MB on Pete Carroll

[jammerhawk]

MB is just another in a long line of those who squander time in second guessing. He'll regret not fully embracing his assigned task of instilling Pete's message in new comers ..... just as he admittedly regretted not fully appreciating the genius of a once in a life time seven man rotation when it asserted itself in 2013. For many, squandered leadership opportunities sink in sometime after the fact. Regrets make themselves known through reflections on missed opportunities and responsibilities some time later.

Looking back on 2017 with benefit of hindsight, one might speculate that Pete may have been a year tardy in culling the ranks. So much noisy second guessing kind of suggests as much ..... don't it.

Jvillle as ever your thinking is spot on. Once those ‘stars’ started being more about me than us it was time to move them out.

Sherman, while admittedly a huge talent, is all about Sherman and over time while being “paid” sneered at the message as his ego wouldn’t let him be subservient to any idea that wasn’t his. The screaming at the OC on the sidelines and public whining about the O, XL, Pete’s stories, kumbya, etc., etc., was just the public version of events. I imagine he was considerably worse in private. Bennett, was starting to slip talent wise, his offside penalties are an example of his trying to gain an advantage that he didn’t need earlier in his career, and if as admitted was tuning out the coaches or failing to at least show he was interested in the message or be a leader as a top paid player then he too needed to be moved. Both players and a few others should have been gone sooner, but I suspect the team thought their window was still open.

I wanted Bevell gone after XL, however not for calling ‘the play’ but for throwing his players under the bus and never owning up to the responsibility as a coach for the play he called. It was also apparent to all that more than a few players were not fans of his O. Cable talked the talk but in fact never met any of his stated objectives as Riun game coordinator or as the supposed OLine guru. We listened closely to what he said whenever he spoke but what was promised never happened. His mumbo jumbo about player talent, etc.never translated and sadly he convinced both Pete and John that the players he wanted should and could be the choices but although many were acquired, and some with great fanfare, few were kept, or made it past their rookie deals. After Coach Sherman Smith was fired b/c ‘there were disagreements over the direction of the running game’ and Cable gained more control over the running game it too was as messed up as the OLine. Cable then was revealed as incompetent and thankfully dismissed. Both of the above coaches were kept at least one season too long although for the team Pete should have canned Bevell after 49. Accountability would then have been seen by the malcontents like Sherman and Bennett to be part of the message. Thing is to me that there was no trouble in moving Harvin , and now it appears they are finally awake in the FO to cleaning house. Loyalty to his non-performing staff kept them here at the expense of Pete’s message.

The team should have traded Sherman before last season after he went public with his criticism of Pete’s message. Pete was sadly typically too loyal but failed to enforce his rules. Bellichek would have moved Sherman, Lane, and Bennett earlier Bevell would have been moved too and the hoodie would have recognized the fable that was being spun by Cable earlier.

The retool in retrospect as you say was begun at least one year too late. The cracks in the D started to show through age and a lack of new blood
or disagreements in principle or execution of scheme with Richard and an aging or less reliable defensive core.

It’s time though to truly stop kvetching about what was done and to look forward b/c that is direction we are going. Pete is a good coach, his message and philosophy works in a very competitive league, the team just needs to get back on message.

 

[HawkGA]

I think too much is put on the one play. If Avril doesn't go out, the game doesn't come down to one play. Not even close.

But what I think helps put the focus on that one play is how crappy the offense played in the years that followed. If the offense played well and didn't have games like the AZ tie, I don't think players would be looking back as much. I think if Bevell had been fired, players wouldn't look back so much. But everything that followed since made it easy to blame the offense because it became clear how lopsided the team was, even if it wasn't necessarily so lopsided at the time.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

The only difference now is that we have a franchise QB in his prime to go along with this rebuild.

Pete not having first hand experience with the college players coming up and the absence of Scot McCloughan is also a difference. I think its a huge difference too.

Yes we are missing Scot McCloughan, the evidence for this is all the other smashed out of the park drafts he had at all the other places he's been employed. The Redskins for example are an NFC East powerhouse thanks to his time there as GM.

 

[mrt144]

I think too much is put on the one play. If Avril doesn't go out, the game doesn't come down to one play. Not even close.

But what I think helps put the focus on that one play is how crappy the offense played in the years that followed. If the offense played well and didn't have games like the AZ tie, I don't think players would be looking back as much. I think if Bevell had been fired, players wouldn't look back so much. But everything that followed since made it easy to blame the offense because it became clear how lopsided the team was, even if it wasn't necessarily so lopsided at the time.

Yup! Bevell and the offense, even though they don't play for the satisfaction of the Shermans of the world, could have at least made him a wrong jackass instead of a cathartic, truth speaking, but out of turn, jackass.

 

[TwistedHusky]

How this thread turned into taking potshots at Sherman I will not understand.

Sherman was hurt because he essentially played hurt most of the year and was injured in a near meaningless game.

A lot of other players don't take that risk, Sherman did. But he wasn't committed enough to winning?

Don't forget that injury screwed him out of being able to get a big contract when Seattle released him.

