Fire Pete

[LTH]

Except that made complete sense last January.

Wilson was not being used well. It looked for all the world that he would have done better under an offensive coach, and we were already losing defensive effectiveness. Betting on Wilson was a reasonable risk and betting on Wilson would have meant moving away from Pete.

This year somewhat indicated that the 'Let Wilson carry the team like Aaron Rodgers did" approach was not going to work. He had the chance instead of better results, they got worse.

But pretending that there was not a reasonable hint that this team would be better focusing more on what Wilson did well and leveraging it? That isn't all honest.

There were plenty of reasons that looking at another coach was a reasonable gamble, because back then,Pete was not open to giving Wilson the keys to this team. In hindsight, maybe Pete was right - but last January betting on Wilson vs betting on Pete was not an insane stance.

If the Seahawks would have listened to you the whole organization would have been turned upside down... the Hawks would have not made the playoffs let alone beat the Rams...

You don't have a leg to stand on... Not one of your arguments carry any credibility... and before you start talking about how I'm overly optimistic and don't know what I'm talking about let me remind you I'm probably the only person on the board that said when the Seahawk D was the very worst in the league that they would turn it around and be one of the best in the league and almost everybody thought I was crazy... How crazy am I now?

Dude you're clearly a very intelligent person and the premise that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs is a very easy general position to take. Not only does it apply to the Seahawks but it applies to every team in the NFL.. The NFL is the most competitive organization in the world... the odds of a team winning the SB are far more than a team losing in the playoffs... So to take the position that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs you're riding the odds... and that's not brilliant IMO...

LTH

 

[Hockey Guy]

Except that made complete sense last January.

Wilson was not being used well. It looked for all the world that he would have done better under an offensive coach, and we were already losing defensive effectiveness. Betting on Wilson was a reasonable risk and betting on Wilson would have meant moving away from Pete.

This year somewhat indicated that the 'Let Wilson carry the team like Aaron Rodgers did" approach was not going to work. He had the chance instead of better results, they got worse.

But pretending that there was not a reasonable hint that this team would be better focusing more on what Wilson did well and leveraging it? That isn't all honest.

There were plenty of reasons that looking at another coach was a reasonable gamble, because back then,Pete was not open to giving Wilson the keys to this team. In hindsight, maybe Pete was right - but last January betting on Wilson vs betting on Pete was not an insane stance.

JFC, this place.

 

[Jerhawk]

Who do you want to replace Carroll as head coach?

 

[Hockey Guy]

Except that made complete sense last January.

Wilson was not being used well. It looked for all the world that he would have done better under an offensive coach, and we were already losing defensive effectiveness. Betting on Wilson was a reasonable risk and betting on Wilson would have meant moving away from Pete.

This year somewhat indicated that the 'Let Wilson carry the team like Aaron Rodgers did" approach was not going to work. He had the chance instead of better results, they got worse.

But pretending that there was not a reasonable hint that this team would be better focusing more on what Wilson did well and leveraging it? That isn't all honest.

There were plenty of reasons that looking at another coach was a reasonable gamble, because back then,Pete was not open to giving Wilson the keys to this team. In hindsight, maybe Pete was right - but last January betting on Wilson vs betting on Pete was not an insane stance.

If the Seahawks would have listened to you the whole organization would have been turned upside down... the Hawks would have not made the playoffs let alone beat the Rams...

You don't have a leg to stand on... Not one of your arguments carry any credibility... and before you start talking about how I'm overly optimistic and don't know what I'm talking about let me remind you I'm probably the only person on the board that said when the Seahawk D was the very worst in the league that they would turn it around and be one of the best in the league and almost everybody thought I was crazy... How crazy am I now?

Dude you're clearly a very intelligent person and the premise that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs is a very easy general position to take. Not only does it apply to the Seahawks but it applies to every team in the NFL.. The NFL is the most competitive organization in the world... the odds of a team winning the SB are far more than a team losing in the playoffs... So to take the position that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs you're riding the odds... and that's not brilliant IMO...

LTH

TBF, I also thought you were crazy.

 

[Jerhawk]

Except that made complete sense last January.

