Mina Kimes ranks Pete Carroll at #10 among coaches

Hawkmode

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
236
Reaction score
294
So you want me to reflect on an anomaly season in which Hass only started 14 games and Pete Carrolls first as coach? Hass left the following season so there isnt a lot to go by.

Yes, its a murky subject, but one that seems legit. Especially when a QB went publicly about it.

To think Geno will not be one of the most sacked QBs next season is flatly ignoring evidence that is right in front of you.
Everyone (it seemed) didn't care whether Geno or Drew was our starter...we were going to fall under an avalanche of interceptions thrown...and lose many games. Geno understood Pete was quite firm in expecting his QB to take the sack rather than force the hurried pass into good coverage. Geno likes Pete so he knows he has the freedom to throw into tight windows...just show some restraint when the opponents defense has you under extreme duress while waiting for designated target to uncover. I found an older post I made from another site...back when Mike Solari was our O-Line Coach and Russell expressed being upset with his O-Lines Pass Pro...it uses an article from Tim Riske an "analyst" who tries to explain why our O-Line was being placed in a "bad light". Its lengthy but very insightful...

(analysis provided by a Tim Riske tweet)

First, however, let’s look at the data that shows that the Hawks line is indeed below average in the first 2.75 or so seconds after the snap and above average once that 2.75 second threshold is reached. The following is a tweet sent by the aforementioned Tim Riske which looks at offensive line success for every team in terms of a survival curve against time passed after the snap.

Specifically, this involves getting into technique. The eyes of most fans will glaze over when discussions turn to the specifics of offensive line play and technique, so this will stay extremely high level and I’ll keep it the Reader’s Digest version. So, before I jump into the explanation of why this survival curve makes sense given the technique Seattle offensive linemen use, let me explain very basic differences between a couple of different pass blocking techniques.

There are, of course, various techniques that can be used when pass blocking, but I’m only going to focus on two. The first is Indepdendent Hands, and the second is Two Hand Punch. The names imply basically what the differences are, but here are some visuals just to help with the understanding.
First, Independent Hands is, as the name implies, a technique wherein an offensive linemen engages the defender with his outside hand first, then uses the inside hand. The outside hand first lands a less forceful punch and the lineman then maintains contact. This hand on the defender helps maintain range as a second, more forceful, punch is then delivered with the inside hand.

The reason it’s a mirror image is that as the technique calls for the use of the outside hand first, then inside hand, when flipping sides linemen must flip the order in which they punch the defenders.

Now, the second technique I’ll talk about, as noted, is the Two Hand Punch. This entails, exactly as it sounds, using both hands at the same time on the defensive player. This is what the Seahawks do, so here are three clips that show this. In particular, Mike Iupati in the third clip is a fantastic visual example of both hands being used at the same time to jolt and control the defender.

So, with the difference between the two techniques laid out, let’s get to why the survival chart for the Seahawks makes sense.
For starters, it’s obviously easier for an offensive lineman to put his hands on a defender if he’s only using one hand because it’s possible to stretch further with just one arm than with both. That translates to a greater reach and range for linemen using independent hands, and then once that first hand is in place it allows for greater accuracy with the second punch. Obviously, however, two quick one-handed punches will not be as powerful as one punch with two hands.

And that’s the advantage of the Two Hand Punch technique. There’s no question that if a 330 or 340 pound lineman like Iupati, D.J. Fluker or Germain Ifedi lands a hand on you, you’re going to feel it. However, one of those were to land both hands simultaneously, it’s game over. This is exactly what we see with the Seattle offensive line.
we all remember Jamarco Jones holding off Aaron Donald with one arm while looking for someone else to block after the Seahawks win over the Los Angeles Rams in Week 5. Well, it becomes a different story when we watch from the end zone angle of the coaches film and see that Donald hops right around Jones, but is met with a two hand punch from 6’6” 315 pound center Justin Britt.

And that’s the thing, when the two hand punch lands, that’s it. Game over. That’s all she wrote. Period, the end. Even against an All Pro pass rusher like Aaron Donald, when a two-handed punch lands squarely, that pass blocking battle is typically over. Very few front seven defensive players are going to be able to do much of anything if a two handed punch lands squarely from an offensive lineman the size of Fluker or Ifedi. However, because the range when trying to initiate contact with both hands simultaneously is, of course, shorter, it’s more difficult than landing one hand first and then the other.

