Fire Pete

[TwistedHusky]

Disagree.

It is near impossible to dislike Pete. The issue is PeteBall. Not Pete.

A problem is Pete is successful enough he does not need to change.

With Pete, he will always improve your roster. Grow/Build/Develop, whatever...

But that also means he is going to create rosters that seem better than results. Almost invariably.

The challenge is that without Pete you don't get those rosters.

So what do you want?
Great roster with incredible regular season success? Or lesser rosters with lesser regular season success but better results in the playoffs?

Is Carroll underproducing in the playoffs or overproducing in the regular season and so setting unreasonable postseason expectations?

 

[Flyingsquad23]

Spin doctor is plain and simple just a hater. Not one single positive post in years. Hope he had a $h!t Christmas...lol

What a mean spirited post. I never wish ill will on posters even if I disagree with them. You really need to take a step back and examine yourself. You're wishing bad luck on somebody just because they happen to have a different opinion on football than you. You should be ashamed.

First off I didn’t wish bad luck on you, I wrote that I hoped you had a bad Christmas. Then I clearly lol’d. If you consider that wishing ill will then I understand how you reach your opinions on the Hawks.

 

[Hawkpower]

Disagree.

It is near impossible to dislike Pete. The issue is PeteBall. Not Pete.

A problem is Pete is successful enough he does not need to change.

With Pete, he will always improve your roster. Grow/Build/Develop, whatever...

But that also means he is going to create rosters that seem better than results. Almost invariably.

The challenge is that without Pete you don't get those rosters.

So what do you want?
Great roster with incredible regular season success? Or lesser rosters with lesser regular season success but better results in the playoffs?

Is Carroll underproducing in the playoffs or overproducing in the regular season and so setting unreasonable postseason expectations?

What would producing “just right” in the playoffs look like to you over a 10 year span, and please explain why Pete doesn’t meet that standard.

Please feel free to reference other coaches last 10 years as a comparable so we have context

 

[Nunya]

Disagree.

It is near impossible to dislike Pete. The issue is PeteBall. Not Pete.

So what exactly is "Pete Ball"? Is that a term created to explain everything he does that you do not like?

With Pete, he will always improve your roster. Grow/Build/Develop, whatever...

But that also means he is going to create rosters that seem better than results. Almost invariably.

You just described EVERY team.

So what do you want?
Great roster with incredible regular season success? Or lesser rosters with lesser regular season success but better results in the playoffs?

So...you think a lesser team that preforms worse in the regular season would have better results in the playoffs????? Either I'm not quite understanding what you are saying, or that is some very twisted logic.

Is Carroll underproducing in the playoffs or overproducing in the regular season and so setting unreasonable postseason expectations?

How exactly is he under-performing in the playoffs???? His post season record is very comparable to ANY modern era NFL coach. Just because returning to the SB has eluded him, that does not mean he is under-performing in the play-offs.

You set you own expectations. Stop trying to blame PC for not clearing the high bar you set.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Nunya,

If you really don't know what 'PeteBall' is then you haven't been paying attention to this team for a while. I think the more likely answer is you know but are feigning ignorance to create your argument. There are enough references to PeteBall on here you can figure it out.

On the other points you questioned?

Let's be clear. Yes all teams grow/build/improve. But Pete is an expert program builder. There is a difference.

He is adept at building and developing key contributors IN season. That means many things but primarily it means that the roster on Day 1 will significantly improve by end of season. It also means that lower level draft picks have a much higher % chance of being significant contributors than most teams usually realize at those levels. Both are exceptional, both are benefits that Pete brings, and not sure why or how you would pretend this is normal when it isn't.

Sure it happens to all teams. But not with the degree and consistency Pete delivers. It is almost assured depth multiplier.

With Pete, you are going to be better at the end of the year in key areas that you were not great at in the earlier games. He also is going to find some unheralded player and turn him into an exceptional contributor yearly.

