Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Clayton: Seahawks showing why patience is key for winning

The Original Seattle Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute for Seahawks Talk, News, Rumors, Trades, and Analytics. LANGUAGE: PG-13
  • By waiting, the Seahawks were able to re-sign running back Chris Carson on a two-year deal at $10.4 million. Center Ethan Pocic returned on a one-year deal at $3 million. Schneider also grabbed the third-best tight end on the market. Gerald Everett signed a one-year deal believe to be around $6 million. They traded a fifth-round pick for an $11 million guard in Gabe Jackson.

    For $11.2 million a year, the Seahawks got the second-best running back in free agency and the third best tight end.

    Patience is important in free agency.


    Clayton: Seahawks showing why patience is key for winning teams in free agency >>> https://sports.mynorthwest.com/1342540/clayton-seahawks-showing-patience-key-winning-teams-free-agency/
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 10113
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.
    JayhawkMike
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 784
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:06 pm


  • Need to shore up the DE's but there are some options
    Dunlap
    Clowney
    Engram
    Kerrigan
    Aldon Smith
    Justin Houston
    Olivier Vernon
    Mayowa
    Beasley

    I think we can get a few of these guys on good deals


    are all still out there we could get one or two of them on a reasonable rate.
    Wenhawk
    .NET Owner
     
    Posts: 5253
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:38 am
    Location: Renton, WA


  • I'd really like the team re-up Dunlap and possibly sign Aldon Smith whom they were interested in trading for last last year.

    The team needs another quality CB as well.
    jammerhawk
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 7697
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:13 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Attacking the poster
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7363
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Removed content from quote
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 14965
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Oh, so you remember the Seahawks without Russell Wilson. Glad your so content with those early playoff exits by the way. Weakest argument in the world. We're talking about today, not 30 years ago.
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Removed content from quote
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2039
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • Wenhawk wrote:Need to shore up the DE's but there are some options
    Dunlap
    Clowney
    Engram
    Kerrigan
    Aldon Smith
    Justin Houston
    Olivier Vernon
    Mayowa
    Beasley

    I think we can get a few of these guys on good deals


    are all still out there we could get one or two of them on a reasonable rate.


    That's a good list to chose from.

    Dunlap, Clowney and Mayowa are familiar with our defense and much of our personnel. They would plug right back in for continuity.

    I'm feeling rather good about how free agency is unfolding in 2021.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 10113
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • Now high 5 and let’s get back to Seahawks football!!!

    Go Hawks.
    nwHawk
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 1859
    Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 12:14 pm


  • Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.



    What's crazy is that the 90's made me a fan, regardless of all the fruitless seasons.
    Chris Warren, started it for me and Chad Brown, Mack Strong, Willie Williams, Joey Galloway, Cortez Kennedy, Michael Sinclair, Jon Kitna, Shawn Springs...Through all the losing I was becoming a die hard fan even through the cowboys winning 30 superbowls in my home state of texas as i was going through Jr high and high school.
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Removed content from quote
    niveky
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 795
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:58 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    Here's a list of playoff wins by NFC teams over the last six years.

    Packers - 5 (Missed playoffs 2 Years)
    Eagles - 4 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Bucs - 4 (Missed playoffs 5 years)
    Saints - 3 (Missed playoffs 2 Years)
    Rams - 3 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Falcons - 3 (Missed playoffs 4 years)
    Seahawks - 3 (Missed playoffs 1 year)
    Panthers - 2 (Missed playoffs 4 years
    Vikings - 2 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Cardinals - 1 (Missed playoffs 5 years)
    Cowboys - 1 (Missed playoffs 4 years)

    I don't think any team has the key to winning in the playoffs. Eagles and Bucs got all if not most of theirs in 1 year, Packers haven't made it to a superbowl since 2010.

    The only real key to winning in the playoffs is to make it to the playoffs.
    JGreen79
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 909
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:26 pm
    Location: Newberg, Oregon


  • JGreen79 wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    Here's a list of playoff wins by NFC teams over the last six years.

    Packers - 5 (Missed playoffs 2 Years)
    Eagles - 4 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Bucs - 4 (Missed playoffs 5 years)
    Saints - 3 (Missed playoffs 2 Years)
    Rams - 3 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Falcons - 3 (Missed playoffs 4 years)
    Seahawks - 3 (Missed playoffs 1 year)
    Panthers - 2 (Missed playoffs 4 years
    Vikings - 2 (Missed playoffs 3 years)
    Cardinals - 1 (Missed playoffs 5 years)
    Cowboys - 1 (Missed playoffs 4 years)

    I don't think any team has the key to winning in the playoffs. Eagles and Bucs got all if not most of theirs in 1 year, Packers haven't made it to a superbowl since 2010.