Wilson was not being used well. It looked for all the world that he would have done better under an offensive coach, and we were already losing defensive effectiveness. Betting on Wilson was a reasonable risk and betting on Wilson would have meant moving away from Pete.

This year somewhat indicated that the 'Let Wilson carry the team like Aaron Rodgers did" approach was not going to work. He had the chance instead of better results, they got worse.

But pretending that there was not a reasonable hint that this team would be better focusing more on what Wilson did well and leveraging it? That isn't all honest.

There were plenty of reasons that looking at another coach was a reasonable gamble, because back then,Pete was not open to giving Wilson the keys to this team. In hindsight, maybe Pete was right - but last January betting on Wilson vs betting on Pete was not an insane stance.

If the Seahawks would have listened to you the whole organization would have been turned upside down... the Hawks would have not made the playoffs let alone beat the Rams...

You don't have a leg to stand on... Not one of your arguments carry any credibility... and before you start talking about how I'm overly optimistic and don't know what I'm talking about let me remind you I'm probably the only person on the board that said when the Seahawk D was the very worst in the league that they would turn it around and be one of the best in the league and almost everybody thought I was crazy... How crazy am I now?

Dude you're clearly a very intelligent person and the premise that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs is a very easy general position to take. Not only does it apply to the Seahawks but it applies to every team in the NFL.. The NFL is the most competitive organization in the world... the odds of a team winning the SB are far more than a team losing in the playoffs... So to take the position that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs you're riding the odds... and that's not brilliant IMO...

LTH

TBF, I also thought you were crazy.

Yeah I did too. I thought LTH was on LSD

 

[LTH]

Except that made complete sense last January.

Wilson was not being used well. It looked for all the world that he would have done better under an offensive coach, and we were already losing defensive effectiveness. Betting on Wilson was a reasonable risk and betting on Wilson would have meant moving away from Pete.

This year somewhat indicated that the 'Let Wilson carry the team like Aaron Rodgers did" approach was not going to work. He had the chance instead of better results, they got worse.

But pretending that there was not a reasonable hint that this team would be better focusing more on what Wilson did well and leveraging it? That isn't all honest.

There were plenty of reasons that looking at another coach was a reasonable gamble, because back then,Pete was not open to giving Wilson the keys to this team. In hindsight, maybe Pete was right - but last January betting on Wilson vs betting on Pete was not an insane stance.

If the Seahawks would have listened to you the whole organization would have been turned upside down... the Hawks would have not made the playoffs let alone beat the Rams...

You don't have a leg to stand on... Not one of your arguments carry any credibility... and before you start talking about how I'm overly optimistic and don't know what I'm talking about let me remind you I'm probably the only person on the board that said when the Seahawk D was the very worst in the league that they would turn it around and be one of the best in the league and almost everybody thought I was crazy... How crazy am I now?

Dude you're clearly a very intelligent person and the premise that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs is a very easy general position to take. Not only does it apply to the Seahawks but it applies to every team in the NFL.. The NFL is the most competitive organization in the world... the odds of a team winning the SB are far more than a team losing in the playoffs... So to take the position that the Seahawks will lose in the playoffs you're riding the odds... and that's not brilliant IMO...

LTH

TBF, I also thought you were crazy.

Yeah I did too. I thought LTH was on LSD

It doesn't mean that I'm a brilliant football guy cause I'm not... there are plenty of guys on this board that know more about football than I do...I just recognize that what's happening in Seattle right now with Pete Carroll is a really special thing...what he is doing with the way he is approaching the game is ground breaking in the since that he has found attributes that are changing the way things are done in the league...Its as simple as that...


LTH

 

[Jerhawk]

Well that's something to hang your hat on. You had confidence and faith in Pete to turn the defense around.

People like me were freaking out and thinking the sky was falling. I wanted Norton ran out of town. You and Welshers and others believed in him through all the adversity. I think that's awesome.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

It's just pouring outside right now.
Thanks a lot Pete

 

[TwistedHusky]

We don't know they turned the defense around.

We know the results have gotten incredibly better.

But we also know we have faced several backups and at least 2 QBs that have been permanently benched.