Not even sure what your argument would be, or how you are disputing that.




But, teams with high ranked rosters tend to do better in the playoffs. We should be doing better in the playoffs than we have since our SB loss when contrasted to how our roster would be ranked.

Pete's playoff success is fairly good. But not since the SB loss.

Reasonable expectations? What is reasonable for a team with a top 2 QB and fairly highly ranked roster?

A single divisional playoff win in the past half decade maybe?

 

[IndyHawk]

To the Pete haters..He won't be around but a few more years at most.
The man got us our SB win and it should have been two but all I see is
spoiled people who don't know what it's like to go through coach after
coach trying to get a good one..
I know trust me and so do others in here..I love PC but that offense gets
to me sometimes too..It works lot more than it doesn't so I can deal with
that

 

[Hawkpower]

Nunya,

If you really don't know what 'PeteBall' is then you haven't been paying attention to this team for a while. I think the more likely answer is you know but are feigning ignorance to create your argument. There are enough references to PeteBall on here you can figure it out.

On the other points you questioned?

Let's be clear. Yes all teams grow/build/improve. But Pete is an expert program builder. There is a difference.

He is adept at building and developing key contributors IN season. That means many things but primarily it means that the roster on Day 1 will significantly improve by end of season. It also means that lower level draft picks have a much higher % chance of being significant contributors than most teams usually realize at those levels. Both are exceptional, both are benefits that Pete brings, and not sure why or how you would pretend this is normal when it isn't.

Sure it happens to all teams. But not with the degree and consistency Pete delivers. It is almost assured depth multiplier.

With Pete, you are going to be better at the end of the year in key areas that you were not great at in the earlier games. He also is going to find some unheralded player and turn him into an exceptional contributor yearly.

Not even sure what your argument would be, or how you are disputing that.




But, teams with high ranked rosters tend to do better in the playoffs. We should be doing better in the playoffs than we have since our SB loss when contrasted to how our roster would be ranked.

Pete's playoff success is fairly good. But not since the SB loss.

Reasonable expectations? What is reasonable for a team with a top 2 QB and fairly highly ranked roster?

A single divisional playoff win in the past half decade maybe?

I think you are overestimating some of our rosters.

We've had some good teams in the last 5 years, sure, but we also have had some teams going in without key pieces (last year) and some other teams that were seriously flawed that probably in all honesty reached their peak in rounds 1/2.

Making it to a conference championship game is a special feat. Takes things clicking on all levels plus a bit of luck.

Not making one in the last 5 years is hardly a definition of failure by any rational human being.

 

[Nunya]

Nunya,

If you really don't know what 'PeteBall' is then you haven't been paying attention to this team for a while. I think the more likely answer is you know but are feigning ignorance to create your argument. There are enough references to PeteBall on here you can figure it out.

Sure, I have seen people say "Pete Ball", but there are about 50 different descriptions of what "Pete Ball" actually is, depending on who you ask. People seem to throw that term out there as if it was some failed unique game management style. In reality, "Pete Ball" is basically a tried and true approach to the game of football. Balance between run & pass. Be efficient in both the run & pass. Control the ball. Control the clock, especially when you have the lead. There is nothing that PC does that is any way unique or earth shattering.

On the other points you questioned?

Let's be clear. Yes all teams grow/build/improve. But Pete is an expert program builder. There is a difference.

He is adept at building and developing key contributors IN season. That means many things but primarily it means that the roster on Day 1 will significantly improve by end of season. It also means that lower level draft picks have a much higher % chance of being significant contributors than most teams usually realize at those levels. Both are exceptional, both are benefits that Pete brings, and not sure why or how you would pretend this is normal when it isn't.

Except it IS normal. Every team has undrafted players that have found success.

Sure it happens to all teams. But not with the degree and consistency Pete delivers. It is almost assured depth multiplier.

I think you would be surprised at how well some other coaches develop players. However, I do agree that PC seems to have regular success. Not all coaches will be as successful as PC has been, but his "talent" is not unique. Maybe rare, but not unique.