    The only real key to winning in the playoffs is to make it to the playoffs.



    Thank you.

    Pete's playoff record is in line with most of his peers as well.

    Facts get in the way of narratives all the time :)
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2910
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.

    We did. That doesn't mean we have to accept continuous lack of playoff success without complaint. Especially when it continues to happen for the same reasons we lost the season before and the season before and the season before...
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Removed content from quote
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 115
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • niveky wrote:What's crazy is that the 90's made me a fan, regardless of all the fruitless seasons.
    Chris Warren, started it for me and Chad Brown, Mack Strong, Willie Williams, Joey Galloway, Cortez Kennedy, Michael Sinclair, Jon Kitna, Shawn Springs...Through all the losing I was becoming a die hard fan even through the cowboys winning 30 superbowls in my home state of texas as i was going through Jr high and high school.


    Totally get it. There were of course the sparks of light within an otherwise dark and dreary decade for Seahawks fans. Watching Moon rainbow a jewel to Galloway for a long bomb touchdown was pure magic. Witnessing Kennedy of course was worth suffering through the 90's all by himself. Sinclair was every QB's nightmare and I really enjoyed Kitna who was basically Hasselbeck in the 90's as far as scrappiness and will to win even if he wasn't the most talented QB.

    Unfortunately the QB situation was abysmal (Stan Gelbaugh anyone?) and made the 90's pretty damn insufferable...But as a diehard, ya stick with your team no matter what, and it sure has paid dividends in recent years.
    Aros
    [[ .NET Godfather ]]
     
    Posts: 14965
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:58 am
    Location: Just 4 miles from Richard Sherman!


  • FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.

    We did. That doesn't mean we have to accept continuous lack of playoff success without complaint. Especially when it continues to happen for the same reasons we lost the season before and the season before and the season before...



    Which teams are you seeing winning multiple games in the playoffs every year?

    Wanting deep playoff runs every year is one thing. Expecting it is quite another.

    high expectations have to meet realism somewhere on the spectrum.
    Last edited by JustTheTip on Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    Reason: Removed content from quote
    Hawkpower
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2910
    Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:53 am
    Location: Phoenix az


  • A lot of cleaning was required for this thread. If you need to express your inner child take it to the Shack where it belongs.
    JustTheTip
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3114
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


  • Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.



    Preach!
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3939
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:08 pm


  • Hawkpower wrote:
    FattyKnuckle wrote:
    Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.

    We did. That doesn't mean we have to accept continuous lack of playoff success without complaint. Especially when it continues to happen for the same reasons we lost the season before and the season before and the season before...



    Which teams are you seeing winning multiple games in the playoffs every year?

    Wanting deep playoff runs every year is one thing. Expecting it is quite another.

    high expectations have to meet realism somewhere on the spectrum.


    I'm sure it's has to be the Cowboys.
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 35371
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    3 wins in 6 years isn't bad - only 3 NFC teams with more in that time.
    Over 8 years no NFC team is near (8 wins, vs 6 next closest - Green Bay, who also have 0 Superbowl appearances in that time).

    And since Carroll took over, his 10 playoff wins are 2nd only to Green Bay (who had 11, with 4 coming in the 2010 season all the way back). Next closest is 7.

    So I think he knows something about winning.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3624
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:38 pm


  • themunn wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    3 wins in 6 years isn't bad - only 3 NFC teams with more in that time.
    Over 8 years no NFC team is near (8 wins, vs 6 next closest - Green Bay, who also have 0 Superbowl appearances in that time).

    And since Carroll took over, his 10 playoff wins are 2nd only to Green Bay (who had 11, with 4 coming in the 2010 season all the way back). Next closest is 7.

    So I think he knows something about winning.


    Now do the AFC.
    JayhawkMike
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 784
    Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 4:06 pm


  • pittpnthrs wrote:Oh, so you remember the Seahawks without Russell Wilson.


    then

    We're talking about today, not 30 years ago.


    Derp.
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2727
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:56 pm


  • JustTheTip wrote:A lot of cleaning was required for this thread. If you need to express your inner child take it to the Shack where it belongs.