Therein lies the trade off. The Seahawks use the two handed technique, presumably for a couple of reasons. First of all, it fits with their identity and mindset. They want to out hit and out physical the opponent, and two hands simultaneously are more powerful and more physical than one hand at a time. Effectively, it’s the body blow methodology of pass blocking.

Beyond that, when two hand punches land squarely, that’s what gives offensive linemen the best ability to take control of a rushing defender and to buy as much time as possible for the quarterback. Basically, if you’re looking to create a pocket quickly and then maintain that pocket as long as possible, the Two Hand Punch technique is likely the choice.

The downside of using the technique, however, is that because it requires the use of both hands at the same time, it’s going to have a higher failure rate than Independent Hands. That is what leads to the whiffs, the high amount of instant pressure and metrics such as PBWR coming in poorly for the Hawks, in spite of the fact that it is readily visible that the Hawks were above average for much of the period of time past 2.7-2.8 seconds.

What it comes down to is that the Seahawks use a high-risk, high-reward style of pass blocking. When it works, it’s glorious and can control defenders and protect Russ for several seconds. When the two handed punch fails to land, however, is when things quickly get ugly. Pressure often comes quickly because the block attempt becomes a whiff rather than a block.

Getting back to why the coaching staff chooses to use this technique, it’s likely because Wilson tends to hold the ball for a very long time. While other quarterbacks who held the ball for as long or longer than Wilson in previous seasons, such as Josh Allen and Deshaun Watson, have adjusted their game to get the ball out quicker, Wilson remained far closer to the slowest quarterbacks in 2019 than the fastest. At this point that appears to be a trait of the way Wilson plays quarterback, and it seems likely that as long as Wilson continues to hold the ball, the Seahawks will continue to employ a pass blocking technique designed to give him a clean pocket for as long as possible.

Basically, the trade off Solari and the rest of the coaching staff is making is whether to have an increase in instant pressure in exchange for the peace of mind of knowing that if a pocket forms, it’s more likely to stay formed. The technique, in effect, shifts pressure from later in the down to earlier in the down by pushing the fail point to earlier in the down after the snap.

Thus, we can talk about Solari coaching a line that has allowed Wilson to become the second most sacked quarterback in the NFL over the past two seasons, but no discussion about Solari and the job he’s doing would be complete without discussing the way and the why about how he’s doing it. (analysis provided by a Tim Riske tweet)


Nicely put explanation IMO.
 

CallMeADawg

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
2,121
Geno Smith was sacked 46 times last year which was tied for 3rd most in the league. Thats about 10 more sacks on the season than the average NFL QB.


Less than one more sack a game is a massive difference?
Yes that's a significant difference. 29% more sacks taken on average by Wilson. Try using math sometime.

Your premise is that Seattle QBs are sacked at a higher than average rate because Pete Carroll sucks, right? So you have to look at the overall team sacks taken, not just one player.


You can see that for that metric, Seattle isn't a as terrible as your made up story is. Denver was excessively high, mostly due to Russell Wilson getting sacked at an extremely high rate.

Are you ready to call it yet? You're not equipped to have this discussion with people that will actually look at data and not made up stories. Your premise is completely wrong, conclusion completely wrong, and I am not surprised at all.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,407
Reaction score
1,947
Yes that's a significant difference. 29% more sacks taken on average by Wilson. Try using math sometime.

Your premise is that Seattle QBs are sacked at a higher than average rate because Pete Carroll sucks, right? So you have to look at the overall team sacks taken, not just one player.


You can see that for that metric, Seattle isn't a as terrible as your made up story is. Denver was excessively high, mostly due to Russell Wilson getting sacked at an extremely high rate.

Are you ready to call it yet? You're not equipped to have this discussion with people that will actually look at data and not made up stories. Your premise is completely wrong, conclusion completely wrong, and I am not surprised at all.

Lol. Again and again, the premise has nothing to do with Pete Carroll sucking or not. All I said was that I dont believe he prioritizes pass protection in his philosophy because all the QB's that have played under him (except Hass when he played 14 games) take large number of sacks as the data shows in which your so enthralled by.

9 more sacks is what Wilson and Fields took over Smith. Is that a massive amount? Its not even double digits and your making it out to be astronomical.

This topic is beating a dead horse at this time. You and others cant stop concentrating on Wilson no matter what is being discussed and will walk into hell for Pete Carroll regardless of what numbers and data state. Its not that important to me anymore. We'll see how next season rolls and go from there.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,808
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Once again, its not about Wilson. Its about the other QB's under Carroll that also take large amount of sacks.