With Pete, you are going to be better at the end of the year in key areas that you were not great at in the earlier games. He also is going to find some unheralded player and turn him into an exceptional contributor yearly.

Not even sure what your argument would be, or how you are disputing that.

So basically, you are saying that PC is doing what is expected of an NFL coach? Continue to coach throughout the season? Teach players how to more efficiently play their position?

So what is my argument? Nothing. I'm not sure why you are going on about PC's skill at developing players. I never once contested that point. Yes, he is good in this area.

But, teams with high ranked rosters tend to do better in the playoffs. We should be doing better in the playoffs than we have since our SB loss when contrasted to how our roster would be ranked.

Don't even know what you are saying here. All it does is create more questions than answers: Ranked by who? How ranked? Ranked pre-season or post regular season? Based on individual stats or someone's opinion?

Please provide data that suggests high ranked rosters do better in the playoffs.

From my experience, teams with decent defenses, teams that have a decent and balance run/pass offence, and a sprinkling of decent Special Teams play....and are able to continue their decent play during the playoffs, are the teams that do better in the playoffs.

Pete's playoff success is fairly good. But not since the SB loss.

Reasonable expectations? What is reasonable for a team with a top 2 QB and fairly highly ranked roster?

A single divisional playoff win in the past half decade maybe?

Since the 2014 SB loss, there has been 5 seasons. One of those season, the Seahawks never even made it to the playoffs (2017).

2015 - Entered as the 6th seed with a 10-6 record. Beat the #3 seed (Minnesota) in the Wild Card round. Lost to the #1 team (Carolina) in the Divisional Round.

2016 - Entered as the #3 seed with a 10-5-1 record. Beat the #6 seed (Detroit in the Wild Card Round. Lost to the #2 seed (Atlanta) in the Divisional Round. This was the first season without Lynch and we struggled finding a replacement.

2018 - Entered as the #5 seed with a 10-6 record. Lost to the #4 seed (Dallas) in the Wild Card round. First season without the LOB.

2019 Entered as the #5 seed with an 11-5 record. Beat the # 4 seed (Philadelphia) in the Wild Card round. Lost to the #2 seed (Green Bay) in the Divisional round. Went 1-3 in the last 4 games of the regular season, mainly because of injuries. RB corp was so depleted that Lynch was brought out of retirement.

So it looks like we won against the teams we should have won against and lost to team we should have lost to (except the 2015 Vikings and the 2019 Eagles, who we beat even though they were seeded higher).

EDIT - Note: Since our SB win in 2014, no team seeded #3 or lower has made the SB.

As far as RW being the "top 2 QB", that is debatable, depending on what metric a person uses. Myself, I think it is silly to "rank" QB after a certain point. Sure, a person can point at stats and claim one QB is better than another just because they threw 1 more TD in the regular season, but the "line" is very thin.

A QB is either elite, or he is not. Just in the NFC during those seasons, there was Rodgers, Brees, Prescott, Ryan, Stafford, and a number of QBs with the potential of being "elite" if they were more consistent. It is a huge stretch to beleive a team should win more playoff games just because they have an "elite" QB. Those "elite" QBs are often playing against other "elite" QBs.

Some would say that Rodgers is a better QB than RW. When was the last time Rodgers won a SB? When was the last time he even won a Conference Title. Many will say that Marino was one of the best QBs. How many SB rings does he have?

While you can say that "we should be winning more playoffs games", history does not support your claim.

 

[Hockey Guy]

Ahhh the annual gloat posts by the kool aid drinkers gotta love em.
On a side note credit to Pete and ken Norton for turning the defense into an average defense instead of the dumpster fire it was the first half of the season. I still hope for a new coach. But Pete will keep us around 9-11 wins a year with first or second round exits and he’ll play out his contract imo. Can we just appreciate everyone’s opinion. We won the west let’s enjoy it like you positive patties say

Yeah, there are annual gloat posts only because the negative nancy's are proven wrong, annually.