    Thank you for the good work!
    Own The West
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 514
    Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:20 pm


  • JayhawkMike wrote:
    themunn wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    3 wins in 6 years isn't bad - only 3 NFC teams with more in that time.
    Over 8 years no NFC team is near (8 wins, vs 6 next closest - Green Bay, who also have 0 Superbowl appearances in that time).

    And since Carroll took over, his 10 playoff wins are 2nd only to Green Bay (who had 11, with 4 coming in the 2010 season all the way back). Next closest is 7.

    So I think he knows something about winning.


    Now do the AFC.


    Can't be bothered looking at every team, but of teams that have won a Superbowl since 2010:

    Patriots - 16 wins
    Ravens - 8 wins
    Chiefs - 7 wins
    Broncos - 6 wins
    Steelers - 5 wins

    So Carroll's 10 wins stacks up pretty well I'd say.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3624
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 5:38 pm


  • Nice. As frustrating as it has been to see only 3 playoff wins in 6 years, it still has been one hell of a run since Russ and Pete have been here. Still not good enough, but it certainly could be a lot worse.
    Sometimes, you gotta' step back and see what you have and appreciate. Even if it's extremely frustrating at times.
    I can see both sides of it a lot more these days. After that crap show vs. the Rams (2 weeks after dominating them to win the division) it took me a lot longer to get off the ledge this time.
    I'll never understand the 24/7 everything sucks, Russ bashing, Pete bashing over and over again.
    But, to each his/her own. I THINK we all love this team and want them to succeed. Even if sometimes, it's shocking how much it seems that some want them to fail so they can say they were right about their doom and gloom.
    And for the record, I would like to see them move on from Pete. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate what he has meant to this franchise.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17279
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • themunn wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    3 wins in 6 years isn't bad - only 3 NFC teams with more in that time.
    Over 8 years no NFC team is near (8 wins, vs 6 next closest - Green Bay, who also have 0 Superbowl appearances in that time).

    And since Carroll took over, his 10 playoff wins are 2nd only to Green Bay (who had 11, with 4 coming in the 2010 season all the way back). Next closest is 7.

    So I think he knows something about winning.


    It's not simply not winning that is frustrating to me. It's not adapting to win more that is. It seems every playoff loss was because of the same reasons, namely PC continuously trying to fit square pegs in round holes. AKA, failing to adapt to the personnel on his team. It follows a formula. Defense gets tired out in the first half due to a bunch of 3 or 4 and outs, the team falls behind, opposing defenses eat up the OL because they know we're either running it up the middle or doing yet another 5-7 drop pass play. And then our success comes mainly from the scramble drill and Russ's otherworldly magic. It doesn't come from coaches adjustments for the most part, it's Russ being Russ.

    The fact that this pattern is what his camp said he was supposedly frustrated with is very telling to me. Why would he or fans expect to have trust in the coach when the team continuously tries doing the same exact thing. This past loss was the worst of all. Especially considering the start we had. The team was utterly flat (which is a complete coaching issue) and Carroll absolutely flopped in failing to adjust the gameplay to the defense. I think that's why people are more frustrated than before. Russ tried to lobby for something more and he achieved that. But then 2 bad games and we revert completely back to the same old same old. No adjustments to the way Ds were playing us, just back to square peg/round hole. Rinse repeat. Good but not good enough, another carbon copy early exit.

    We have a magic QB being forced to play a different game than is optimum for him. I'd feel a lot better if we lost because we played to our strength, tried something new, but too can't accept continuously losing because we aren't. Because you guys are right, we're lucky and partially spoiled with so much sustained success getting into the playoffs, but early exits for the exact same reason year after year after year has gotten very old. And the magic QB apparently thinks the same way.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 115
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • The lack of adjustments and/or the seemingly blatant refusal to adjust to the opponent is maddening to say the least. For some reason, it just got to me more this year than any other of the playoff losses. Not to sound overly negative, but Pete getting outcoached has been pretty normal for a while now. All while Russ saves him basically. Just an opinion. Stubborn isn't cutting it.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17279
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:The lack of adjustments and/or the seemingly blatant refusal to adjust to the opponent is maddening to say the least. For some reason, it just got to me more this year than any other of the playoff losses. Not to sound overly negative, but Pete getting outcoached has been pretty normal for a while now. All while Russ saves him basically. Just an opinion. Stubborn isn't cutting it.

    I think it hit this year so hard because the team seemingly went into the game knowing what was coming. It was the flattest performance I've seen from them in a long while. Maybe they were just frustrated with and tired of the same old pattern. I've tried to figure out how they would come out for a playoff game against a rival so poorly, that's the best answer ive thought of or read.
    FattyKnuckle
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 115
    Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:05 pm


  • Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.


