BigBallsPete
New member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 0
I have been biting my tongue about this issue for a really long time but since we won the SB it has gotten ridiculous. I'm getting really tired of the talking point that gets reiterated ad nauseam by national/local media that John Schnieder is pretty much solely responsible for the talent the Hawks have acquired since 2010. I have been following Pete closely since about 2002 (I went to USC) and have watched fans and media try to downplay Pete's contributions to winning consistently for the last decade plus. Over that time frame I have heard similar concepts that keep coming up:
- Norm Chow was the reason USC was good in the early 2000s
- If it's not Norm Chow, it must be Sarkisian
- If it's not Sarkisian it must be Lane Kiffin (as insane as that sounds, go read old SC forum threads)
- Gus Bradley built the Hawks defense
- Schnieder drafts all our players and therefore is responsible for our talent pool
I like Schnieder a lot and think he is great for the organization but Pete can say "no" to him. It's as simple as that. If my boss asks me to put together a list of vendors for a job but has the ability to add/omit vendors on the list, those are not my picks. It doesn't matter if my boss says "yes" to the entire list. My boss is in fact picking the vendors because they are the one making the final call. Carroll would not have accepted the job without total control over the players on the team. . Carroll hired Schnieder to work under him; not the other way around.
Go listen to the Damon Huard on Brock and Danny recently. Danny asked Damon why Pete is successful now, and was not back in the NE and Jet days. Damon said something to the effect of: "That's simple, Pete didn't have control over what players were drafted back then. Once he got to USC he became was his own player personnel director and the rest is history." Danny had nothing to say because he is one of those media members that constantly talks about how John Schnieder makes the picks. It's not true. Pete stirs the drink. Pete ultimately controls all football decisions and nobody can dispute that. Look at all the Pac 12 players we have drafted and signed as UDFAs. Why do you think that is? Pete has been grabbing all the Pac 12 players he coveted and has been using them to dominate the league (west coast players have been traditionally undervalued in the NFL).
When we lose, especially if it comes down to a coaching call (like trying a 63 yard field goal for instance), we all blame Pete. If we win, many ppl in our fan base and local media give credit to anyone/everyone except Pete. I think it all stems from an inherent bias many have against Pete for the USC situation. When Pete's name comes up in a conversation, anybody in my office that doesn't follow football shouts "PETE CHEATED." Just like the "Fail Mary", if you ask the ladies on The View, they probably know all about Pete paying players. :sarcasm_on: This is one of the biggest media hatchet jobs I've ever seen for a non-political public figure.
If the team was devoid of talent, everyone would blame Pete for the draft picks. Fans/media would say Pete is the executive vice president and has final say, therefore he deserves all the blame. Because the picks have been good, those that are biased against Pete have to find other reasons why. If Schnieder were to leave (hopefully not, but I've heard he does crave total personnel control), I think media/fans would latch onto Cable, Dan Quinn or Ken Norton as the root cause of the Hawks success. Was there a single local media member that liked the hiring of Pete in 2010? I listen to both stations and can't think of one. Apologize for the rant
- Norm Chow was the reason USC was good in the early 2000s
- If it's not Norm Chow, it must be Sarkisian
- If it's not Sarkisian it must be Lane Kiffin (as insane as that sounds, go read old SC forum threads)
- Gus Bradley built the Hawks defense
- Schnieder drafts all our players and therefore is responsible for our talent pool
I like Schnieder a lot and think he is great for the organization but Pete can say "no" to him. It's as simple as that. If my boss asks me to put together a list of vendors for a job but has the ability to add/omit vendors on the list, those are not my picks. It doesn't matter if my boss says "yes" to the entire list. My boss is in fact picking the vendors because they are the one making the final call. Carroll would not have accepted the job without total control over the players on the team. . Carroll hired Schnieder to work under him; not the other way around.
“As guys get other jobs around the league, there isn’t always that level of trust and communication from the top down, and there isn’t always that willingness to let you do exactly what you feel and how you should do it. That’s what I’ve been given here — and I can’t tell you how excited I am about that,” Carroll said. “That is what I had at ’SC, and is when I’ve had my best success.” -- Pete on joining the Seahawks
Go listen to the Damon Huard on Brock and Danny recently. Danny asked Damon why Pete is successful now, and was not back in the NE and Jet days. Damon said something to the effect of: "That's simple, Pete didn't have control over what players were drafted back then. Once he got to USC he became was his own player personnel director and the rest is history." Danny had nothing to say because he is one of those media members that constantly talks about how John Schnieder makes the picks. It's not true. Pete stirs the drink. Pete ultimately controls all football decisions and nobody can dispute that. Look at all the Pac 12 players we have drafted and signed as UDFAs. Why do you think that is? Pete has been grabbing all the Pac 12 players he coveted and has been using them to dominate the league (west coast players have been traditionally undervalued in the NFL).
When we lose, especially if it comes down to a coaching call (like trying a 63 yard field goal for instance), we all blame Pete. If we win, many ppl in our fan base and local media give credit to anyone/everyone except Pete. I think it all stems from an inherent bias many have against Pete for the USC situation. When Pete's name comes up in a conversation, anybody in my office that doesn't follow football shouts "PETE CHEATED." Just like the "Fail Mary", if you ask the ladies on The View, they probably know all about Pete paying players. :sarcasm_on: This is one of the biggest media hatchet jobs I've ever seen for a non-political public figure.
If the team was devoid of talent, everyone would blame Pete for the draft picks. Fans/media would say Pete is the executive vice president and has final say, therefore he deserves all the blame. Because the picks have been good, those that are biased against Pete have to find other reasons why. If Schnieder were to leave (hopefully not, but I've heard he does crave total personnel control), I think media/fans would latch onto Cable, Dan Quinn or Ken Norton as the root cause of the Hawks success. Was there a single local media member that liked the hiring of Pete in 2010? I listen to both stations and can't think of one. Apologize for the rant