I do think that DJ Reed has massively improved this secondary, and some of that is bleeding in. And we were facing some very good offenses earlier. So we are probably not the worst of all time like we were. And we did go from one of the worst pass rushes in the league to one of the top 5.

But we have still faced a group of godawful QBs, and unsurprisingly our defense has gotten 'better'.

But to pretend we are out of the woods and there is no issue with the DC? Let's hope for the best but maybe expecting that kind of change is a bit much.

Since one of the issues with Pete and one of the reasons we tend to get outcoached in the playoffs is our tendency to cling onto below average coordinators - fixing the Norton issue would be huge.

I hope it happened. But he was never good before, so it feels reasonable to wait until we face a decent QB before claiming things are fixed.

 

[Nunya]

Nunya,

The moment I put the multiple roster rankings up, the entire thread devolves into you arguing that this source isn't good for X reason, or DVOA not counting, or this isn't applicable, or whatever.

So I used your source. Then you argued against your own source.

You keep setting up weird strawman arguments and knocking them down. Not sure what you are arguing at this point or if you even know.

I appreciate the discourse. You are just veering all over the place and diving deep into minor points that aren't really relevant to the key of the discussion.

So let me get this straight.

1. You claim that PC under-achieves in the playoffs based on our high roster ranking.
2. A roster ranking YOU claim exists and shows us as a #5-#7 team.
3. However, you do not want to produce proof that we have a roster ranked #5-#7 under the lame excuse that some would divert to the validity of a roster ranking that may or may not exist.

I would think that a raster ranking from a normal source shouldn't been too big of an issue. After all, they are subjective.

I'm not the one all over the place bro. I agree that EPSN had the Seahawks roster ranked at #15 at the beginning of the season. A source that I produced. Not arguing that one bit.

I have been very consist in asking for proof of your claim of our current roster rating. I would also like to ask why you would demand that a coach perform better than that roster ranking bar you set and finish higher than their #5-#7 rank (that you claim)....and if they do not they are "under-performing".

So let's simplify.

Does Carroll improve the roster? Obviously yes.

Is this a key strength of his that most coaches cannot consistently deliver like results on? Yes.

If you want to argue that then Carroll's faults are not offset by these strengths because his faults don't hold us back? Ok....years of watching him seems to counter that but whatever.

I have never once argued against the fact that PC is very good at improving the roster. That, is the strawman that YOU seem to constantly want to build. That is nothing more than you deflecting from your assertion that the roster is ranked as high as you claim.....something you still have not provided any evidence of and avoid all request to do so.

My argument was you cannot get rid of Pete for not getting the results that a #5 roster brings, because without Pete the roster is not #5. What is yours?

My second argument is that with Pete, we will play like the crappier roster we were (not #5) because his process works in the regular season but falls apart when facing better teams/coaches in the playoffs.

Is that what you are arguing against?

My argument is that you are pulling the roster ranking number out of your arse....and are then building your whole argument that PC under-performs in post-season based on that bogus roster ranking.

By the way, simple Google gets you this quote:
"The Seattle Seahawks are ranked No. 7 in ESPN's Football Power Index ahead of the 2020 NFL season."

Or go to Lineups.com. Or betting sites. fantasy football ranking sites. Madden. .....the list is longer than some of my posts.

Stop changing the goal post. You are not basing your claim off of Power rankings. Your argument has been that PC has a roster of skilled individual which results in a high ROSTER RANKING and that PC under-performs with that high ranking roster once he reaches the playoffs. Then you are using that claim of self-produce evidence of under performance as an argument that he will NEVER reach the Conference Play-offs.

All the while ignoring the fact that PC play-off record is comparable to any other coach in the league.

While also expecting a #5 team based on roster (by your claim) to out-perform the #1, #2, #3, and #4 teams by roster ranking and not doing so is in your world "under-performing".

 

[TwistedHusky]

Nunya,

I see your problem. I gave you my argument. You still couldn't figure it out even though it was literally written out in 2 sentences. You invented a new argument and then decided to argue against it. I don't want to insult you but it is a stupid circle and probably boring for other people to read.

I gave you several sources to check yourself and then even a power ranking (which is based on the roster since none of the games were played yet). You didn't like that ranking. Again, it depends upon what you are going to consider a 'valid source' which is a silly game to play. Online peeing contests are dumb and it makes no sense to create one of those.