    Along with putting up with the growing list of this fanbase that feels entitled to winning.
    oldhawkfan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2632
    Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:06 pm
    Location: Spokane


  • oldhawkfan wrote:
    Along with putting up with the growing list of this fanbase that feels entitled to winning.


    Entitled?

    Nope. Any fan since before the Holmgren era certainly doesn't feel entitled. High expectations that the combo of Schneider/Carroll and Wilson should be able to figure out how to win in the playoffs and get back to more Superbowls, or at least deeper in the playoffs?

    Absolutely.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18686
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    oldhawkfan wrote:
    Along with putting up with the growing list of this fanbase that feels entitled to winning.


    Entitled?

    Nope. Any fan since before the Holmgren era certainly doesn't feel entitled. High expectations that the combo of Schneider/Carroll and Wilson should be able to figure out how to win in the playoffs and get back to more Superbowls, or at least deeper in the playoffs?

    Absolutely.


    So, they expect more from Carroll and Wilson, so their solution is to get rid of them? Because that makes no goddamn sense. If you expect more from them, then they have higher potential, and firing/trading them only removes their services from the team. A new coach/QB won't guarantee more winning.

    I call $h!t.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7363
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


  • Shanegotyou11 wrote:
    Aros wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    You know what I remember? No playoff wins from 1985-2004. You know what else I remember? No playoff appearances AT ALL from 1989-1998.



    Thank you. Saved me from saying it. Us older 12's should get a stinkin' badge for putting up with the 1990's alone.



    Preach!

    ^^^ What these guys said!
    FPD
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1163
    Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:37 pm
    Location: BFE, MT


  • It's not that people don't have a right to complain, it's that people have grown so disgruntled with relative success that it's hard to speak in even remotely positive terms about the team without a select group of usual suspects coming in to detract from the conversation, usually with points irrelevant to the topic of discussion that derail the thread.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4779
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maulbert wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    oldhawkfan wrote:
    Along with putting up with the growing list of this fanbase that feels entitled to winning.


    Entitled?

    Nope. Any fan since before the Holmgren era certainly doesn't feel entitled. High expectations that the combo of Schneider/Carroll and Wilson should be able to figure out how to win in the playoffs and get back to more Superbowls, or at least deeper in the playoffs?

    Absolutely.


    So, they expect more from Carroll and Wilson, so their solution is to get rid of them? Because that makes no goddamn sense. If you expect more from them, then they have higher potential, and firing/trading them only removes their services from the team. A new coach/QB won't guarantee more winning.

    I call $h!t.


    Those aren't entitled fans, those are ignorant fans.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18686
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Maulbert wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    oldhawkfan wrote:
    Along with putting up with the growing list of this fanbase that feels entitled to winning.


    Entitled?

    Nope. Any fan since before the Holmgren era certainly doesn't feel entitled. High expectations that the combo of Schneider/Carroll and Wilson should be able to figure out how to win in the playoffs and get back to more Superbowls, or at least deeper in the playoffs?

    Absolutely.


    So, they expect more from Carroll and Wilson, so their solution is to get rid of them? Because that makes no goddamn sense. If you expect more from them, then they have higher potential, and firing/trading them only removes their services from the team. A new coach/QB won't guarantee more winning.

    I call $h!t.


    Those aren't entitled fans, those are ignorant fans.


    It isn't ignorant, at least for Pete. There is more than enough data now (really several years ago) to identify his negative patterns and form the very reasonable opinion that those patterns won't change and negatively impact the team's ability to elevate beyond what they have shown since the super bowl loss.

    Winning is great but, if it isn't building towards more, really doesn't mean much more than what the team was doing in the '90s. My die-hard fandom started in 90 (on the Krieg to Skansi play.) I was a casual fan prior. I found a lot of the games in the 90s much more entertaining than Pete's continual misuse of talent that is superior (overall) to what was on those teams.
    JustTheTip
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3114
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


  • Just because some people think it's time to move on from Pete, it doesn't make them ignorant and/or entitled.
    And wanting more, and expecting more is justified, especially with the talent on this roster.
    Since when was it not ok to have an opinion? Since when was it not ok to appreciate what the team has done, while also being frustrated that they haven't done more? This is a message board, full of opinions.
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17279
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • JustTheTip wrote:
    It isn't ignorant, at least for Pete. There is more than enough data now (really several years ago) to identify his negative patterns and form the very reasonable opinion that those patterns won't change and negatively impact the team's ability to elevate beyond what they have shown since the super bowl loss.

