Clint Hurtt Wipes His Ass something… something…

[SoulfishHawk]

I've never thought anything BUT them contacting Quinn. Him and Pete have a history, I'm sure they looked into it. But it's just a guess, like claiming that they didn't.
Quinn got paid handsomely to run a damn good defense out there with a ton of talent.

 

[bileever]

I had read about how Sean McVay was putting a lot of new wrinkles into his offensive scheme this year, with Mike LaFleur, the former 49ers assistant, leaving the Jets to become the Rams OC. But what I saw on Sunday was the same old McVay scheme, the slants and crossing patterns that were killing us play after play. Was the problem scheme or personnel? Defensive play call or lack of effort? It's hard to say.

Certainly, the inablity to get pressure was not schematic. We made the Rams O-line look like it had HOF players at all five positions. We had no sacks and just 5 pressures. And that was on 38 drop backs! JFC! If that's going to be the trend, then we're not winning many games this year. Maybe we just don't have the horses up front to do the job, maybe it's hard to do that in this league without a Nick Bosa or a TJ Watt or a Chris Jones. Dre'mont Jones, who we are paying a ton of money, was a non-factor. Derick Hall was a non factor. I didn't even know he played until I saw the box score. Nwosu was okay, but he's just one player.

We were definitely better against the run. (92 yards on 40 attempts, or 2.3 yards per carry.) But time after time, on third and long, Stafford would find the someone on a crossing pattern, with one of our DBs trailing behind, not close to anywhere that he could make a play. This was a familiar sight because we've been watching that movie for the last few years. Again, this didn't seem schematic. I mean it wasn't always a soft zone--there was the DB covering the receiver but only if you define "covering" as running a few steps behind.

I hope we weren't scheming to take away the deep ball, because then we're defending against a play they're not even attempting. Oh, and by the way, the couple times Stafford did go deep, I think he completed it, like the 45-yarder to Tutu Atwell on that first drive of the second half.

Just because it wasn't necessarily a schematic issue doesn't mean it's not a coaching issue. A big part of coaching is preparation, teaching, and getting the players ready to play. On those fronts, Clint Hurtt failed his first test of the season.

What's my point? I don't know if I have one, just ranting, I guess. Let's hope this was just one bad game. Two years ago, the Packers got blown out by the Saints in their first game, 38-3. The Packers finished 13-4. Of course, losing your two tackles bodes ill for the future. That's a tough obstacle to get around.

 

[seahawks08]

First game of a long season. Clint is a players coach but scheming has been dismal and so is half time adjustments. You should be able to anticipate opponents to make adjustments and we should have thought about a counter. They exploited the middle and the moment we had that corrected they went towards the corner. We really should hire a pass rush coach or consultant because we continue to be poor on generating pressure.

 

[hawker84]

Holmgren couldn't manage the clock, either. He had his nose buried so deep into that Denny's menu that he didn't have a clue as to what else was going on around him. He was also a control freak and wasn't successful until after he was stripped of his GM duties. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Walrus, but there's no way he gets ranked ahead of Pete.

Being a "personnel guy and motivator" is every bit a part of the job description of an NFL head coach, and one could argue that it's the most important attribute. It's like any other managerial position. It's not required that you know every fine detail of the business (although it does help) so long as you know how to select and coach good people that do and know just how much autonomy to give them.

Having said that, I agree with you in that I do think that one of Pete's weaknesses is that he's not a very strong disciplinarian. That's one area where Holmgren's style was better than Pete's, and it showed up in things like penalties. Holmgren's teams were some of the least penalized, Pete's one of the most flagged. You didn't want to come to the sidelines after you got called for a holding penalty on the Walrus's team.

Fair enough but how is being a good personnel guy working out for a Pete these last five years. I mean great if your expectations are a winning season and a one and done in the post season. Dame as it ever was. Tons of talent, but don't know how to use it.

 

[hawkfan68]

First game of a long season. Clint is a players coach but scheming has been dismal and so is half time adjustments. You should be able to anticipate opponents to make adjustments and we should have thought about a counter. They exploited the middle and the moment we had that corrected they went towards the corner. We really should hire a pass rush coach or consultant because we continue to be poor on generating pressure.