Is Cable really a defense for your point? Good lord, he was terrible in Seattle. Heck the first year he went back to the Raiders, Carr was sacked 51 times. I understand what you are saying about the Run First Offense but that in turn has low regards for QB protection. In order to set up your QB to close the game out in the fourth, the QB has to make it to the fourth. Seattle was very lucky that Wilson was so resilient for so long because the guy got killed out there.

And you say that the line was broken because of Wilson and thats why Geno was sacked so much and the reason they drafted tackles and brought in free agents, etc,,,? I think the real answer is that it just wasnt any good and Pete is trying to retool it once again. We'll see how successful it is this time around.
The other Qbs but Matt Hasselbeck. He doesn't fit, so he's anomalous
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,407
Reaction score
1,947
The other Qbs but Matt Hasselbeck. He doesn't fit, so he's anomalous

It was Carrolls first year and Hass didnt even play the entire season. It was broken down earlier that if he played those extra games, he most likely would have been high atop the most sacked list too.
 
Last edited:

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,808
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Lol. Again and again, the premise has nothing to do with Pete Carroll sucking or not. All I said was that I dont believe he prioritizes pass protection in his philosophy because all the QB's that have played under him (except Hass when he played 14 games) take large number of sacks as the data shows in which your so enthralled by.

9 more sacks is what Wilson and Fields took over Smith. Is that a massive amount? Its not even double digits and your making it out to be astronomical.

This topic is beating a dead horse at this time. You and others cant stop concentrating on Wilson no matter what is being discussed and will walk into hell for Pete Carroll regardless of what numbers and data state. Its not that important to me anymore. We'll see how next season rolls and go from there.

Bro, it's the opposite. Whats beating a dead horse is continuing to try to assign some negative trait to Pete.

You or someone in this thread acknowledged that there are many factors at play. That fact makes it difficult in the first place to try to make some blanket statement that coach X doesn't prioritize Y, particularly with a non traditional qb who has shown he exacerbates protection issues when he ked the league in sacks.

If you wanna say Pete doesn't look at sacks in the completely negative light other coaches do, because he prioritizes not turning the ball over, cool.

But to say he doesn't prioritize O line? We had a pretty damn good o line before we traded Max Unger to get Wilson a target to throw to. If you're blaming Pete for that, you have to show some evidence.

Pete Does sometimes make questionable decision wrt giving coaches too long a leash - Tom Cable after he started experimenting. KnJ...

But how can Pete not prioritize o line when we took two tackles in the draft last year that started to pretty significant fanfare.

And again this year we selected the top Center in the Nation and brought in Brown to start on the interior. So in 2 years, we basically revamped the entire line, and that's not a sign of prioritization?

So why would that level of investment in your opinion lead to high sack totals? Just looking at the talent we have poised to start, what is it that's going to happen (fail) that will place Geno in the top percent of sacked qb's?

At least bring it down to actual contributing factors. Is he not pushing them enough? Is he not emphasizing proper technique? Is he not caring enough about the quality of coaches he brings in?

And if his qb sack totals are higher than average, is it negatively impacting qb performace or with ints and comp %, elevating it?

Youre catching flack because you say things like Bledsoe was sacked at a high rate 200 years ago when Pete had no control over that roster.

And then you criticize folks for mentioning Russ, when RUSS was used to make the argument... referencing his complaint that protection wasn't good enough.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,808
Location
Cockeysville, Md
It was Carrolls first year and Hass didnt even play the entire season. It was broken down earlier that if he played those extra games, he most likely would have high atop the most sacked list too.


How could he have been at the top of the list when with 2 more games and an average of 2.07 per game, he'd have been around 32 or 33? That's 1 or 2 worse than A Rodgers and closer to middle of the pack than atop the worst.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,826
Reaction score
1,797
Once again, its not about Wilson. Its about the other QB's under Carroll that also take large amount of sacks.

Is Cable really a defense for your point? Good lord, he was terrible in Seattle. Heck the first year he went back to the Raiders, Carr was sacked 51 times. I understand what you are saying about the Run First Offense but that in turn has low regards for QB protection. In order to set up your QB to close the game out in the fourth, the QB has to make it to the fourth. Seattle was very lucky that Wilson was so resilient for so long because the guy got killed out there.