    Winning is great but, if it isn't building towards more, really doesn't mean much more than what the team was doing in the '90s. My die-hard fandom started in 90 (on the Krieg to Skansi play.) I was a casual fan prior. I found a lot of the games in the 90s much more entertaining than Pete's continual misuse of talent that is superior (overall) to what was on those teams.


    That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is saying that blowing it all up by firing Pete without a concrete plan in place, or ownership that has the ability to facilitate such a drastic culture and leadership change at the top.

    Let's face it, Jody Allen inherited a pro sports team that she probably has neither the acumen or knowledge to go through a wholesale coaching and leadership change, nor the stomach for it.

    That's WHY she gave Pete and John extensions, to steward the team for another 4-5 years as she decides her next step.

    So for people on here to just say "FIRE PETE!" That's ignorant of the current organizational situation. Very few people on here discuss Paul Allen dying, and what that void has meant to these sorts of discussions.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18686
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    It isn't ignorant, at least for Pete. There is more than enough data now (really several years ago) to identify his negative patterns and form the very reasonable opinion that those patterns won't change and negatively impact the team's ability to elevate beyond what they have shown since the super bowl loss.

    Winning is great but, if it isn't building towards more, really doesn't mean much more than what the team was doing in the '90s. My die-hard fandom started in 90 (on the Krieg to Skansi play.) I was a casual fan prior. I found a lot of the games in the 90s much more entertaining than Pete's continual misuse of talent that is superior (overall) to what was on those teams.


    That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is saying that blowing it all up by firing Pete without a concrete plan in place, or ownership that has the ability to facilitate such a drastic culture and leadership change at the top.

    Let's face it, Jody Allen inherited a pro sports team that she probably has neither the acumen or knowledge to go through a wholesale coaching and leadership change, nor the stomach for it.

    That's WHY she gave Pete and John extensions, to steward the team for another 4-5 years as she decides her next step.

    So for people on here to just say "FIRE PETE!" That's ignorant of the current organizational situation. Very few people on here discuss Paul Allen dying, and what that void has meant to these sorts of discussions.


    Still not ignorant. Pete should have been dealt with years ago. Those of us pointing out the erosion of what he built then were also called ignorant and stupid... no matter how many examples of why we provided. If she was unsure what to do she should have paid external consultants. Paying Pete for 5 more years was not a good move. If he sticks around all 5 of those years the likelihood is the team will be right back where it was when he got here as far as culture goes.

    I can agree that the team should be putting a plan in place. But that could be said for the last 5 years. We are pretty much at the point where it may be time to just rip off the bandaid and let come what will come. Maybe the infection will get worse, but at least we aren't looking at red lines moving up our limbs and saying "at least it isn't flesh eating."
    JustTheTip
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3114
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


  • Here is the link to the "Pete Carroll Needs To Go" topic :D >>>https://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=161120&start=200#p2532593

    Returning to the topic of patience, the hard ball phase of free agency appears to have begun ..........

    .................... when the music begins to slow is when it begins to gets interesting.
    Jville
    * NET Alumni *
     
    Posts: 10113
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:49 pm


  • JustTheTip wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    It isn't ignorant, at least for Pete. There is more than enough data now (really several years ago) to identify his negative patterns and form the very reasonable opinion that those patterns won't change and negatively impact the team's ability to elevate beyond what they have shown since the super bowl loss.

    Winning is great but, if it isn't building towards more, really doesn't mean much more than what the team was doing in the '90s. My die-hard fandom started in 90 (on the Krieg to Skansi play.) I was a casual fan prior. I found a lot of the games in the 90s much more entertaining than Pete's continual misuse of talent that is superior (overall) to what was on those teams.


    That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is saying that blowing it all up by firing Pete without a concrete plan in place, or ownership that has the ability to facilitate such a drastic culture and leadership change at the top.

    Let's face it, Jody Allen inherited a pro sports team that she probably has neither the acumen or knowledge to go through a wholesale coaching and leadership change, nor the stomach for it.

    That's WHY she gave Pete and John extensions, to steward the team for another 4-5 years as she decides her next step.

    So for people on here to just say "FIRE PETE!" That's ignorant of the current organizational situation. Very few people on here discuss Paul Allen dying, and what that void has meant to these sorts of discussions.


