Fade was right

[Xxx]

You are about wrong as much as anyone else (among non-casual fans) is, man. The reason you get pushback is because you can be aggressively condescending to people who disagree with you, even those with well established and researched points.

Tons of other people say the same things about Pete as you and don't become forum-wide topics. It's tone.

I thought I was wrong once, but I made a mistake

 

[knownone]

Given enough time, any prediction might eventually seem accurate due to the vast array of possibilities that could unfold. So let's evaluate: Pete's had one losing season in twelve years—a broken clock's right twice a day.

 

[evergreen]

I thought I was wrong once, but I made a mistake

That’s got to be a Yogi Bera quote!

 

[Xxx]

That’s got to be a Yogi Bera quote!

I don’t know some old timer I worked with framing a hotel when I was like 23 years old gave me that line

 

[pittpnthrs]

It’s not a fear it’s just the reality of the NFL.

All I’m really saying is you better have a guy or two you really like if you’re going to fire PC.

To fire PC and then search for a coach would be problematic.

And to say PC would not take us to another SB is a pretty easy bet to make. Most coaches don’t make it back.

Hell most coaches never make it to one let alone multiple SB opportunities over a decade.

It's not even the Super Bowl we're talking about. It's not even getting past the first round.

 

[LickMyNuts]

It's not even the Super Bowl we're talking about. It's not even getting past the first round.

Yeah I get it.

Still, how many coaches have done it with one team or even two. Parcells is the only one I can think of.

The point is these hot coordinator hires are a roll of the dice.

So it’s a hot coordinator, a college coach (most of these are disasters unless they have previous NFL experience), or a retread.

Do we just need somebody new to blame?

I can get on board with a new coach but I’m not confident in an absentee owner hiring a new coach.

I really don’t want to become the Raiders or the Bears.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Yeah I get it.

Still, how many coaches have done it with one team or even two. Parcells is the only one I can think of.

The point is these hot coordinator hires are a roll of the dice.

So it’s a hot coordinator, a college coach (most of these are disasters unless they have previous NFL experience), or a retread.

Do we just need somebody new to blame?

I can get on board with a new coach but I’m not confident in an absentee owner hiring a new coach.

I really don’t want to become the Raiders or the Bears.

Holmgren took two teams

I understand your point. I do. It truly is up in the air isn't it. Whatever happens, i'm sure we won't be happy. Lol.

 

[Ozzy]

Given enough time, any prediction might eventually seem accurate due to the vast array of possibilities that could unfold. So let's evaluate: Pete's had one losing season in twelve years—a broken clock's right twice a day.

Past success doesn’t guarantee future success though especially in a business that evolves rapidly. Not saying the fire Pete camp is wrong or right but we have one playoff in in 6-7 years and that was when their starting QB got hurt? If the counter argument is he’s an all time great then shouldn’t the standard or barometer for success be a little better then that? Or at the very least wouldn’t it be reasonable if people’s line is a little higher than that?

 

[knownone]

Past success doesn’t guarantee future success though especially in a business that evolves rapidly. Not saying the fire Pete camp is wrong or right but we have one playoff in in 6-7 years and that was when their starting QB got hurt? If the counter argument is he’s an all time great then shouldn’t the standard or barometer for success be a little better then that? Or at the very least wouldn’t it be reasonable if people’s line is a little higher than that?

Sure. But past success, given a large enough sample size, is also who you are until proven otherwise. Similarly, each season has unique circumstances, so you'd have to evaluate those seasons within that context. For example, has Seattle had the more talented team and underperformed in the playoffs? I can only think of one example that might fit that description: the Rams game in 2020, arguably the worst game of Russell's career.

Seattle's been in one of the toughest divisions over the last decade. And they've made the playoffs consistently. Making the playoffs invariably means Pete's an above-average coach. Fans are entitled to hold him to whatever standard they like. However, predicting the team will fail for X, Y, and Z reasons and getting it right occasionally is not proof of good analysis.

Why? I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it. If you predict a team won't win a playoff game with coach X, you have a 78% chance of being right without doing any analysis. So you could predict that coaches like Jon Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, or Pete won't win another playoff game and have a great chance of success most seasons.

Now, if you had the conviction that Pete is the problem, you'd predict Seattle will miss the playoffs in most seasons since that's a probability only slightly skewed in your favor (56%). That's an analysis with balls attached to it. But you'll notice most people who detract from Pete don't make that prediction. Why? Because they know intuitively there is a higher chance that they are wrong.

 

[Xxx]

What happens when Seattle finishes with 6 wins

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

What happens when Seattle finishes with 6 wins

We regret getting rid of a 2nd Rounder for a rented DT.

 

[Xxx]

We regret getting rid of a 2nd Rounder for a rented DT.

Hahahahaha good answer

 

[Xxx]

Hahahahaha good answer

Well they gotta buy the car when the lease is up…. Too bad it’ll be a used car by then

 

[cymatica]

We regret getting rid of a 2nd Rounder for a rented DT.