It wasn't his fault that his idiot HC seemed completely OK with the garbage offense his team trotted out. (And that offense was turning into garbage for years, lets not pretend it was a one year thing. )

And the LOB and DL is the very reason for the SB trips and the first win. If he wants to set fire to the carpet during team meetings he should be allowed to - he earned that right.

Caroll's problem is that he is a tremendous motivator and has an eye for turning raw talent into polished players.

But he is a middling gameday coach. His loyalty to assistants that are crap goes all the way back to USC. He has a track record of having stables of great players but underperforming with them because of his loyalty to less than able assistant coaches. He also clearly has tendency to engage in nepotism.


So yes, if Carroll loses his ability to motivate (and that might be because of motivational tricks/techniques that players begin to recognize are a pattern or are contrived) then he loses almost all his value as a HC because he brings very little to the table otherwise.

He has a ton of negatives that are offset by tremendous positives, but those positives have a shelf life.

We will see if bringing in an average OC fixes anything, probably not after gutting our defense. But the offense is have to learn to produce from now on since the defense won't be bailing them out constantly anymore. Can Carroll win that way when he seems stuck in tired outdated football philosophies that seem to assure us more losses? He is going to have to, because the other option ended this year.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Or Sherm could shut his pie hole and show some class, there is that.

 

[NJlargent]

Twisted is correct. Sherman earned the right to criticize (even excessively) the team. He was far more influential in that super bowl ring than Pete Carroll ever was. He was the face of those SB teams (along with Lynch). It’s amazing we find losing Sherman acceptable and get excited over shottenheimer. Good lord.

 

[brimsalabim]

I'm not a Bennett fan but it just sounds to me like he is saying the lack of game planning and strategizing by our staff turned him off.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Who said they were excited about him? Losing Sherm sucks, but it certainly was time for a change.

 

[twisted_steel2]

Twisted is correct. Sherman earned the right to criticize (even excessively) the team. He was far more influential in that super bowl ring than Pete Carroll ever was. He was the face of those SB teams (along with Lynch). It’s amazing we find losing Sherman acceptable and get excited over shottenheimer. Good lord.

You literally think Sherman deserves more credit in earning the SB victory than Carroll?

And therefore b/c of that, he gets the right to excessively criticize the team and coaches publicly, like on the sidelines and to the press?

unno: Okey dokey.

 

[jammerhawk]

Twisted is correct. Sherman earned the right to criticize (even excessively) the team. He was far more influential in that super bowl ring than Pete Carroll ever was. He was the face of those SB teams (along with Lynch). It’s amazing we find losing Sherman acceptable and get excited over shottenheimer. Good lord.

Frankly I disagree. The successful Seahawks program was over seen by Pete it was his vision and under his direction the team got to 2 consecutive SuperBowls, and sadly perhaps partially why the team fell off after that. However, If you are paid as a team leader then you make you criticisms of the team to the team behind closed doors rather than going after the coach personally in public. Several of the players seemingly got too big for their britches b/c Pete allowed them to be personally empowered Lynch, Sherman, Bennett, Chancellor all started to think it was all on them rather than upon the team.

Who says we are excited by Schottenheimer, I am not happy Sherman is gone b/c he was a great player for my team but perhaps a less great team person; but if he wasn't all in then he needs to play somewhere else. I think he should have been traded at the end of the 2016 season, then the team might have recouped some value.

 

[TwistedHusky]

I never said Carroll does not get credit for the SB.

I said Carroll has a track record of not producing as well as the roster seems to indicate he would or could have.

(Not exactly what I said but essentially same definition)

Just as JS gets credit for all the great moves that we made while Scott was here, EVEN IF SCOTT MADE THEM, because he had the wisdom (hopefully?) to bring him in.

JS gets credit for hiring or using Scott.

Carroll gets credit for knowing that Wilson would be the guy for us and deciding Kam could be used as a box safety borderline LB while deciding that a small fast CB might not be as good as a tall rangy one. And the other personnel decisions...

Carroll clearly had something to do with Sherman getting the opportunity to be as good as he was.

But without the LOB there would be no SB. Period.

They brought it to us.

The years we did not have the LOB in place (specifically Sherman and the safeties), we scratched to make a wildcard. And Sherman gave everything he could physically for this team - so yes he earned the right to call Carroll out on screwing us out of other SB opportunities.

A DB has a shelf life. Sherman knew this. And knew that the more time passed, the less his chances of competing for a SB became. So obviously Carroll peeing away years of opportunity instead of cutting the dead weight - was a problem. A problem that Sherman was right in calling out. Just as Lynch seemed to indicate when he flipped off our offensive coaches.

I do think that with that exact roster, a lot of coaches could have gotten us to the SB. I do not think that without Sherman we would have gone (he was the guy that did the Tip! in fact). So he has to be given credit. But a lot of coaches would have never assembled that roster, and for that - Carroll gets some credit (along with JS and Scott).

Where I differ is that I firmly believe other coaches with that same roster over the same period of time would have gotten us to another SB and likely won another. Because that inability to make a decision to cut the coaches on OC and OL was like an anchor that the team had to carry the weight of for years.

 

[pittpnthrs]

The only difference now is that we have a franchise QB in his prime to go along with this rebuild.