And you say that the line was broken because of Wilson and thats why Geno was sacked so much and the reason they drafted tackles and brought in free agents, etc,,,? I think the real answer is that it just wasnt any good and Pete is trying to retool it once again. We'll see how successful it is this time around.
Hmmm I see, so you've given yourself a 'Mulligan' when it's convenient, you dismiss using one of the most sacked Quarterbacks in his lifetime, both before coming into the League as a Seahawk, and then continuing to rack-em-up as a Donko under a completely different Head Coach.
Wilson is an example of someone who (to this day) continually runs his way out of Pass Protection and Pete is nowhere to be seen there in Denver's Mile High Stadium.
You were what? expecting the then Seahawks O-Line who TRIED their darndest to cover for Russell 'The Scrambler' Wilson, and then to up and instantly switch up for a Quarterback who played a LOT MORE conservative Football?
Just admit it, In your heart, you are hoping that Geno get's sacked a bunch more this season, as that would give you the "I Told Y'all So"...Both Petty & Sad.
As far as Cable's concerned, he was the OC when the Seahawks won their Super Bowl, oh, and so was the guy that brought the Identity of toughness = Marshawn Lynch
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,407
Reaction score
1,947
Bro, it's the opposite. Whats beating a dead horse is continuing to try to assign some negative trait to Pete.

You or someone in this thread acknowledged that there are many factors at play. That fact makes it difficult in the first place to try to make some blanket statement that coach X doesn't prioritize Y, particularly with a non traditional qb who has shown he exacerbates protection issues when he ked the league in sacks.

If you wanna say Pete doesn't look at sacks in the completely negative light other coaches do, because he prioritizes not turning the ball over, cool.

But to say he doesn't prioritize O line? We had a pretty damn good o line before we traded Max Unger to get Wilson a target to throw to. If you're blaming Pete for that, you have to show some evidence.

Pete Does sometimes make questionable decision wrt giving coaches too long a leash - Tom Cable after he started experimenting. KnJ...

But how can Pete not prioritize o line when we took two tackles in the draft last year that started to pretty significant fanfare.

And again this year we selected the top Center in the Nation and brought in Brown to start on the interior. So in 2 years, we basically revamped the entire line, and that's not a sign of prioritization?

So why would that level of investment in your opinion lead to high sack totals? Just looking at the talent we have poised to start, what is it that's going to happen (fail) that will place Geno in the top percent of sacked qb's?

At least bring it down to actual contributing factors. Is he not pushing them enough? Is he not emphasizing proper technique? Is he not caring enough about the quality of coaches he brings in?

And if his qb sack totals are higher than average, is it negatively impacting qb performace or with ints and comp %, elevating it?

Youre catching flack because you say things like Bledsoe was sacked at a high rate 200 years ago when Pete had no control over that roster.

And then you criticize folks for mentioning Russ, when RUSS was used to make the argument... referencing his complaint that protection wasn't good enough.

Fair enough
 

Lagartixa

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
1,806
Reaction score
3,165
Location
Taboão da Serra, SP, Brazil
Geno Smith was sacked 46 times last year which was tied for 3rd most in the league. Thats about 10 more sacks on the season than the average NFL QB.


Counting stats are not the way to compare when players play different numbers of games, play on offenses that vary in their ability to stay on the field, and play on teams with defenses that are of varying quality.

Smith was sacked on 7.4% of his dropbacks, good for the twelfth-highest rate among starters, and noticeably closer to the 25th-most-sacked QB, Garoppolo at 5.5% (difference of 1.9 percentage points), than to the second-most-frequently sacked QB in the league, Wilson at 10.2% (difference of 2.8 percentage points).

Less than one more sack a game is a massive difference?

If you look at sacks as a percentage of dropbacks, it's Fields in a category by himself, then Wilson in a second one-guy category, then big drops in sack rate to Mayfield, Tannehill, and Stafford, then a drop to a five-player plateau, followed by another drop to the four-player plateau that includes Smith. The difference is large. As I said above, Smith was noticeably closer to the 25th-most-frequently-sacked QB than to the second-most-frequently sacked QB.

1689507231580

Let's ignore for the moment the utter awfulness of everything Bears and take Fields's "quacks-like-a-draft-bust" second season out of this graph so we can bring down the range of the vertical axis without cheating by cutting the axis off at the bottom (a common trick used to make differences look bigger than they really are).

