Carroll on his relationship with Jody Allen

[LTH]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't totally agree with your point, the O is different... they run a lot of different plays they never ran before like jet sweeps etc. but they still run some of the older stuff as well...So I would say that it's a mix. But It's obvious that Pete sets parameters for what he wants to see as far as he wants balance etc. But i don't see him running this O or micromanaging it. and I don't think the issues on O come from the play book and I don't think you think that as well from reading your posts...the question is did Pete give up some power. I think he made comprises in a lot of area's...

but back to the draft. I don't believe that Pete controls this I think he lets everybody do their job and I think they pick players based off how they grade those players and i think they set their board and remain true to it... can't say for sure but that's what I think, and I have not seen anything to say otherwise doesn't mean i'm right thats just my perception of a situation that really isn't public.

but the question still stands is it reasonable to think that the Seahawks should remain competitive drafting where they have drafted for the last 10 years?

Edit: im still on my first cup of coffee so my edits are grammar and stuff like that. I'm not a great writer LOL


LTH

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't totally agree with your point, the O is different... they run a lot of different plays they never ran before like jet sweeps etc. but they still run some of the older stuff as well...So I would say that it's a mix. But It's obvious that Pete sets parameters for what he wants to see as far as he wants balance etc. But i don't see him running this O or micromanaging it. and I don't think the issues on O come from the play book and I don't think you think that as well from reading your posts...the question is did Pete give up some power. I think he made comprises in a lot of area's...

but back to the draft. I don't believe that Pete controls this I think he lets everybody do their job and I think they pick players based off how they grade those players and i think they set their board and remain true to it... can't say for sure but that's what I think, and I have not seen anything to say otherwise doesn't mean i'm right thats just my perception of a situation that really isn't public.

but the question still stands is it reasonable to think that the Seahawks should remain competitive drafting where they have drafted for the last 10 years?

Edit: im still on my first cup of coffee so my edits are grammar and stuff like that. I'm not a great writer LOL


LTH

We ran sweeps and screens before. One sweep per game (if that) doesn't = drastic Pete change. Sorry.

I don't see any of the layered formations and 4 WR sets working on misdirection that the Rams run. Hell, I don't even think Pete understands the complexities of McVay's passing offense, let alone trusts Waldron to run it.

To answer your last question, no I don't think it's reasonable to think the Hawks will remain competitive drafting. Because they don't have enough draft capital to fill all the holes that need filling this off season. Or even next.

 

[OrangeGravy]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

 

[Boycie]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MikeDugar/status/1475611006608936962[/tweet]

I see what is going to happen. JS is cozy to Jody because Pete is responsible for the team's play, and thus he doesn't want to deal with the executive team. I can see JS and Russ staying, while Pete is shown the door. Pete made a fatal flaw not having those conversations that JS has had with Jody and her team.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

 

[LTH]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

It's NOT the play book...this is obvious there are open receivers Russ is not hitting Waldron is calling the right plays... It's NOT the run game and it's NOT the o line. It's Russ.


LTH

 

[LTH]

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

It's NOT the play book...this is obvious there are open receivers Russ is not hitting Waldron is calling the right plays... It's NOT the run game and it's NOT the o line. It's Russ. it ain't 25 anymore this is a serious consideration


LTH

 

[chris98251]

My take on it, John is the liaison, Pete is doing Pete in that response, oh and yeah he does probably know Jody isn't happy, but I doubt they are on the same page, Jody and John may be on the same page however.

What that leads to is the question, Pete may know unhappy and need to fix things, but end of the season decisions I don't think he is really involved with yet.

 

[LTH]

Just for the record I'm not against trading Russ for the right deal...the problem is who do you replace him with? That right there is the main issue. Looking at it6 from Carrolls point of view he has 4 years left on his contract... It's a tough place he is at.


LTH

 

[OrangeGravy]

Just in The Walderon hiring.... This to me is an example of Pete seeing that his O needs to be more initiative and up dated.

LTH

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

I know you've been critical of Russell. It was more of asking why the general consensus is russ is so good to be faultless.

Without knowing what exactly goes on in film sessions and game planning meetings, it's impossible to know how much Pete interjects or even if when he does it's always to the detriment of the offense. There's really no way to know until we see Russell with a different team. I suspect that Russell on another team would spawn a season full of tweets saying " why does our offense look like the Seahawks last year".

Personally, I like defense. Flashy offense doesn't excite me. Flashy offenses more often than not fold up shop when they get hit in the mouth and they always run into someone that hits them in the mouth repeatedly in the playoffs. It's just a matter of if that team has a competent enough offense to take advantage of it. The easiest way to distract fans is Flashy offense. You can go .500 for a decade with it and most fans won't question a thing. They'll feel like they're just an inch away from putting it all together even if they aren't.

 

[LTH]

Has the offense looked different?

Get all the new coordinators you want, but if he doesn't relinquish control over how he wants the offense ran and he doesn't allow the new coordinator the autonomy to run the offense, then no sorry this doesn't count.

And other than the first game against the Colts where we saw some new wrinkles? All we've seen since is a regression back to Pete Ball. Just as we did with Bevell and Schotty.