So we will go with your last point, to at least try to preserve some coherence and get back to the topic.

"While also expecting a #5 team based on roster (by your claim) to out-perform the #1, #2, #3, and #4 teams by roster ranking and not doing so is in your world "under-performing".

Is expecting to win a single division playoff game, as the #5 roster (or even #7), with a top three elite QB and one of the better RB and WR groups in the NFL...too high a bar? Especially considering near half of the top 5 teams are not even in your conference?

Just be happy we won the division and good with winning a wildcard game? Never going farther in over 5 years is to be expected?

 

[Nunya]

Nunya,

I see your problem. I gave you my argument. You still couldn't figure it out even though it was literally written out in 2 sentences. You invented a new argument and then decided to argue against it. I don't want to insult you but it is a stupid circle and probably boring for other people to read.

I gave you several sources to check yourself and then even a power ranking (which is based on the roster since none of the games were played yet). You didn't like that ranking. Again, it depends upon what you are going to consider a 'valid source' which is a silly game to play. Online peeing contests are dumb and it makes no sense to create one of those.

So we will go with your last point, to at least try to preserve some coherence and get back to the topic.

Ok....so you are going to continue to dodge anything to back up your claim.

"While also expecting a #5 team based on roster (by your claim) to out-perform the #1, #2, #3, and #4 teams by roster ranking and not doing so is in your world "under-performing".

Is expecting to win a single division playoff game, as the #5 roster (or even #7), with a top three elite QB and one of the better RB and WR groups in the NFL...too high a bar? Especially considering near half of the top 5 teams are not even in your conference?

Just be happy we won the division and good with winning a wildcard game? Never going farther in over 5 years is to be expected?

I'm very happy we won the Division and think the Seahawks have a decent chance at the SB. They are certainly capable of laying an egg in the playoffs and going home short.....but they also have a chance to play well and reach the end goal. Their success or failure will be a team effort and not because of some voodoo belief that PC can't go farther that Divisionals.

Your claim that PC can NEVER take us past Divisionals.....a premise based on YOUR claim that he under-performs with a high ranked roster in post-season.....a roster ranking that you pulled out of your hind end.....and make lame excuses to not produce.......is too much bovine excrement for me the swallow.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Their success or failure will be a team effort and not because of some voodoo belief that PC can't go farther that Divisionals.

So if Pete goes into the playoffs with a terrible game plan and the Hawks end up losing that game, no blame goes to him. Got it.

 

[olyfan63]

Kind of like Signal-to-Noise ratio, the Football-to-Pissing ratio got out-of-whack there for a bit. Some thoughtful points being made for sure amidst all the pissing.

CONSENSUS
* Pete+John team is a terrific roster-builder and roster-improver during the season

* The Hawks D has made amazing strides during the season and now is an "above average" NFL defense
- This is a massive improvement from being an all-time historically bad defense the first half of the season

* We finally got over the Rams hurdle by actually outplaying and outcoaching them when it mattered
- Few expected this and it was an exceedingly pleasant surprise, and bodes well going forward.

UNCLEAR
* Pete's teams underperform in the playoffs -- disputed
- Maybe the most accurate thing we could say is that Pete's teams don't overperform in the playoffs--well, except for that one SB48 game.

* Pete will get outcoached in the playoffs once again, we'll be disappointed once again
- Perhaps the real issue was we had too many weak links at playoff time before, which got exploited by quality opponents? Maybe the accurate view is Pete's teams overperform the roster in the regular season, and get exposed in the playoffs? Last year it was anemic pass rush, no healthy RBs, among others

* KNJ is the worst DC in the league and gets badly exposed by quality opponents.
- The defense's turnaround and KNJ's role in that?? Anybody's guess. Probably multiple factors.
- Jamal Adams and Carlos Dunlap impact, emergence of Jordyn Brooks, DJ Reed, JReed, LJ Collier,
- Maybe Norton sucks less when the players are better and can execute what he calls?
- Disclaimer: I was a fence-sitter on "Fire KNJ!". Amazed and hoping he and the D don't go back to sucking.