& when I say "proven wrong" I realize that can't be done because it's impossible to have a serious discussion about coaching & reasonable expectations when there are a bunch of posters who are on the record as saying they just want PC fired & don't care if the move even works out, they're just ready for a change.

Seriously, this is a thing on this board.

This crap reminds me of the movement to move on from Arsene Wenger of my Arsenal Gunners & since he retired it has been a straight downward death spiral & this year they are in some danger of being relegated out of the Premier League, something that has never happened in the history of the team & they are the only team never to have been relegated in the history of the PL.

You'd think winning in professional sports was easy reading this place.

 

[OrangeGravy]

We're below .500 since the 2015 season and our last Super Bowl run.

Wait, so your line is after we last made a SB we lost not last we won? Is just making the SB the goal or is winning one? Because it sounds like you're drawing an arbitrary line that suits this narrative.

It's extremely difficult to make the playoffs a lot and also have a strong winning record in the playoffs because unless you win the SB, you're taking a loss.

Pete has still won a playoff game in each of their last 4 appearances. That's quite good, period. There's not someone who just constantly gets to Conference Championships out waiting in the wings because that's either Belichik or they don't exist.

We should have lost in Minnesota, and we lost in 2018 against the Cowboys, not a single win that season. Pete does not have what it takes to get us to another Super Bowl. What concerns me is not that we're losing, it is HOW we're losing. We keep making the same mistakes each loss, we keep losing the same way and not adjusting. I highly doubt Pete ever brings us another Super Bowl again, and I doubt he even gets us an NFC Championship game.

No coach is ever going to meet your expectations. It is statistically impossible. You are setting a standard that is completely unsustainable. Then you use this unrealistic expectation as a measuring stick to determine whether PC will be successful in the off-season.??!!!!????!!???

The playoffs are a "loser go home" format. It is not like regular season where there are a set number of games to be won or lost. Under the old format:

1. 12 teams made the playoffs.
2. 4 of those teams are guaranteed to be "one and done".....that is 33% of the teams.
3. The 4 top seeded teams that received a bye week could be "one and done" if they under perform.
4. Assuming the top 1 and 2 seeds all win, 4 teams will be "two and done".
5. If any of the top seeded teams lose, the "one and done" percentage increases.
6. Only 4 teams will make the Conference Championship Games (CCG).....that is only 33% of the teams that made the playoffs.
7. Assuming the top 1 and 2 seeded teams make the CCG, 2 of the teams will have a 1-1 playoff record for that season.
8. Only 2 teams will make the Superbowl....that is only 16.6% of the teams that make the playoffs.
9. EVERY team is capable of laying an egg in the playoffs....for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with coaching. Injuries, nerves, weather, away game, poor refereeing, bad bounces, etc can all impact a game's outcome.

In order for a coach to have a above .500 playoff record, they would pretty much need to get to the Conference Championship Game almost every time they reach the playoffs....however, even then, only 2 of the top seeded teams will be able to break .500.

Your claim that a coach that consistently has 10+ wins a season suddenly does not have "what it takes" to advance in the playoff is asinine. You are talking about the 6 best teams from each Conference. It does not take a genius to understand that stiff competition would be expected....even from the teams that just "squeaked in".

The coaching is not the problem......the problem is your unrealistic expectations.

Great post.
Everyone wanting Pete gone knows this. They can't or won't admit that what they really want is a coach and a team that puts up great stats on offense. They want a team their team to get a lot of attention in the social media world and the fantasy world. Some of them would choose those things above winning games. I imagine some fans just hate Pete's style and are willing to risk being bad for a decade or more just to see something different. I can't understand that at all. Those fans will tell you they only feel that way because they know for a FACT, that Pete can't win again, but it's just an excuse to justify what they want and know is an irrational opinion. Forget your outline above that shows just how hard it is to get to the SB in any given year. I would have so much more respect for those opinions if they were just honest about what they truly want and why. All of the excuses and circular logic they use is just nonsense to avoid having to backup an opinion that doesn't make sense in any way shape or form.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Disagree.