I like the Williams trade. He still has a few years left and can help the young guys. The major problem with this team is the incompetent offense/coaching. They need some oline help and a QB, but their game plans and approach on offense and defense are beyond retarded and Pete acts like it's just a few plays here and there from championship football

 

[Xxx]

I like the Williams trade. He still has a few years left and can help the young guys. The major problem with this team is the incompetent offense. They need some oline help and a QB, but their game plans and approach on offense and defense are beyond retarded and Pete acts like it's just a few plays here and there from championship football

I like the trade too I’m just starting to look at draft boards and stuff now and man that second round pick could be a Bo Nix or something it just makes me want to have my cake and eat it too

 

[Ozzy]

Sure. But past success, given a large enough sample size, is also who you are until proven otherwise. Similarly, each season has unique circumstances, so you'd have to evaluate those seasons within that context. For example, has Seattle had the more talented team and underperformed in the playoffs? I can only think of one example that might fit that description: the Rams game in 2020, arguably the worst game of Russell's career.

Seattle's been in one of the toughest divisions over the last decade. And they've made the playoffs consistently. Making the playoffs invariably means Pete's an above-average coach. Fans are entitled to hold him to whatever standard they like. However, predicting the team will fail for X, Y, and Z reasons and getting it right occasionally is not proof of good analysis.

Why? I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it. If you predict a team won't win a playoff game with coach X, you have a 78% chance of being right without doing any analysis. So you could predict that coaches like Jon Harbaugh, Mike Tomlin, or Pete won't win another playoff game and have a great chance of success most seasons.

Now, if you had the conviction that Pete is the problem, you'd predict Seattle will miss the playoffs in most seasons since that's a probability only slightly skewed in your favor (56%). That's an analysis with balls attached to it. But you'll notice most people who detract from Pete don't make that prediction. Why? Because they know intuitively there is a higher chance that they are wrong.

This is a bad faith argument. You arbitrarily set the standard as “making the playoffs” as if that is an objective standard that everyone agrees on. It’s obvious that for you that means Pete is a great coach. Why not the standard be how many playoff wins the past 9 years? Pete moves down the list quite a bit and what makes that standard wrong and yours right?

I’d still argue that past success is great, the league changes at an incredible rate. We’ve invested more into our defense than most teams in the league the past few years yet it never improves. Why not that standard?

Pete was the right man for the Seahawks for a long time. Is he moving forward? I don’t know but I’ve seen enough to know that it’s at least a reasonable discussion when you can’t win a playoff game with an all time great coach outside of a starting QB going down. It may still be wrong to get rid of Pete but let’s not act as if it’s a crazy idea.

Edit added:
1. I’m not trying to be snarky here. It’s just frustrating that often in this debate it’s viewed as if the other side is stupid and I don’t think either side of the debate is stupid. Both have valid reasons for their belief in what is best moving forward.

 

[Xxx]

This is a bad faith argument. You arbitrarily set the standard as “making the playoffs” as if that is an objective standard that everyone agrees on. It’s obvious that for you that means Pete is a great coach. Why not the standard be how many playoff wins the past 9 years? Pete moves down the list quite a bit and what makes that standard wrong and yours right?

I’d still argue that past success is great, the league changes at an incredible rate. We’ve invested more into our defense than most teams in the league the past few years yet it never improves. Why not that standard?

Pete was the right man for the Seahawks for a long time. Is he moving forward? I don’t know but I’ve seen enough to know that it’s at least a reasonable discussion when you can’t win a playoff game with an all time great coach outside of a starting QB going down. It may still be wrong to get rid of Pete but let’s not act as if it’s a crazy idea.

Edit added:
1. I’m not trying to be snarky here. It’s just frustrating that often in this debate it’s viewed as if the other side is stupid and I don’t think either side of the debate is stupid. Both have valid reasons for their belief in what is best moving forward.

I would let Pete reload one more time. And the reason is cause of what he almost made geno become. Geno should have been done in this league and Pete helped him become a starter. Geno didn’t hold on to it but Pete did more than anyone else thought he could with Geno, and with Russ for that matter. I would like to see what Pete does with a real, full size quarterback

 

[Ozzy]

I would let Pete reload one more time. And the reason is cause of what he almost made geno become. Geno should have been done in this league and Pete helped him become a starter. Geno didn’t hold on to it but Pete did more than anyone else thought he could with Geno, and with Russ for that matter. I would like to see what Pete does with a real, full size quarterback

That’s fair I just wonder if Pete thinks he can fix Geno and we get more of the same next year

 

[Xxx]

That’s fair I just wonder if Pete thinks he can fix Geno and we get more of the same next year

Please no… I mean reload with new bullets lol

 

[morgulon1]

Lots of good points (from both sides). I like the discussion for the most part. I was ready for Seahawks to take Petey on a one way ride . I've calmed down for if only a second. I want to see all the "Pete people" when we're .500
Hoping something crazy like Raiders beat the Packers then hope Arizona beats New Orleans but by at least 5 points so we can get butt rammed by SF again in the wildcard.

You get the idea.

Carroll is paid in the top 3 of all NFL coaches at 15 MM a year. I don't give a
Darn what other teams do or have.
Seattle is paying him to "win forever".
I think someone wrote a book about it.

I have to go give my cat a bath .