They did hire BT Jordan to be the pass rush coach - https://www.seahawks.com/team/coach...ography,Michigan State's pass rush specialist.

 

[RiverDog]

Fair enough but how is being a good personnel guy working out for a Pete these last five years. I mean great if your expectations are a winning season and a one and done in the post season. Dame as it ever was. Tons of talent, but don't know how to use it.

I'm not disagreeing with your take regarding Pete's status now. Indeed, I advocated for his dismissal two years ago and am still not convinced that he's the right coach for us as we go foreword. I am not at all satisfied with the results he's produced over the past 7 years, and I've stated repeatedly that I expect more than the .500ish, one and done playoff teams. Although I reserve the right to change my opinion based on this season's results, at the present time I consider him a mediocre coach.

What I was disagreeing with you about was your statement that Pete was not the best coach in franchise history, rather that the Walrus was. If you took a poll of Seahawk fans, I would be surprised if 5% of them agreed with you.

 

[scutterhawk]

Yes, i'm ready. The alternative isnt any better.

50% is too small Sarge. I'd say 80%.

Pete ain't going anywhere, and you're still here?

 

[pittpnthrs]

Pete ain't going anywhere, and you're still here?

It wont be much longer for Pete. He's older than dirt and his contract wont be renewed. Just have to get through another year or so.

 

[pittpnthrs]

What I was disagreeing with you about was your statement that Pete was not the best coach in franchise history, rather that the Walrus was. If you took a poll of Seahawk fans, I would be surprised if 5% of them agreed with you.

I'm one of the 5%. I think Holmgren is a better coach. Give him the roster Pete had and he probably wins three titles.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Holmgren couldn't manage the clock, either. He had his nose buried so deep into that Denny's menu that he didn't have a clue as to what else was going on around him. He was also a control freak and wasn't successful until after he was stripped of his GM duties. Don't get me wrong, I liked the Walrus, but there's no way he gets ranked ahead of Pete.

Being a "personnel guy and motivator" is every bit a part of the job description of an NFL head coach, and one could argue that it's the most important attribute. It's like any other managerial position. It's not required that you know every fine detail of the business (although it does help) so long as you know how to select and coach good people that do and know just how much autonomy to give them.

Having said that, I agree with you in that I do think that one of Pete's weaknesses is that he's not a very strong disciplinarian. That's one area where Holmgren's style was better than Pete's, and it showed up in things like penalties. Holmgren's teams were some of the least penalized, Pete's one of the most flagged. You didn't want to come to the sidelines after you got called for a holding penalty on the Walrus's team.

Holmgren had his issues for sure, but I never worried about his game day planning, the teams preparation, or game time adjustments. I always worry with Pete.

 

[hoxrox]

Holmgren had his issues for sure, but I never worried about his game day planning, the teams preparation, or game time adjustments. I always worry with Pete.

Really? Loved the Walrus but he couldn't prepare the team win an east coast 10 am game to save his life.

 

[scutterhawk]

Pete did relinquish X’s and O’s control last season and it was an utter disaster with the current DC of Philly having major influence on the scheme.

Schematically, Pete has fixed the run defense from 2 high. Listen to people that know scheme, and they will say that using Pete’s historic principles combined with Fangio 2-High coverage shells, his influence has made 2-4-5 work.

This has been, and will continue to be, a talent issue first and foremost. Dallas has an elite pass rush, SF has an elite pass rush, Philly has an elite pass rush, and on and on and on.

Seattle is trying to get an elite pass rush by drafting Mafe, Hall, and Taylor, and signing Nwosu and Jones. We can argue Carter all day, but I find it hard to believe that it would’ve worked when there is documented reporting that Jordan Davis keeps Carter in check and focused, and Seattle doesn’t have a Jordan Davis.

I find the “Pete wasted Russ” argument to be exhausted. Sean Payton is running the same run heavy offense that Pete did.

At its core, the team is still coming out of the cap hell of trying to sustain that window opened by having a “HoF” QB. Seasons upon seasons of 1 year deals. Seasons upon seasons of spending draft capital on vets to be competitive in that season.

We finally have multiple defensive players on rookie deals/long term deals. So much of defense is communication and cohesion, just like OL. And that takes time to gel. And you can’t do that if you’re recycling 30-60% of your defensive starters between seasons.