1689508688977

Smith's sack rate, despite having rookie tackles and a weak center, is noticeably closer to Garoppolo's rate at 25th-most-frequently-sacked than to Wilson's rate at second-most-frequently-sacked.

Wilson's sack rate was 2.9 percentage points worse than Smith's. If we subtract 2.9 percentage points from Smith's rate of 7.4%, we get 4.5%, which would be between the 29th-most-frequently-sacked QB, Prescott at 4.8%, and the 30th-most frequently sacked QB, Lawrence at 4.4%. So to get as much better than Smith as Smith was better than Wilson, you have to go all the way to the top five QBs (#4 and #5) with the lowest sack rates in the league.

So yeah, the difference is huge. Smith was as close to being the fifth-least-frequently-sacked QB in the league as he was to being as utterly awful as Wilson in that specific category.

It's worth noting that everyone who talks and writes about football told us last offseason that Wilson was going to a team with a much-better offensive line than the Seahawks, and one with more and better "weapons," and with one of the best defenses in the league. Yes, Fields was really awful as a passer (and a little overrated as a rusher because of his gaudy total-rushing-yardage numbers, while his efficiency on rushes was good but not great - 12th in rushing DVOA among QBs, for example) and sure is starting to look like a draft bust, but he has the excuse of having played behind a terrible line, with terrible skill players, and on a team with the worst defense in the NFL. Wilson doesn't.
 

morgulon1

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
3,759
Location
Spokane, Wa
Sports personality and big Seahawk fan. Even has a Seahawk tattoo. (if you werent being sarcastic)

View attachment 59781
Oh, right on.

I just hadn't heard of her. I would have to check out her podcast or whatever she's on , which I probably won't but that doesn't mean she isn't too legit to quit.
I've never put much effort or energy into rankings whether it's coaching or wide receivers etc.

I like female Japanese speed metal though.
 

pittpnthrs

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,407
Reaction score
1,947
Oh, right on.

I just hadn't heard of her. I would have to check out her podcast or whatever she's on , which I probably won't but that doesn't mean she isn't too legit to quit.
I've never put much effort or energy into rankings whether it's coaching or wide receivers etc.

I like female Japanese speed metal though.

She used to be a regular on ESPN's "Around The Horn". Not sure if she still does that or not though as I havent watched it in a long time.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
6,808
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Counting stats are not the way to compare when players play different numbers of games, play on offenses that vary in their ability to stay on the field, and play on teams with defenses that are of varying quality.

Smith was sacked on 7.4% of his dropbacks, good for the twelfth-highest rate among starters, and noticeably closer to the 25th-most-sacked QB, Garoppolo at 5.5% (difference of 1.9 percentage points), than to the second-most-frequently sacked QB in the league, Wilson at 10.2% (difference of 2.8 percentage points).



If you look at sacks as a percentage of dropbacks, it's Fields in a category by himself, then Wilson in a second one-guy category, then big drops in sack rate to Mayfield, Tannehill, and Stafford, then a drop to a five-player plateau, followed by another drop to the four-player plateau that includes Smith. The difference is large. As I said above, Smith was noticeably closer to the 25th-most-frequently-sacked QB than to the second-most-frequently sacked QB.

View attachment 59764

Let's ignore for the moment the utter awfulness of everything Bears and take Fields's "quacks-like-a-draft-bust" second season out of this graph so we can bring down the range of the vertical axis without cheating by cutting the axis off at the bottom (a common trick used to make differences look bigger than they really are).

View attachment 59766

Smith's sack rate, despite having rookie tackles and a weak center, is noticeably closer to Garoppolo's rate at 25th-most-frequently-sacked than to Wilson's rate at second-most-frequently-sacked.

Wilson's sack rate was 2.9 percentage points worse than Smith's. If we subtract 2.9 percentage points from Smith's rate of 7.4%, we get 4.5%, which would be between the 29th-most-frequently-sacked QB, Prescott at 4.8%, and the 30th-most frequently sacked QB, Lawrence at 4.4%. So to get as much better than Smith as Smith was better than Wilson, you have to go all the way to the top five QBs (#4 and #5) with the lowest sack rates in the league.

So yeah, the difference is huge. Smith was as close to being the fifth-least-frequently-sacked QB in the league as he was to being as utterly awful as Wilson in that specific category.

