out of you and having the will and determination of getting back up and inviting the opportunity to do better next time, regardless of how good you are or lack there of. Analytics, in its current state, leave a lot to be desired. It is vague enough that you can continue to tell a bit of a white lie, but football is usually about matchups. There are 22 variables and you have to maximize or minimize those values.

    So let's talk about trends. The ILB/MLB position is getting extremely light as of late. There are quite a few guys who are merely 220 pounds or so. Teams don't have the luxury of a Wagner at 245 with 33 inch arms and a 4.4 40, but these players can be singled out like a weakness in the herd in the running game. Teams have gone this direction because of the pass game and zone blocking/beating angles, but they are mere targets to a power running scheme, with little effectiveness.

    State of the league is one thing. You have to counter that, but you also have to value and recognize the allowance of what the 22 variables give you. Or not.

    Either way, you have to be balanced. One dimensional of any aspect of existence is short lived.
    User avatar
    vin.couve12
    .NET Poster of the Month
     
    Posts: 4616
    Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 10:19 am
    Location: Vancouver, WA


  • To Echo vin.couve12 's post, prior to the late 70's and 80's there were hardly any 300 pounders in the league, then a team got a couple and the run game began to dominate, you also seen changes in the passing game with rules and a blowout of passing stats began, Defenses began to counter with big MLB's big DT's and really fast edge guys and 4.4 guys at CB and heavy hitting Safety's like Lott, Easley, and some others. Guys on the O line got bigger to enforce the run game, now it's 325 or so across the board, the ZBS came into play to take down the big Dline and edge rushers as well as gap shooting MLB's support in the run game. We seen WR's get really tall now and look like TE's with speed, offenses adapted with the WCO and YAC and Quicker routes to suck a defense up with run and short passing, 50 percent completion rates began to be looked at as low, now you looked at 65 percent being good.

    We're part of the adaptive aspect again, Pete's defense dominated on a level unexpected with speed and size in the secondary, speed at LB across the board, the Leo and the D line rotation he had, more rules implemented to try to reduce any contact with Receivers since our DB's were playing to what the rules would allow.


    Again now there is an adapt period, the league has almost caught up with Pete's philosophy that worked, other teams now have a reflection of our defense, drafting the same type of players. Our staff has been hired across the league and brings the teachings we had initially, which means.... we have to do it better then they do and create new twists to what we do.

    Yes I have skipped a few things but a history would take more time to write then a Bible, it was more just a over view of trends and how things change and get countered and then adapted to.


    On offense the way to counter smaller and faster is to go with power and run to bring up a defense to take advantage of the different layers left vacant when a team cheats to shut down an aspect of your offense. That's where Bevell failed, he had no intermediate passing game and or tree that functioned and there had to be tip offs to what we were running besides the sheer predictability a lot of fans knew what was coming as well.


    Not having a functional running game the last two years or any pass blocking just magnified the disaster that was supposedly our offense.
    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: 25400
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • Chris that was a good post!

    In the end the need for balance is the key to regular success. The team needs to run to set up play action and that intermediate passing game the Patriots use so effectively allows the longer ball to be easier to complete. However, if one part is broken like it became under Cable/Bevell then the whole O starts to look ugly.

    I truly believe as you observe that there were tells with Bevell’s O that allowed opponents ease in defending or it was so predictable and simple that it was easy to read. Cable’s run coordination wasn’t coordinated and his OLine couldn’t pass protect then there were constant necessary AD LIBs by RW who was under the highest pressure of any QB in the league. How this wasn’t clear to the FO is a mystery to me, but Cable was given latitude for far longer than he should have been. It was pretty clear to anyone watching with a critical eye that the OLine despite considerable investment of draft resources was not performing as expected. When Lynch finally broke down b/c of Cable/Bevell the whole unit looked out of sinc. In fact even with Lynch the O was not always in sinc and the team frequently couldn’t run when it needed to run, or convert by pass those must make 3rd downs. Besides that the clueless OC couldn’t make use of special players or take advantage of significant mismatches with any reliability.

    The O was unferperforming the the D by an unfair differential. In any competitive circumstance that is a basis for quiet discord between units that becomes louder when there is a manifest failure. That happened to the team in XLIX and that epic fail that was “that play” causing a hurtful loss which honestly fell in terms of responsibility on both O and D, but was seen to be on the O which couldn’t carry it’s weight. Why it took so darn long to recognize this situation escapes me but the changes have finally been made by a FO that has at last awakened to the reality the O was not playing in balance or well.

    The recent comment by Scotty that the team has to be able to run even when their opponent knows it’s coming is simply reflective of the Holmgren style thinking that effective execution allows the O to impose it’s will on an opponent’s D. The talk of “run first” is just talk; but the ability to run with some effectiveness to avoid being one dimensional or wear on an opponent is really what the new OC is talking about. This comment doesn’t really mean much more than just that. Besides that it might be nice to see what Wilson could do with some time to make a few reads.
    Until we develop a pass rush that will cause opposing teams to be forced to scheme to defend it we will never be able to consistently take the final step. The interior rush needs improvement. The OLine clearly still needs work.