And I actually see flaws in Hurtt’s game. I think his play to play decisions, plus how he game plans, overestimates what his players can do, which gets this team into trouble. So, by all means, criticize Hurtt. But don’t warp the facts and spin the narrative that Pete hired Hurtt so he wouldn’t actually have to run Fangio scheme. As if he wanted to manipulate the scheme from the shadows. If that was true, we’d still be running wide 9, 4 down cover-3. And we haven’t since 2018. Pete has shown time and time again, that he will adapt the scheme to fit the league and the players. He’s not dogmatic in that way.

There are reasons to fire Pete and Hurtt. But much like the Russ vs. Pete narrative, I feel its absolutely wild how detached this conversation is from reality. Matty Brown literally had to delete a tweet last training camp because he had a screenshot of Hurtt’s call sheet that showed entirely new verbiage. All Fangio, no Pete.

^This is a great example of how you dissect.
MUCH better than just throwing shit against the wall and having a few cronies ECHOING the same lies.
LOL It's like ONE person pulls some notion out their arse and call it the gospel, and a whole bunch never question it, in fact, they actually swear by it.

 

[RiverDog]

Really? Loved the Walrus but he couldn't prepare the team win an east coast 10 am game to save his life.

The East Coast jinx is a creation of us fans. If any west coast teams felt that it was that much of a competitive problem, they would have raised a lot more hell about it as there is an easy solution, to move the kickoff time back 3 hours. But none of them ever did, including us.

The real problem with traveling back east to play was that there just happened to be some very good teams back then.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Really? Loved the Walrus but he couldn't prepare the team win an east coast 10 am game to save his life.

Pete struggled with that for years too though.

 

[RiverDog]

I'm one of the 5%. I think Holmgren is a better coach. Give him the roster Pete had and he probably wins three titles.

It's your opinion that he's a better coach, but the fact is that Pete was far more successful.

 

[hawker84]

I'm not disagreeing with your take regarding Pete's status now. Indeed, I advocated for his dismissal two years ago and am still not convinced that he's the right coach for us as we go foreword. I am not at all satisfied with the results he's produced over the past 7 years, and I've stated repeatedly that I expect more than the .500ish, one and done playoff teams. Although I reserve the right to change my opinion based on this season's results, at the present time I consider him a mediocre coach.

What I was disagreeing with you about was your statement that Pete was not the best coach in franchise history, rather that the Walrus was. If you took a poll of Seahawk fans, I would be surprised if 5% of them agreed with you.

Ok? Am i suppose to care? it's called an opinion.....

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I'm one of the 5%. I think Holmgren is a better coach. Give him the roster Pete had and he probably wins three titles.

At least

 

[Spin Doctor]

It's your opinion that he's a better coach, but the fact is that Pete was far more successful.

Mike Holmgren's overall record is better and he has more post season wins as well as having more playoff wins and a better win percentage in the playoffs. If we are talking about overall NFL careers, calling Pete far more successful is erroneous.

In addition to having better win percentages, more playoff wins and better playoff win percentage, Holmgren also has taken two separate teams to the Super Bowl, something very few coaches have done.

 

[Fade]

I'm one of the 5%. I think Holmgren is a better coach. Give him the roster Pete had and he probably wins three titles.

He wins more than that.

It's a catch 22 though.

Because Pete was the key cog in building that team.

Holmgren could never build a team that good. But if you handed him that roster on a silver platter, he wins 4-7 Owls. (Depending on luck, injuries.)

Pete wins 1-3 depending luck, injuries. (Only won 1.)

 

[Maelstrom787]

He wins more than that.

It's a catch 22 though.

Because Pete was the key cog in building that team.

Holmgren could never build a team that good. But if you handed him that roster on a silver platter, he wins 4-7 Owls. (Depending on luck, injuries.)

Pete wins 1-3 depending luck, injuries. (Only won 1.)

Hot take: Even if Holmgren WAS simply given that roster and told to coach it, that team with Holmgren as the coach doesn't win a championship at all. He doesn't start Russell Wilson over Flynn and is not able to manage the separate personalities on defense, leading to a team that fails to launch period.