It is near impossible to dislike Pete. The issue is PeteBall. Not Pete.

A problem is Pete is successful enough he does not need to change.

With Pete, he will always improve your roster. Grow/Build/Develop, whatever...

But that also means he is going to create rosters that seem better than results. Almost invariably.

The challenge is that without Pete you don't get those rosters.

So what do you want?
Great roster with incredible regular season success? Or lesser rosters with lesser regular season success but better results in the playoffs?

Is Carroll underproducing in the playoffs or overproducing in the regular season and so setting unreasonable postseason expectations?

What coach has ever done this ^^^^?

 

[Ambrose83]

Wait, so your line is after we last made a SB we lost not last we won? Is just making the SB the goal or is winning one? Because it sounds like you're drawing an arbitrary line that suits this narrative.

It's extremely difficult to make the playoffs a lot and also have a strong winning record in the playoffs because unless you win the SB, you're taking a loss.

Pete has still won a playoff game in each of their last 4 appearances. That's quite good, period. There's not someone who just constantly gets to Conference Championships out waiting in the wings because that's either Belichik or they don't exist.

We should have lost in Minnesota, and we lost in 2018 against the Cowboys, not a single win that season. Pete does not have what it takes to get us to another Super Bowl. What concerns me is not that we're losing, it is HOW we're losing. We keep making the same mistakes each loss, we keep losing the same way and not adjusting. I highly doubt Pete ever brings us another Super Bowl again, and I doubt he even gets us an NFC Championship game.

No coach is ever going to meet your expectations. It is statistically impossible. You are setting a standard that is completely unsustainable. Then you use this unrealistic expectation as a measuring stick to determine whether PC will be successful in the off-season.??!!!!????!!???

The playoffs are a "loser go home" format. It is not like regular season where there are a set number of games to be won or lost. Under the old format:

1. 12 teams made the playoffs.
2. 4 of those teams are guaranteed to be "one and done".....that is 33% of the teams.
3. The 4 top seeded teams that received a bye week could be "one and done" if they under perform.
4. Assuming the top 1 and 2 seeds all win, 4 teams will be "two and done".
5. If any of the top seeded teams lose, the "one and done" percentage increases.
6. Only 4 teams will make the Conference Championship Games (CCG).....that is only 33% of the teams that made the playoffs.
7. Assuming the top 1 and 2 seeded teams make the CCG, 2 of the teams will have a 1-1 playoff record for that season.
8. Only 2 teams will make the Superbowl....that is only 16.6% of the teams that make the playoffs.
9. EVERY team is capable of laying an egg in the playoffs....for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with coaching. Injuries, nerves, weather, away game, poor refereeing, bad bounces, etc can all impact a game's outcome.

In order for a coach to have a above .500 playoff record, they would pretty much need to get to the Conference Championship Game almost every time they reach the playoffs....however, even then, only 2 of the top seeded teams will be able to break .500.

Your claim that a coach that consistently has 10+ wins a season suddenly does not have "what it takes" to advance in the playoff is asinine. You are talking about the 6 best teams from each Conference. It does not take a genius to understand that stiff competition would be expected....even from the teams that just "squeaked in".

The coaching is not the problem......the problem is your unrealistic expectations.

Great post.
Everyone wanting Pete gone knows this. They can't or won't admit that what they really want is a coach and a team that puts up great stats on offense. They want a team their team to get a lot of attention in the social media world and the fantasy world. Some of them would choose those things above winning games. I imagine some fans just hate Pete's style and are willing to risk being bad for a decade or more just to see something different. I can't understand that at all. Those fans will tell you they only feel that way because they know for a FACT, that Pete can't win again, but it's just an excuse to justify what they want and know is an irrational opinion. Forget your outline above that shows just how hard it is to get to the SB in any given year. I would have so much more respect for those opinions if they were just honest about what they truly want and why. All of the excuses and circular logic they use is just nonsense to avoid having to backup an opinion that doesn't make sense in any way shape or form.