    Super Bowl XLVIII Champions at last after 38 seasons. Awesome!!!
    jammerhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5466
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:13 pm


  • Everyone told us Pete Carroll Couldn't win at the NFL level. Nobody would buy into his college message... His NFL record spoke for itself...

    Philly won the title.. 3rd in rushing. GROUND GAMES MATTER


    Fake news. Go Hawks.
    2018 Adopt a Rookie: Rashaad Penny

    Image
    User avatar
    Sox-n-Hawks
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2670
    Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2014 3:26 am


  • Sox-n-Hawks wrote:Everyone told us Pete Carroll Couldn't win at the NFL level. Nobody would buy into his college message... His NFL record spoke for itself...

    Fake news. Go Hawks.

    Pete Carroll had multiple playoff appearances, a record that was a bit above .500 in the NFL. Not like he was a colossal failure in the NFL. Pete Carroll also had a lot of success as a DC in the NFL before he was a head coach for multiple different teams. He also killed it as a DB coach in the NFL before he was a DC. In college he won what, two different national titles? Carroll also headed a national power house for many years.

    The thing about Carroll's tenures is they always got off to a hot start, but they were not able to generate prolonged success. We're starting to see that same thing take place on the Seahawks. After the ill-fated 2014 season the Seahawks have been going down hill, and there has been murmurs, and confirmation from released players about discontent in the locker room. The main difference here is Pete Carroll has complete autonomy over player acquisition, and the final roster.

    Now Schottenheimer on the other hand has yet to have success in both the collegiate level, or the NFL level as an offensive coordinator. His offenses have all been horrid, save for one year where it ranked 11th. All of the other years it was in the 20s, and in the NCAA it was 85th of 128th during his one year stint with the Bulldogs. Pete Carroll by comparison had some successes in the NCAA and the NFL as a head coach, and was massively successful as a DB coach, and defensive coordinator. One thing is not like the other.

    People can rationalize Schottenheimer's records, and offensive production all they want, but the matter of fact is, wherever he has gone he has been mediocre as an offensive coordinator. UGA, JETs fans, and Rams fans were laughing at us for this hire. I got curious and looked over what he had done, and tried to find what footage I could of his. I was not only underwhelmed, but was horrified by what I saw.

    I will be happy to eat crow if he does end up being a good offensive coordinator this year -- but I fully expect everyone to be calling for his head to be hoisted on a pike come mid season. We hired a worse version of Darrell Bevell. Feel free to book mark this and call me on it if I am wrong come the end of this season. I will come for my heaping plate of road kill crow.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:The thing about Carroll's tenures is they always got off to a hot start, but they were not able to generate prolonged success.


    Untrue.

    Carroll had an unprecedented seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes in college football. The only years he didn't win the conference title (and finish ranked in the Top 4 nationally) were his first and last years at USC. He set a college football record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    The Seahawks went to six playoffs in seven years, which we had never done before in franchise history. He set an NFL record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    This is the definition of sustained success.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2811
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:The thing about Carroll's tenures is they always got off to a hot start, but they were not able to generate prolonged success.


    Untrue.

    Carroll had an unprecedented seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes in college football. The only years he didn't win the conference title (and finish ranked in the Top 4 nationally) were his first and last years at USC. He set a college football record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    The Seahawks went to six playoffs in seven years, which we had never done before in franchise history. He set an NFL record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    This is the definition of sustained success.

    I'm talking about his NFL tenure before he was with the Seahawks here.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Spin Doctor wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:The thing about Carroll's tenures is they always got off to a hot start, but they were not able to generate prolonged success.


    Untrue.

    Carroll had an unprecedented seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes in college football. The only years he didn't win the conference title (and finish ranked in the Top 4 nationally) were his first and last years at USC. He set a college football record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    The Seahawks went to six playoffs in seven years, which we had never done before in franchise history. He set an NFL record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    This is the definition of sustained success.

    I'm talking about his NFL tenure before he was with the Seahawks here.


    Not sure what can be gleaned there from four total seasons. Evaluating "sustained success" requires a longer sample size.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2811
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • Not even Nick Saban has had seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes in college football. His best is four.
    User avatar
    hawknation2018
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2811
    Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 1:04 pm


  • hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:
    hawknation2018 wrote:
    Spin Doctor wrote:The thing about Carroll's tenures is they always got off to a hot start, but they were not able to generate prolonged success.


    Untrue.

    Carroll had an unprecedented seven-consecutive Top 4 finishes in college football. The only years he didn't win the conference title (and finish ranked in the Top 4 nationally) were his first and last years at USC. He set a college football record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    The Seahawks went to six playoffs in seven years, which we had never done before in franchise history. He set an NFL record for most-consecutive games without losing by more than seven points.

    This is the definition of sustained success.

    I'm talking about his NFL tenure before he was with the Seahawks here.


    Not sure what can be gleaned there from four total seasons. Evaluating "sustained success" requires a longer sample size.