    Still not ignorant. Pete should have been dealt with years ago. Those of us pointing out the erosion of what he built then were also called ignorant and stupid... no matter how many examples of why we provided. If she was unsure what to do she should have paid external consultants. Paying Pete for 5 more years was not a good move. If he sticks around all 5 of those years the likelihood is the team will be right back where it was when he got here as far as culture goes.

    I can agree that the team should be putting a plan in place. But that could be said for the last 5 years. We are pretty much at the point where it may be time to just rip off the bandaid and let come what will come. Maybe the infection will get worse, but at least we aren't looking at red lines moving up our limbs and saying "at least it isn't flesh eating."


    So you expected a man who was dealing with terminal cancer for close to a decade fighting for his life to "deal with Pete Carroll" in the sense of having just won a SB and came close to winning another, of who you get along great with and are proud of what you've built together with John Schneider to fire the most successful coach and leader in your franchise's history who was STILL winning.

    Yep. Still ignorant.
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 18686
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:
    It isn't ignorant, at least for Pete. There is more than enough data now (really several years ago) to identify his negative patterns and form the very reasonable opinion that those patterns won't change and negatively impact the team's ability to elevate beyond what they have shown since the super bowl loss.

    Winning is great but, if it isn't building towards more, really doesn't mean much more than what the team was doing in the '90s. My die-hard fandom started in 90 (on the Krieg to Skansi play.) I was a casual fan prior. I found a lot of the games in the 90s much more entertaining than Pete's continual misuse of talent that is superior (overall) to what was on those teams.


    That's not the ignorant part. The ignorant part is saying that blowing it all up by firing Pete without a concrete plan in place, or ownership that has the ability to facilitate such a drastic culture and leadership change at the top.

    Let's face it, Jody Allen inherited a pro sports team that she probably has neither the acumen or knowledge to go through a wholesale coaching and leadership change, nor the stomach for it.

    That's WHY she gave Pete and John extensions, to steward the team for another 4-5 years as she decides her next step.

    So for people on here to just say "FIRE PETE!" That's ignorant of the current organizational situation. Very few people on here discuss Paul Allen dying, and what that void has meant to these sorts of discussions.


    Still not ignorant. Pete should have been dealt with years ago. Those of us pointing out the erosion of what he built then were also called ignorant and stupid... no matter how many examples of why we provided. If she was unsure what to do she should have paid external consultants. Paying Pete for 5 more years was not a good move. If he sticks around all 5 of those years the likelihood is the team will be right back where it was when he got here as far as culture goes.

    I can agree that the team should be putting a plan in place. But that could be said for the last 5 years. We are pretty much at the point where it may be time to just rip off the bandaid and let come what will come. Maybe the infection will get worse, but at least we aren't looking at red lines moving up our limbs and saying "at least it isn't flesh eating."


    So you expected a man who was dealing with terminal cancer for close to a decade fighting for his life to "deal with Pete Carroll" in the sense of having just won a SB and came close to winning another, of who you get along great with and are proud of what you've built together with John Schneider to fire the most successful coach and leader in your franchise's history who was STILL winning.

    Yep. Still ignorant.


    I expect him to show the acumen he showed throughout his life, including when he was previously dealing with the same cancer, and either take care of it or put people in place to take care of it. Of course, he was not bound by my expectations but that does not make my position on things any more ignorant than yours or anybody else's.

    There is a big difference between being a winning team and winning games (in my opinion.) The Seahawks were on the cusp of being a winning team, and then the same man who put them in that position pulled the carpet out. A little at a time. So it wasn't obvious. And probably not on purpose.
    JustTheTip
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3114
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


  • I don’t understand why anyone would want Pete and John gone. This is a tough year for team without a lot of cap room. Unless players at the top start restructuring their deals the Hawks don’t have much to work with. I guess some fans would rather not have a shot at all at winning. Pete has been the best coach we ever had. I wanna see him ride this out before we throw him away. Teams that fire coaches for not winning every year kinda have $h!t teams. You want to be the eagles?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    HawkinNY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 595
    Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:12 am
    Location: Long Island, NY


  • JustTheTip wrote:A lot of cleaning was required for this thread. If you need to express your inner child take it to the Shack where it belongs.


    Why was the very first reply to this thread not cleaned? Literally the first reply to this thread was completely off-topic to free agency, which is what the post was about.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4779
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    JustTheTip wrote:A lot of cleaning was required for this thread. If you need to express your inner child take it to the Shack where it belongs.