Correct, Pete is a top 5 coach in this league, top 3 really, we have had it so good the last 12 years. This kind of nonsense is more emotional based drivel, facts don't matter.

 

[TwistedHusky]

A lot of these same arguments could have been made by Green Bay fans to keep MM. He got them to the playoffs. But they knew that a better coach would get better results with a QB that should have been driving better results.

I see a lot of #s being thrown about.

Pete is a #3 coach in the league. Russ is a top 5 QB. (Some player votes had him top 2 last year). Our roster is ranked in the top 5 regularly.

Have we been getting top 5 results in the playoffs? Or just been glorified wildcards?

The reason for the focus on the value of Pete building a roster is imperative. That is a Pete thing. Yes, 'all coaches develop lower drafted players' etc. But it is comically rare for a team to go into a season with a weakness (pass rush) and have it be top 5 by end of year. Same thing with losing starters to injury and actually improving (CB). All coaches develop talent etc. Pete does it better than almost anyone.

And he does it regularly.

He just does less with the better roster once he has it. Under another coach your roster quality is going to dip. Your holes are going to be magnified. And you will have less guys like Reed suddenly turning into top quality players seemingly out of nowhere.

Most elite QBs (and no Stafford, Ryan, Rivers, etc are NOT elite. Which is funny), are expensive. Ours is no exception. So you get thin rosters or giant weaknesses. Typically, non-Bradyish elite QBs in the new era regularly miss the playoffs 1-2 years out of 5. But they also tend to win a division playoff game 1-2 years out of 5. Sample size is small though. Mahomes, like Brady, seems to be bucking this trend.

Under Pete, with an elite QB, we are typically making the playoffs. Because Pete keeps our roster competitive. Which is incredibly difficult to consistently do with the QB taking such a % of cap. Because of this we usually make the playoffs.

We are usually outclassed in divisional playoff games, however.

The defining line of success/failure is subjective here.

If you feel making the playoffs consistently but also consistently being bounced, if not embarrassed, after the wildcard is success? Then Pete is the coach for you. If you feel that Wilson should occasionally be at least making a conference game in 5 years given the roster and his being an elite QB? Then Pete is underperforming.

Since the SB loss, Pete has coached with a high floor, low ceiling approach that works. But since the SB loss, he has not put together the playoff success you would expect from a top 3 or even top 5 coach with this kind of QB and this kind of roster.

 

[Nunya]

A lot of these same arguments could have been made by Green Bay fans to keep MM. He got them to the playoffs. But they knew that a better coach would get better results with a QB that should have been driving better results.

I see a lot of #s being thrown about.

Pete is a #3 coach in the league. Russ is a top 5 QB. (Some player votes had him top 2 last year). Our roster is ranked in the top 5 regularly.

Have we been getting top 5 results in the playoffs? Or just been glorified wildcards?

The reason for the focus on the value of Pete building a roster is imperative. That is a Pete thing. Yes, 'all coaches develop lower drafted players' etc. But it is comically rare for a team to go into a season with a weakness (pass rush) and have it be top 5 by end of year. Same thing with losing starters to injury and actually improving (CB). All coaches develop talent etc. Pete does it better than almost anyone.

And he does it regularly.

He just does less with the better roster once he has it. Under another coach your roster quality is going to dip. Your holes are going to be magnified. And you will have less guys like Reed suddenly turning into top quality players seemingly out of nowhere.