See a pattern?

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

I know you've been critical of Russell. It was more of asking why the general consensus is russ is so good to be faultless.

Without knowing what exactly goes on in film sessions and game planning meetings, it's impossible to know how much Pete interjects or even if when he does it's always to the detriment of the offense. There's really no way to know until we see Russell with a different team. I suspect that Russell on another team would spawn a season full of tweets saying " why does our offense look like the Seahawks last year".

Personally, I like defense. Flashy offense doesn't excite me. Flashy offenses more often than not fold up shop when they get hit in the mouth and they always run into someone that hits them in the mouth repeatedly in the playoffs. It's just a matter of if that team has a competent enough offense to take advantage of it. The easiest way to distract fans is Flashy offense. You can go .500 for a decade with it and most fans won't question a thing. They'll feel like they're just an inch away from putting it all together even if they aren't.

I think there is something to be said about Carroll taking on Waldron and ditching Schotty. It's obvious that Russ isn't as fast as he used to be he is an aging vet QB... so as a head coach what do you do? you change the style of offense so that Russ can be more effective with the tools he has into a faster release offense. This to me makes since. The problem being maybe Russ doesn't realize he has lost a step. Russ is Russ now you are asking him to adjust his game to something that he is not used to doing... Every franchise QB has a huge ego that is why they are a franchise QB. the question is can Russ make that adjustment?


just my take


LTH

 

[chris98251]

I don't buy the Pete being a micromanager of the offense. Defense maybe, but not the offense.

For some reason Russell is always completely absolved of any responsibility in this recurring pattern. The one guy who touches the ball every play and makes the decision on where to throw the ball or when to change a play, somehow has nothing to do with why the offense looks the same through 3 OC's vs a HC who never touches the ball and doesn't call plays? Is Russell so good that it can't possibly be his play that causes the offense to look the same? Why is everyone so afraid to entertain the idea? Is it too painful or would it make things too hopeless if that veneer was washed away?

I'm not directing these questions just at you Sgt. I'm genuinely curious why this is? It wasn't that long ago that the debate over whether Russell was truly elite or not, even within the fanbase. How did we get from that debate, to he's so good that it obviously can't be down to him? I understand the desire to defend him from the national perspective. I was in that camp, but somehow we skipped from there to unquestionable greatness. I've seen Russell perform well enough consistently enough to believe he's that guy. He's never been consistently good from cover to cover in a season, ever. Maybe the year he assumed the leading rusher duties and like 80% of the offense, but that's all down to his running ability. He's never shown a full season of being a complete passer and no coach can change that at age 34

Oh I've been plenty critical of Russell. Just look at all the other threads, to exhaustion.

If we're parsing out the offensive issues I'd say before this year it was 80/20.

80% Pete's extremely predictable offensive schemes and stubborn adherence to also predictable playcalling.
20% Russell's deficiencies.

This year? Probably more like 50/50.

Again, three coordinators in four years should be a red flag that this is a very dysfunctional coach to coach for who likes to control both sides of the ball and wants his offensive coordinator to scheme and playcall within the confines of his philosophies, and also again a QB who has a much harder time reading defenses, making the proper protection checks and play changes than people have realized until now because he's no longer able to avoid defenders and make hay with broken plays. Now he's getting sacked and having far too many negative yard plays.

I know you've been critical of Russell. It was more of asking why the general consensus is russ is so good to be faultless.

Without knowing what exactly goes on in film sessions and game planning meetings, it's impossible to know how much Pete interjects or even if when he does it's always to the detriment of the offense. There's really no way to know until we see Russell with a different team. I suspect that Russell on another team would spawn a season full of tweets saying " why does our offense look like the Seahawks last year".

Personally, I like defense. Flashy offense doesn't excite me. Flashy offenses more often than not fold up shop when they get hit in the mouth and they always run into someone that hits them in the mouth repeatedly in the playoffs. It's just a matter of if that team has a competent enough offense to take advantage of it. The easiest way to distract fans is Flashy offense. You can go .500 for a decade with it and most fans won't question a thing. They'll feel like they're just an inch away from putting it all together even if they aren't.

I think there is something to be said about Carroll taking on Waldron and ditching Schotty. It's obvious that Russ isn't as fast as he used to be he is an aging vet QB... so as a head coach what do you do? you change the style of offense so that Russ can be more effective with the tools he has into a faster release offense. This to me makes since. The problem being maybe Russ doesn't realize he has lost a step. Russ is Russ now you are asking him to adjust his game to something that he is not used to doing... Every franchise QB has a huge ego that is why they are a franchise QB. the question is can Russ make that adjustment?


just my take


LTH

To make adjustments he has to see there is a problem, I have not heard that yet, so really, we are no different now then games before.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I think you are wrong.

I have made this point about drafting and where the Seahawks are drafting for the past 10 years... Why would anybody think the Seahawks should remain competitive when 25-27 teams in the NFL have the chance to draft better players than the Hawks for 10 years?

LTH

They blow the picks when they have them anyways so this is totally irrelevant.