    Why was the very first reply to this thread not cleaned? Literally the first reply to this thread was completely off-topic to free agency, which is what the post was about.


    In my opinion, this thread has two valid points for discussion. Free agency and the definition of winning. Beyond that, the posts that were edited and or removed because they were the discussion equivalent of monkeys throwing poo, not because they were off topic.

    I am leaving your post and this response in place as a reminder to posters here that questioning moderating outside the shack is also against the rules here. If you have a serious question PM the moderator. If you just want to call me a doodie head, go to the shack to do it.

    Thanks,
    JTT
    JustTheTip
    Platinum Supporter
    Platinum Supporter
     
    Posts: 3114
    Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:38 pm


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:It's not that people don't have a right to complain, it's that people have grown so disgruntled with relative success that it's hard to speak in even remotely positive terms about the team without a select group of usual suspects coming in to detract from the conversation, usually with points irrelevant to the topic of discussion that derail the thread.


    I had been living among another fan base who had recently won their first Super Bowl before the Seahawks won theirs and a chunk of our fan base has taken on the same thing they had going.

    For so long we were just happy to even get a playoff berth because in a "good year" the team was "still in the hunt" (almost always needing lots of help from other teams to get in). I remember thinking "man, they almost won a playoff game!" in that OT loss to the Packers with Holmgren.

    But once they won a Super Bowl (and went to another one after that) a lot of the fan base flipped to where the other team's fans I was living around were at: anything short of a Super Bowl win would have a lot of them in a pretty negative state. I thought this would probably be the case and it is.

    A lot of the posters here will insist that they just need to see improvement/deeper in the the playoffs. But if this team consistently loses in NFC championship games/divisional games instead of divisional/wild card games are those people going to be less disgruntled? For most of them, I really doubt it. I don't think they're being honest with themselves.

    I don't think there are many "whatever the team's GM and coach does is awesome!" types. I've seen them but there aren't that many; I feel like there are way more of the "just dump this person and this person now" types, probably because it's easier to be negative. It's easier to be negative because winning is hard because there are 32 teams and its so competitive. Even the bad teams can get some wins; the worst teams really aren't that much worse than the best teams. This isn't college football.

    Most of us ride the excitement/disappointment/praise/criticism cycle at various levels. I regularly pointed out most of the 2019 season about the defense dragging the team down (and the first half of the 2020 season). I'm not mad about it, I just recognized that giving up 30 PPG was a serious death sentence and no amount of "Let Russ Cook" was going to sustain much, as evidenced from some bad games in the middle of the season.

    I thought giving up a fourth round pick for Marshawn Lynch seemed stupid. And after being so wrong about that, I just sort of gave up trying to analyze and figure out whether things were good or bad on the fly.

    I'm at the point (and I've been here for awhile) where I'm not going to try to analyze every single item and turn it into some strategic explanation with maximum confirmation bias about how the team is doing. I don't know, and neither do the other people here. We don't know what's actually going on in the building, and there are so many variables on an NFL team and the league that the idea of us having it "figured out" is ludicrous. It may be fun to speculate, but we don't know.

    I have gotten very good at finding enjoyment in individual games, events, etc. during the season. This team might not win another Super Bowl in my lifetime (and I'm really not that old). I'm not going to waste every season being disgruntled because something something. I'd like to see them be better, and there are moments where I'm like "what?" but I've got it pretty good at this point with a team that isn't an utter laughing stock and is competitive nearly every game and every year.
    bmorepunk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2727
    Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:56 pm


  • Great post ^
    A lot of good points. Shoot, in 2020 it was a real possibility that we weren't even going to have football. And it turned out to be a pretty exciting season imo. 12-4 and a division title is a hell of a lot better than no football at all.
    All in how you look at it. After the playoff loss, I was as frustrated as I've ever been. But, eventually I was able to step back and look at it differently and appreciate what we had a lot more. And how much success the team has had.
    The constant blasting each other just kind of ruined the page, hopefully at some point we can just talk football. All without getting so personal. Some of us are "too positive" and supposedly "are ok with just winning in the regular season"
    Seems like a lot of assuming how someone truly feels about how a season turns out. You can be positive about the team and plenty pissed off. It IS not only possible, but pretty common for plenty of us.
    Then on the other side, the 24/7 doom and gloom crowd. The Russ is Satan crowd etc. That's their choice, and maybe I'm just realizing I need to step back and let them do that negative thing. To each his/her own. It's not personal, even though I have been threatened on here a few times, and plenty of people don't like me. And that's fine, they don't actually know me (and I don't know them) it's just a message board. Until recently, I just had to stay away, it's just the same crap over and over again. No matter what the team does, it's not good enough. At some point, it's just a waste of time and energy. I have plenty of more important things to do than worry about someone internet hating me :irishdrinkers:

    .02
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 17279
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


  • JayhawkMike wrote:
    themunn wrote:
    JayhawkMike wrote:What does he think is the key to winning in the playoffs? 3 wins in 6 years wants to know.