Most elite QBs (and no Stafford, Ryan, Rivers, etc are NOT elite. Which is funny), are expensive. Ours is no exception. So you get thin rosters or giant weaknesses. Typically, non-Bradyish elite QBs in the new era regularly miss the playoffs 1-2 years out of 5. But they also tend to win a division playoff game 1-2 years out of 5. Sample size is small though. Mahomes, like Brady, seems to be bucking this trend.

Under Pete, with an elite QB, we are typically making the playoffs. Because Pete keeps our roster competitive. Which is incredibly difficult to consistently do with the QB taking such a % of cap. Because of this we usually make the playoffs.

We are usually outclassed in divisional playoff games, however.

The defining line of success/failure is subjective here.

If you feel making the playoffs consistently but also consistently being bounced, if not embarrassed, after the wildcard is success? Then Pete is the coach for you. If you feel that Wilson should occasionally be at least making a conference game in 5 years given the roster and his being an elite QB? Then Pete is underperforming.

Since the SB loss, Pete has coached with a high floor, low ceiling approach that works. But since the SB loss, he has not put together the playoff success you would expect from a top 3 or even top 5 coach with this kind of QB and this kind of roster.

Your whole argument is based around some roster rating and that PC is doing less with more. Please provide those roster ratings.

 

[hawksincebirth]

Can we just appreciate everyone’s opinion. We won the west let’s enjoy it like you positive patties say

No, there is no need or responsibility to appreciate ridiculous opinions. They are open to criticism and rejection. Not all opinions are equal in value, even in our politically correct world of everyone getting a trophy.

Wanting PC replaced is a ridiculous opinion, and should be rejected outright.

That's my opinion.

It’s really not as ridiculous as you think.
Wanting a serious contender is not too much to ask for with a top 3 qb. If we lose badly in the second round AGAIN you will keep hearing it

 

[hawksincebirth]

Ahhh the annual gloat posts by the kool aid drinkers gotta love em.
On a side note credit to Pete and ken Norton for turning the defense into an average defense instead of the dumpster fire it was the first half of the season. I still hope for a new coach. But Pete will keep us around 9-11 wins a year with first or second round exits and he’ll play out his contract imo. Can we just appreciate everyone’s opinion. We won the west let’s enjoy it like you positive patties say

Being happy over yet another division title and an 11-4 record isnt being a kool-aid drinker, its called being a rational and emotionally stable human being.

By the way, go ahead and take a poll around the league and see how many franchises would sign up quickly for a coach that gets them double digit victories and playoff appearances every year.

Your twisting my post. My point is over the last 5-6 season the same posters have had blinders for Pete. We shall see what he does in the playoffs but he has been out coached in big games a lot the last few years . How many wins are due to Russ saving Pete’s behind ? I think it’s fair to say russ could win 8-9 games regardless of where he played. Imo.
I’m enjoying the year and the nfc west title. As much as I want Pete to be outta town I want the team to win even more. Something you guys fail to think is possible.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Nunya,

As you know, ratings of rosters are subjective.

But I think you have seen them. Right now, we are #6 in the power rankings. Earlier in the year, we were even higher.

Power rankings are a function of both record and perceived roster strength.

We can probably find multiple roster rankings with us in ranges from 5-7 right now.

(Depends if you think TB has a better roster than us. I don't. Certainly you could argue the Titans or Steelers might have a better roster, but most people wouldn't.)

You can also juxtapose the roster rankings with the number of Pro Bowlers on our team. We have a fair amount, while not really displaying massive depth issues that would counter it.

But again, however you rank the roster - it is going to be subjective by definition because there is no way to objectively rank it adequately.

At the same time, playoff success is technically a subjective measurement. Because it depends on not just outcomes, but matchups and a number of tradeoffs. Generally you are going either going to be successful wide (consistency) or deep (how far you go in the playoffs when you make it). Pete is very consistent in making the playoffs. But so was Marty Schottenheimer. In truth, Pete would probably be the new Marty Schottenheimer but for the LOB (and the Wilson+Lynch combo).

So is Pete a success in the playoffs? He is certainly a success at making them. In the past few years, he hasn't put up great results once he got there though.