 

[LTH]

I wouldn't say that we are no different I would frame it as Wilson is in the habit of escaping magically...and he still thinks he can do it.. It's not like we have not seen his adjustment to the new O completely as he does execute some of it ..

Just my perspective


LTH

 

[TwistedHusky]

You could say the same thing about Carroll though LTH.

For most of Carroll's NFL success, he succeeded because he had HOF players that could make up for his inability to gameplan (strategically and tactically), exploit weaknesses, or even adjust in-game.
(Or even pick coordinators & coaches that could do those things!)

But if he kept it close, his HOF QB could go win it for him in the 4th (often).

He could then get by on incredible thin/threadbare gameplans that were simplistic but allowed his great players to do what they wanted to do.

He no longer has many great players left and his HOF QB won't be able to bail out his inability once his QB leaves.

Most of his HOF players besides that are getting long in the tooth or already well on the other side of their prime.

Wilson failed to learn how to be effective at certain things because he could do other things. Same with Carroll.

Both aren't doing as much of those other things.

But Carroll's shortcomings are as big if not bigger problems than Wilson's.

 

[LTH]

You could say the same thing about Carroll though LTH.

For most of Carroll's NFL success, he succeeded because he had HOF players that could make up for his inability to gameplan (strategically and tactically), exploit weaknesses, or even adjust in-game.
(Or even pick coordinators & coaches that could do those things!)

But if he kept it close, his HOF QB could go win it for him in the 4th (often).

He could then get by on incredible thin/threadbare gameplans that were simplistic but allowed his great players to do what they wanted to do.

He no longer has many great players left and his HOF QB won't be able to bail out his inability once his QB leaves.

Most of his HOF players besides that are getting long in the tooth or already well on the other side of their prime.

Wilson failed to learn how to be effective at certain things because he could do other things. Same with Carroll.

Both aren't doing as much of those other things.

But Carroll's shortcomings are as big if not bigger problems than Wilson's.

I have to think about that... Because honestly I don't see game plan as an issue.

But I do agree with you that Carroll see's Wilson as a player that can win it in the fourth quarter. If you have a player like that then it's reasonable to think that way IMO.

 

[LTH]

The other thing is I'm not saying that Carroll does not have short comings because he does just like every other coach in the league everybody has short comings...


LTH

 

[xray]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/1475605981941813248[/tweet]

^
Perhaps that means that both Pete and Jody agree that Pete should get a new hobby .

 

[chris98251]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/gbellseattle/status/1475605981941813248[/tweet]

^
Perhaps that means that both Pete and Jody agree that Pete should get a new hobby .

Thats Pete not answering but saying words yes and no.

 

[LTH]

You could say the same thing about Carroll though LTH.

For most of Carroll's NFL success, he succeeded because he had HOF players that could make up for his inability to gameplan (strategically and tactically), exploit weaknesses, or even adjust in-game.
(Or even pick coordinators & coaches that could do those things!)

But if he kept it close, his HOF QB could go win it for him in the 4th (often).

He could then get by on incredible thin/threadbare gameplans that were simplistic but allowed his great players to do what they wanted to do.

He no longer has many great players left and his HOF QB won't be able to bail out his inability once his QB leaves.

Most of his HOF players besides that are getting long in the tooth or already well on the other side of their prime.

Wilson failed to learn how to be effective at certain things because he could do other things. Same with Carroll.

Both aren't doing as much of those other things.

But Carroll's shortcomings are as big if not bigger problems than Wilson's.

Ok I thought about your point, you're probably not going to see this cause it's going to get lost but...

I honestly don't see that Carroll's game plans this year have been poor. I don't remember years past specifically. Not sure why.

I don't see it as being an issue about keeping things close and winning it in the fourth. If you have the ability to do that than it's not an issue for me until you can't win those games like this year, then you have to ask the question why?

The answer that I come up with is that Wilson isn't adjusting with Pete's adjustments. He needs to learn to play within the system no matter what coach or team he plays for it's no different. I think Pete hired Waldron because he sees that Russ is not as fast as he used to be and can't do the things he used to do, a quick release passing game makes since. I think Russ has to be on the same page with Carroll and Waldron or you get what you get.

I think the Seahawks don't have the same viewpoint as you do. I say this because they signed Carrol and JS to a 5- year deal. this means they like the direction the team was going in.

Now the team has dipped. The Seahawks have to answer the question as to why.

regardless of what I think, or you think Pete is going to be able to talk himself into at least one more year due to Wilsons's injury.

It would make little since from a management perspective to sign a coach to a contract they signed him to and then bail on it after 1 losing season it would be VERY reactionary and would not show ANY confidence in the decision to sign them in the first place. It would make them look incompetent to fire Pete after one year into the new contract. So, I see at least one more year with Carroll and depending on what happens next year they will have to make that decision.

Thats just my take... and i really tried to look at it objectively. I could very well be wrong but from a management standpoint that's the way I see it

I actually think this team is close to being really good, I think if Russ was playing to his potential, we would not be having this conversation.

I know that at some point they are going to get rid of Pete. Maybe next year depending on what happens. I do not like the way they are finishing the season. It could be that Jody doesn't either and they decide to cut their losses

I guess we will find out soon enough


LTH