    3 wins in 6 years isn't bad - only 3 NFC teams with more in that time.
    Over 8 years no NFC team is near (8 wins, vs 6 next closest - Green Bay, who also have 0 Superbowl appearances in that time).

    And since Carroll took over, his 10 playoff wins are 2nd only to Green Bay (who had 11, with 4 coming in the 2010 season all the way back). Next closest is 7.

    So I think he knows something about winning.


    Now do the AFC.


    AFC playoff wins are irrelevant. They have no impact on Seattle's playoff wins unless they make the super bowl. No NFC team has been to the super bowl twice in the last 6 years, and only 2 teams have done it since realignment in 2002. The Giants and the Seahawks. Playoff wins in the NFC have always been tougher. Even more, every NFC team has made the playoffs in the last 6 years.

    The other franchises that appeared more than once shouldn't be considered the same team as they had completely different rosters and coaches. If for some reason you do want to include those franchises... Seattle is the only team to go 3 times.
    JGreen79
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 909
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:26 pm
    Location: Newberg, Oregon


  • bmorepunk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:Oh, so you remember the Seahawks without Russell Wilson.


    then

    We're talking about today, not 30 years ago.


    Derp.


    What does this even mean? I know you were doing your best to be cute and sarcastic, but you are poor at it.

    Bringing up the 90's is the saddest excuse for accepting todays results ever. Its the same as somebody saying their new mustang that runs like crap is perfectly fine because they used to have one 30 years ago that ran even worse. I'll never understand the mindset.
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2039
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • pittpnthrs wrote:
    bmorepunk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:Oh, so you remember the Seahawks without Russell Wilson.


    then

    We're talking about today, not 30 years ago.


    Derp.


    What does this even mean? I know you were doing your best to be cute and sarcastic, but you are poor at it.

    Bringing up the 90's is the saddest excuse for accepting todays results ever. Its the same as somebody saying their new mustang that runs like crap is perfectly fine because they used to have one 30 years ago that ran even worse. I'll never understand the mindset.


    The new Mustang in your analogy doesn't run like crap, though. It ran really, really well last year until the end.

    Now we're gonna give it a tune up and get it back on the road strong rather than throwing it away and entering the used car market, praying for a good deal.
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4779
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • SoulfishHawk wrote:The lack of adjustments and/or the seemingly blatant refusal to adjust to the opponent is maddening to say the least. For some reason, it just got to me more this year than any other of the playoff losses. Not to sound overly negative, but Pete getting outcoached has been pretty normal for a while now. All while Russ saves him basically. Just an opinion. Stubborn isn't cutting it.


    Pete coming out for the presser afterwards and openly admitting he didnt understand what happened is the most concerning for me (he did that a couple times last season). He just didnt understand how his game plan failed and the other teams didnt. So when talking about adjusting, i'm not sure he even knows how sometimes. That isnt what you want from a head coach.
    pittpnthrs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2039
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 11:19 am


  • Maelstrom787 wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    bmorepunk wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:Oh, so you remember the Seahawks without Russell Wilson.


    then

    We're talking about today, not 30 years ago.


    Derp.


    What does this even mean? I know you were doing your best to be cute and sarcastic, but you are poor at it.

    Bringing up the 90's is the saddest excuse for accepting todays results ever. Its the same as somebody saying their new mustang that runs like crap is perfectly fine because they used to have one 30 years ago that ran even worse. I'll never understand the mindset.


    The new Mustang in your analogy doesn't run like crap, though. It ran really, really well last year until the end.

    Now we're gonna give it a tune up and get it back on the road strong rather than throwing it away and entering the used car market, praying for a good deal.


    Apparently, he'd rather drive a Yugo with a new paint job than a Ferrari with dented panels.
    Maulbert
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 7363
    Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:44 pm
    Location: In the basement of Reynholm Industries


Next


It is currently Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:19 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ SEATTLE SEAHAWKS FOOTBALL ]




Information
  • Who is online