 

[Nunya]

Nunya,

As you know, ratings of rosters are subjective.

But I think you have seen them. Right now, we are #6 in the power rankings. Earlier in the year, we were even higher.

Power rankings are a function of both record and perceived roster strength.

We can probably find multiple roster rankings with us in ranges from 5-7 right now.

(Depends if you think TB has a better roster than us. I don't. Certainly you could argue the Titans or Steelers might have a better roster, but most people wouldn't.)

You can also juxtapose the roster rankings with the number of Pro Bowlers on our team. We have a fair amount, while not really displaying massive depth issues that would counter it.

But again, however you rank the roster - it is going to be subjective by definition because there is no way to objectively rank it adequately.

At the same time, playoff success is technically a subjective measurement. Because it depends on not just outcomes, but matchups and a number of tradeoffs. Generally you are going either going to be successful wide (consistency) or deep (how far you go in the playoffs when you make it). Pete is very consistent in making the playoffs. But so was Marty Schottenheimer. In truth, Pete would probably be the new Marty Schottenheimer but for the LOB (and the Wilson+Lynch combo).

Ahhh...straight out of the BSer's handbook. Create an argument based on something without providing evidence, but then claims that the evidence is subjective anyway. Then claim "We can probably find multiple roster rankings with us in ranges from 5-7 right now [trust me]" while still providing no evidence.

To be honest, I never even paid attention to roster strength. They are right up there with power rankings and chances to win the SB. As you said, very subjective and often not very accurate.

However, I did use my google skills after you brought it up and was able to find only 2 rankings....PFF and EPSN. Unfortunately, ESPN wants a subscription to read the whole article. Fortunately, the top 3 in the PFF article are the same teams....and the write up was exactly the same, so I'm guessing it is the same (and only?) ranking.

And guess what. At the start of the 2020 season, The Seahawks DID NOT have a high ranking roster. They were listed as only 15th out of 32. Middle of the pack and only average. The Eagles, Cowboys, and Browns were even ranked higher.

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-roster-ran ... guars-last

Some would say that is a sign of good coaching....to take a 15th ranked roster and build it up to a 2nd or 3rd seeded playoff team and a Divisional Champion and even implies that the team's performance is even OVER-Performing, based on roster rankings.

I found no other information on roster ranking, including where they are ranked today. Please provide just one of those multiple roster rankings that have the Seahawks at 5-7.

So is Pete a success in the playoffs? He is certainly a success at making them. In the past few years, he hasn't put up great results once he got there though

PC's playoff results rank right up there with any other currently active coach (and likely better than most inactive coaches). Why do you seem to want to hold PC to a higher standard?

 

[Ad Hawk]

Can we just appreciate everyone’s opinion. We won the west let’s enjoy it like you positive patties say

No, there is no need or responsibility to appreciate ridiculous opinions. They are open to criticism and rejection. Not all opinions are equal in value, even in our politically correct world of everyone getting a trophy.

Wanting PC replaced is a ridiculous opinion, and should be rejected outright.

That's my opinion.

It’s really not as ridiculous as you think.
Wanting a serious contender is not too much to ask for with a top 3 qb. If we lose badly in the second round AGAIN you will keep hearing it

And if we don't lose in the second round, and the team goes further, it would be nice to stop hearing it. But sadly, such noise will probably continue for who-knows-what reason next.

I'm not as interested in the Super-Bowl goal on a weekly basis; I enjoy winning seasons because there's a whole season of fun football to watch. I certainly hope they make it to the final game of the post-season, and believe that out of the available coaches right now, PC gives this team the best chance. Firing him without a clearly better choice would be foolish and lacking foresight.

 

[chris98251]

Power rankings are a few things, hardly accurate, as much as a popularity contest as it is a win loss record, they at ESPN and PFT amongst others do not know our depth really and other then the QB and stars hardly even know where Seattle is. STILL !