It's worth noting that everyone who talks and writes about football told us last offseason that Wilson was going to a team with a much-better offensive line than the Seahawks, and one with more and better "weapons," and with one of the best defenses in the league. Yes, Fields was really awful as a passer (and a little overrated as a rusher because of his gaudy total-rushing-yardage numbers, while his efficiency on rushes was good but not great - 12th in rushing DVOA among QBs, for example) and sure is starting to look like a draft bust, but he has the excuse of having played behind a terrible line, with terrible skill players, and on a team with the worst defense in the NFL. Wilson doesn't.
Solid info.

Just shows that black and white stats often dont paint an accurate picture of whats really going on.
 

Hawkmode

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
236
Reaction score
294
Solid info.

Just shows that black and white stats often dont paint an accurate picture of whats really going on.
Some of the best "NFL Moments" have nothing to do with stats. The NFL offers the full range of driving strong emotions from it's dedicated viewers. The thrill of a crushing victory against incredible odds...the equally charged emotions of a hard fought battle of a team you care about (emotional investment as well as your time) eeking out a sudden victory with seconds left on the game clock. Love/anger...feel good...feel frustrated...its all there for the taking.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
It was already proved by stats that Wilson did not take a lot of sacks in college I believe in this very thread. That is your pre-conceived biased concept. The sample size had three other QB's before and beyond Wilsons tenure and those QB's were also among the league leaders in sacks. Its a premise that was important enough for a QB to publicly ask for more attention to be paid in that area as he was tired of getting killed week in and week out.

Yes Wilson carried a high level of play and Pro Bowls too and Geno had a dream season for him last year, but I wonder how much better it could be if they werent getting blasted every weekend. I also wonder why the issue has never been fixed unless the coach doesnt think its an issue at all. Apparently one of his QB's did.

You keep disregarding the facts that matter to prove points that don't matter.

Winning matters, Pro Bowls matter, statistics matter, SB's matter. You're also not taking into account one of the major factors as to why Wilson's O-line deteriorated after our SB's, he got paid and the organization had to save cap elsewhere. O-line was one of those places.

Lastly, your argument isn't even fair to Pete as he's only a portion of the O-line equation. Schneider, coordinators and the players themselves are culpable for any O-line failures.

But we know you're directive here pitt, it's a one man crusade to bash Pete. It's why literally no one on here other than the other Pete bashers take you seriously when you beat this lame drum.
 

chrispy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 21, 2011
Messages
1,089
Reaction score
1,139
Each side of each point of view has validity. The fact we're still talking about it indicates no one's changing their mind at this point.

Realistically, Pete could have made some different decisions; be them personnel, culture, individual plays, game decisions, presser comments.... Similarly, RCW could have done some things differently; forcing his trade, self-promoting, holding the ball too long, disparaging his o-line, ignoring underneath.... Obviously, they both did some things right too.

The above thread about which set of decisions was more positive/negative is solely a practice in futility at this point. It may be entertaining but it does reach a point where each side is defined and unchanging. There is literally no more quantitative information that will result in someone changing their mind.

Additionally, we're not only discussing the causes of success/failure, there's a huge gap in that definition itself. The margin between a winning season and a championship includes about 1/3 of the league most seasons. Many fans would be content with consistent winning seasons and a playoff run periodically, while it's also fair to assert that every season without a Lombardi is a failure. Arguing about who was more or less responsible for undefined success and failure is obviously never-ending.

So... I'd offer that the only realistic path forward is to update your perspective with '23 information: be that w/l, sacks, pro-bowl selection, completions, hirings/firings/cuts ...or maybe even YouTube videos.

Please don't interpret this post as negative toward any in particular poster above. That's not my intent. I merely wanted to mark a jumping off point for myself, and anyone else that might agree, so we can re-visit in a proper period of time with new information and avoid needing to re-visit the previous 14 pages.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,616
Yes that's a significant difference. 29% more sacks taken on average by Wilson. Try using math sometime.

Your premise is that Seattle QBs are sacked at a higher than average rate because Pete Carroll sucks, right? So you have to look at the overall team sacks taken, not just one player.


You can see that for that metric, Seattle isn't a as terrible as your made up story is. Denver was excessively high, mostly due to Russell Wilson getting sacked at an extremely high rate.

Are you ready to call it yet? You're not equipped to have this discussion with people that will actually look at data and not made up stories. Your premise is completely wrong, conclusion completely wrong, and I am not surprised at all.


Pitt only wants to talk about Wilson when it comes to bashing Pete. He doesn't want us to talk about Wilson when it comes to his record setting sack history in Denver.