This season, and this roster, and the team dynamic, FEELS different than past seasons. It feels like we have a solid across-the-board roster on both offense and defense. We have probably the best O-Line during Carroll's tenure. We have Russell, and he seems healthy. We have healthy playmakers at all skill positions. We have a pass rush. We have corners who can cover. We have a defense that is suddenly playing well together, and improving week-to-week.

To me, it feels like this year, we are entering the post-season EXPECTING to win, because of our collective strengths, rather than HOPING to win, despite our glaring weaknesses.

 

[olyfan63]

Their success or failure will be a team effort and not because of some voodoo belief that PC can't go farther that Divisionals.

So if Pete goes into the playoffs with a terrible game plan and the Hawks end up losing that game, no blame goes to him. Got it.

Hoping for Pete, Schotty, and KNJ to pull an Andy Reid this year, and show the learning and adjustments from the losing+learning of past (short) playoff runs.

How the frack did Andy Reid suddenly become a playoff genius? OK, Patrick Mahomes made him a smarter, very clutch playoff game coach. I'm thinking that DK Metcalf will help Pete Carroll suddenly become a better playoff game coach this year. Jamal Adams and Carlos Dunlap will make KNJ a smarter playoff DC. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

 

[olyfan63]

We don't know they turned the defense around.

We know the results have gotten incredibly better.

But we also know we have faced several backups and at least 2 QBs that have been permanently benched.

I do think that DJ Reed has massively improved this secondary, and some of that is bleeding in. And we were facing some very good offenses earlier. So we are probably not the worst of all time like we were. And we did go from one of the worst pass rushes in the league to one of the top 5.

But we have still faced a group of godawful QBs, and unsurprisingly our defense has gotten 'better'.

But to pretend we are out of the woods and there is no issue with the DC? Let's hope for the best but maybe expecting that kind of change is a bit much.

Since one of the issues with Pete and one of the reasons we tend to get outcoached in the playoffs is our tendency to cling onto below average coordinators - fixing the Norton issue would be huge.

I hope it happened. But he was never good before, so it feels reasonable to wait until we face a decent QB before claiming things are fixed.

I'll make the argument that stopping Goff and the Rams offense was a valid data point for the improvement of the Hawks D. Goff and the Rams offense have torched our D consistently since McVay arrived. They didn't torch us this time. We kept them without a TD. Our D got pressure on Goff. Goff's throwing hand injury was later in the game, and he scored no TDs with a healthy hand. How will that translate to Erin and the Packers? Unknown. Hoping someone else knocks off the Packers, if they get #1 seed.

 

[Nunya]

Their success or failure will be a team effort and not because of some voodoo belief that PC can't go farther that Divisionals.

So if Pete goes into the playoffs with a terrible game plan and the Hawks end up losing that game, no blame goes to him. Got it.

No offence, but I seriously doubt you could recognize a good or bad game plan if it ran over you.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Their success or failure will be a team effort and not because of some voodoo belief that PC can't go farther that Divisionals.

So if Pete goes into the playoffs with a terrible game plan and the Hawks end up losing that game, no blame goes to him. Got it.

No offence, but I seriously doubt you could recognize a good or bad game plan if it ran over you.

All one needs to do is revisit the playoff losses the Hawks have had the past 5 years to recognize the bad ones.

Shooting from the hip, but you were a Darrell Bevell fan werent you?

 

[TwistedHusky]

Pretty sure the game plan where Pete went in to run the ball, did so repeatedly with a noname RB for little gain, barely used Wilson and then lost that playoff game was a bad one.

You know, the one he was soundly outcoached by that savant Jason Garrett?

But the ones we lost by halftime against the Falcons and Panthers were poor showings too.


Are we now pretending these didn't happen?

 

[pittpnthrs]

Pretty sure the game plan where Pete went in to run the ball, did so repeatedly with a noname RB for little gain, barely used Wilson and then lost that playoff game was a bad one.

You know, the one he was soundly outcoached by that savant Jason Garrett?

But the ones we lost by halftime against the Falcons and Panthers were poor showings too.


Are we now pretending these didn't happen?

Those are all voodoo beliefs apparently.