    Four seasons is a pretty good sample size, it is more than most coaches get in the NFL. Each season the New England Patriots got worse under Carroll. His season with the NY Jets was also a good example of starting off hot and then faltering. It was a trend in the NFL, his ability to manage players, and personalities. It was certainly a factor in his first two rodeos. The NCAA is a completely different field. Many coaches are able to thrive here, but few are able to become Jim Harbaugh or Pete Carroll in the NFL. This is where the rah, rah, players coach mentality is not only encouraged, but thrives.

    Players are a revolving door. At most they are staying four years, and a good batch are being cycled in and out every year. Not only that, recruiting also plays a big role here. This part would ultimately be the part that changed in Pete Carroll's next tenure in the NFL, the Seahawks. Pete Carroll kept the same mentality he had in college, he just had the ability to cycle out players that didn't buy into his system, and cycle them out he did. In his first few years he cut some big names and fan favorites. It was a great purge, and the Seahawks set records for most transactions in one season. He ran the Seahawks in the years 2010-2014 like a college organization (which is not a bad thing in this case).

    This year we had a second purge. Thomas was put on the trading block, Sherman was kicked to the curb, Bennett was traded away for mere pennies. His ability to have complete autonomy over the roster, and his insider knowledge that he had on NCAA players proved to be the difference maker in this go around in the NFL.

    Even with those changes, we saw some similar trends in this go around in the NFL. After the call, Carroll has had a hard time getting his roster to buy in to his message, and manage the issues in the locker room and with his coaching staff. All we heard is rumors but I think what guys like Sherman, Avril and Bennett have been saying has confirmed it. Which is part of the reason why Sherman, and Bennett are no longer with us, and why we tried so hard to get rid of Thomas as well. It is also why Cable, Richards and Bevell are gone. This organization may have not shown it on paper, but they have been very dysfunctional for the last two years.

    I think a lot of talent has been squandered, and a lot of abilities wasted in these last few years due to stubbornness and Carroll's inability to get a grip on troublesome players, and that fact will always haunt us Seahawk fans. What could have been, but what never was due to some ill-fated decisions, nepotism, and toxicity within the locker room. Pete Carroll is still a good coach, but part of me wonders if his act has grown stale in the NFL. This season will be a make or break season for him. It surely has been a departure from his previous M.Os. Schottenheimer, and Ken Norton Jr. are both cut from the same cloth. They are no non-sense, old school, militaristic style coaches. Even Solari is of the same ilk. Even Carroll himself looked more pissed off and angry last season. I think we're about to see a new Carroll, the man just looked tired of all of the BS that was being spouted by players, and maybe even his own coaches.

    I think Schottenheimer was hired more for his mentality, and ability to command respect than for his prowess as a playcaller. I think that is what sold Carroll on him more than anything, and maybe perhaps his rep as a good QB coach. (Wilson's mechanics really have been going down hill the last few years, though for good reason).

    I personally don't think this arrangement will work out. I think if we're going to win it is going to be because of a defensive reinsurance rather than some kind of offensive boon. It is more ore less going to be like a Bevell ran offense, only a little more inflexible in my opinion. I like Schottenheimer as a QB coach, not so much as a play caller. I can see why he was an attractive option for Carroll, given the events that have transpired here over the last few years. I really do hope he can do something, but I'm not holding out hope, especially given Carroll's spotty offenses.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2706
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am



  • Schotty comes from a coaching tree his father that had a pretty much Iron Fist mentality, Rex Ryan the same way, Jeff Fisher the same, you don't buck the boss and do your own thing. I think what Pete needs to allow is for him to game plan and then have the freedom to adjust on the fly when the defense adjusts rather then have a formal approval so to speak. If you have to ask permission to change your play selection then your handcuffed pretty dramatically. You can have a game and team concept but one injury to a key player can change that. You have to adapt to what cards are dealt to you game by game and play to play.
    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: 25400
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.



  • People need to go back and really look at those 2009-2011 Jets teams that Shotty was working with. He had no talent and still got his teams into the AFC title game three years in a row with a QB who threw half as many TD's as interceptions. His scheme almost got 1000 yards out of 31-year-old LaDainian Tomlinson, his system revived Thomas Jones's career in his 30's and before you say "It was the defense" go check out that defense it was all scheme over talent. The Seahawks will be the most talented team he has ever coached. This guy and his system turned Jerricho Cotchery into a number one WR. After he left the Jets offense got worse.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2201
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


  • sdog1981 wrote:People need to go back and really look at those 2009-2011 Jets teams that Shotty was working with. He had no talent and still got his teams into the AFC title game three years in a row with a QB who threw half as many TD's as interceptions. His scheme almost got 1000 yards out of 31-year-old LaDainian Tomlinson, his system revived Thomas Jones's career in his 30's and before you say "It was the defense" go check out that defense it was all scheme over talent. The Seahawks will be the most talented team he has ever coached. This guy and his system turned Jerricho Cotchery into a number one WR. After he left the Jets offense got worse.


    Cmon, saying the offense got the Jets into the AFCCG is a stretch. Those teams were carried by their elite defenses.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3281
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Previous


It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:07 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information