Pete not having first hand experience with the college players coming up and the absence of Scot McCloughan is also a difference. I think its a huge difference too.

Yes we are missing Scot McCloughan, the evidence for this is all the other smashed out of the park drafts he had at all the other places he's been employed. The Redskins for example are an NFC East powerhouse thanks to his time there as GM.

Lol. He was there for like a year and a half and they had winning seasons during his tenure. Every team he was involved with were better when he was there. The true evidence to support McCloughan is how wretched the Seahawks drafts have been since he left.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

2017 Draft is looking pretty good. Minus the Malik debacle.

 

[lobohawk]

I never said Carroll does not get credit for the SB.

I said Carroll has a track record of not producing as well as the roster seems to indicate he would or could have.

(Not exactly what I said but essentially same definition)

Just as JS gets credit for all the great moves that we made while Scott was here, EVEN IF SCOTT MADE THEM, because he had the wisdom (hopefully?) to bring him in.

JS gets credit for hiring or using Scott.

Carroll gets credit for knowing that Wilson would be the guy for us and deciding Kam could be used as a box safety borderline LB while deciding that a small fast CB might not be as good as a tall rangy one. And the other personnel decisions...

Carroll clearly had something to do with Sherman getting the opportunity to be as good as he was.

But without the LOB there would be no SB. Period.

They brought it to us.

The years we did not have the LOB in place (specifically Sherman and the safeties), we scratched to make a wildcard. And Sherman gave everything he could physically for this team - so yes he earned the right to call Carroll out on screwing us out of other SB opportunities.

A DB has a shelf life. Sherman knew this. And knew that the more time passed, the less his chances of competing for a SB became. So obviously Carroll peeing away years of opportunity instead of cutting the dead weight - was a problem. A problem that Sherman was right in calling out. Just as Lynch seemed to indicate when he flipped off our offensive coaches.

I do think that with that exact roster, a lot of coaches could have gotten us to the SB. I do not think that without Sherman we would have gone (he was the guy that did the Tip! in fact). So he has to be given credit. But a lot of coaches would have never assembled that roster, and for that - Carroll gets some credit (along with JS and Scott).

Where I differ is that I firmly believe other coaches with that same roster over the same period of time would have gotten us to another SB and likely won another. Because that inability to make a decision to cut the coaches on OC and OL was like an anchor that the team had to carry the weight of for years.

The tale end of your comment dismisses Pete and his coaching ability unfairly. Basically calling him a scout. Yeah, the players played. But it was Pete who built and designed the defense. It was coaching that put those players in a position to do what they do.

Bennett and Sherman always played hard and committed to the team on the field. I've never faulted their effort and their desire to win. Where they failed was off the field. Bennett failed to realize the example he set, while being Bennett. Sherman is one of those people that can't be wrong. If he does something wrong, then it was someone else's fault. Even his friends say this. He also has an inability to forgive others for making a mistake, while brushing aside his own. He thought he knew more than everyone on the team (coaches, players, and GM).

For all of his being "right" to call out the coaches, his public complaints show a person that needed the world to see he's right rather than trying to fix anything. We forgive a lot because his role in the Hawk's success, but it doesn't change that he has a lot to learn about being a leader and teammate (this means the whole team, including the coaches).

 

[jammerhawk]

:sarcasm_on: Blah, blah, blah, none of the blame for Sherman and Bennett being moved out belongs to them, it’s all on Pete, and by the way Schneider can’t draft, the team’s entire success on the draft front is owed to Scott Mc. And further Pete should get no credit for assembling a winning team. Oh, and Pn’J suck too. :sarcasm_off:

Holy moley the negativity and hate is strong around here.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Here were some quality players on this team:

Lynch
Thomas
Sherman
Chancellor
Wilson
Wagner

At least 4 of the above were borderline HOF players, that does not include guys like Graham or Bennett.

How much credit do you feel is appropriate for a coach that underachieved with that much talent?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Playoffs over and over again, 1 play from back to back titles. Yeah, what an underachiever :roll:

 

[Uncle Si]

Here were some quality players on this team:

Lynch
Thomas
Sherman
Chancellor
Wilson
Wagner

At least 4 of the above were borderline HOF players, that does not include guys like Graham or Bennett.

How much credit do you feel is appropriate for a coach that underachieved with that much talent?

He underachieved?

in comparison to one other program...

get a grip... the long winding diatribes aren't as interesting when they don't have substance

 

[TwistedHusky]

No.

He underachieved in comparison to the overall strength of the roster in the time he had them.

Since the SB loss, with one of the most talented and strongest rosters in the NFL - we managed wildcard wins. (barely getting to those wildcard games in some instances)

Did you want to grade the relative strength of our roster against some of the teams that made it to the SB in the same time?

How about the relative strength of the roster vs every other team in the league?

For one of the top teams in the NFL, over multiple years, this team has underachieved. As evidenced by the firing of the OC and DC.

Carroll was the coach at the time, the production was his responsibility. So I would say that coming to the conclusion that he underachieved in every year past that SB loss is not out of bounds.

In fact, when was the last time this team exceeded expectations?