Keep that in mind when you're bashing your head against the wall trying to have a logical exchange with him.
 

Hawkmode

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
236
Reaction score
294
Each side of each point of view has validity. The fact we're still talking about it indicates no one's changing their mind at this point.

Realistically, Pete could have made some different decisions; be them personnel, culture, individual plays, game decisions, presser comments.... Similarly, RCW could have done some things differently; forcing his trade, self-promoting, holding the ball too long, disparaging his o-line, ignoring underneath.... Obviously, they both did some things right too.

The above thread about which set of decisions was more positive/negative is solely a practice in futility at this point. It may be entertaining but it does reach a point where each side is defined and unchanging. There is literally no more quantitative information that will result in someone changing their mind.

Additionally, we're not only discussing the causes of success/failure, there's a huge gap in that definition itself. The margin between a winning season and a championship includes about 1/3 of the league most seasons. Many fans would be content with consistent winning seasons and a playoff run periodically, while it's also fair to assert that every season without a Lombardi is a failure. Arguing about who was more or less responsible for undefined success and failure is obviously never-ending.

So... I'd offer that the only realistic path forward is to update your perspective with '23 information: be that w/l, sacks, pro-bowl selection, completions, hirings/firings/cuts ...or maybe even YouTube videos.

Please don't interpret this post as negative toward any in particular poster above. That's not my intent. I merely wanted to mark a jumping off point for myself, and anyone else that might agree, so we can re-visit in a proper period of time with new information and avoid needing to re-visit the previous 14 pages.
Refreshing "food for thought". This can be "fun" without being "heated" ...depends on the passion on display.

From theedadvocate.com
By Matthew Lynch June 17, 2021
Spread the love
Do you feel overwhelmed when you get into an argument and cannot get your point across? Do you think that you can’t articulate your thoughts properly even when you know you’re right? Skilled debate takes quick thinking and effective communication.
If you want to get better at debates and arguments, read on. We have gathered tips from experts that will help you get better at debating in no time.

1. Decide On a Position You Feel Capable Of Defending

Try to stick to a topic you feel passionately about. If you feel passionate about something, it is likely that you know a lot about it and can convincingly defend your stance while debating.

2. Become Well-Informed About Both Your and Your Opponent’s Positions

In some cases, you do not have the liberty of choosing your stance. For instance, you will be assigned random positions if you are in a debate group, and you will have to defend it regardless. In such cases, it is recommended that you think of the topic impartially and come up with reasons to support your position.

Not only that, but you should also prepare for your opponent’s points, as that helps you think of the counterarguments. These tactics will help you come up with a convincing argument.

3. State a Thesis At the Beginning

A thesis statement is a brief statement in which you briefly explain what position you’re taking and some of the main reasons you support it.

For instance, you can say that “I believe that parents should limit screen time of their children, as constant glaring at the screen has many harmful effects, such as weakening of eyesight, delayed cognitive growth, and others.”

4. Listen Carefully To Your Opponent’s Response

Debates and arguments do not happen in isolation. You cannot give a genuine response unless you listen to what your opponent says and build your points on that.

Often, you can pick apart your opponent’s faulty reasoning and question them. For instance, you can say, “That logic doesn’t check out” or “Is there any study to support your claim?”

5. Do Not Forego the Objections That Your Opponent Raises

Just like you will question your opponent’s claims, your opponent will do that to you, as well. Do not hesitate to answer these questions. If you are well-prepared and familiar with the topic, you will be able to back your claim satisfactorily.

6. Remain Calm and Rational At All Times

This is a tricky one, as you can only master remaining calm and rational through practice. Of course, you will be a bundle of nerves the first few times you debate, even if these are informal debates. However, you are sure to get better with time and practice.

Remember that you are not here to attack your opponent’s stance but to convince them about yours. Even if they fail to understand your position, try to develop points that support your claim reasonably and rationally. The key is to keep your calm!



Opinions are merely a reflection of what an individual knows and understands enough about a topic to share a viewpoint others might gain more understanding of the topic's "common ground" by knowing your "input".

Labeling an opposing view by "attacking" the one offering an opinion is normally reserved for politics where the goal is to "frame" your opponents own views without your opponent even having made a stated thought of his own.

The best results come from elevating the "common ground" understanding of all those who participate...but that is my own opinion...not a stated fact for dispute
 
Top