Never thought I'd say this, but...

[TwistedHusky]

The offense is better. The team isn't.

The defense looks almost historically bad. By just the math, replacing Pete with a random NFL coach bringing a random NFL nets us a better result. It would be tremendously difficult to be worse than the worst defenses ever. Though Pete has had a funny trend of being the architect of some of the worst defenses ever. So there is that.

(Also, some of you act as if this roster was foisted upon Pete. That he is doing the best he can with what he has. This roster is his fault. Some of the problems are due to decisions that Pete made with the roster before the season. But much is the staff. This defense is literally his fault)

So yes, replacing Pete would have almost assured us a better defense. Would it be a good defense? With all the holes likely not. Would we be better as a team? Probably be at least 2 wins by this point.

I honestly think it is funny that people are fawning over the offense being better but not realizing that the defense being this bad means we are in such a worse position than we ever expected at the start of the year. This doesn't fix in 1 year almost assuredly, no matter who your QB is.

For all the laughing and jeering about Wilson, Pete is just as terrible so far - in terms of actual results. Both teams are probably going to end up at .500 and that will be the amusing thing.


BTW
Team 3 would never have stayed on with Pete. The perception was that Pete was holding Wilson back. Wilson wanted an offensive coach to help him put up better #s. So no, there was no chance that Pete stayed and Wilson stayed....the only way to keep Wilson would have been to either jettison Pete or MAYBE kick him upstairs Tom Coughlin style.

 

[pittpnthrs]

As for our record , I'm thinking we'd be in worse shape now under Russ, than Geno.

The Hawks should be 1-4. I'm sure Wilson could manage that.

 

[hoxrox]

Is there really a debate happening on whether or not moving on from team3 was a good idea? Should be a no-brainer at this point.

 

[Mick063]

Keep Pete for as long as he wants to stay. If anyone should take some heat it should be Schnieder.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The offense is better. The team isn't.

The defense looks almost historically bad. By just the math, replacing Pete with a random NFL coach bringing a random NFL nets us a better result. It would be tremendously difficult to be worse than the worst defenses ever. Though Pete has had a funny trend of being the architect of some of the worst defenses ever. So there is that.

(Also, some of you act as if this roster was foisted upon Pete. That he is doing the best he can with what he has. This roster is his fault. Some of the problems are due to decisions that Pete made with the roster before the season. But much is the staff. This defense is literally his fault)

So yes, replacing Pete would have almost assured us a better defense. Would it be a good defense? With all the holes likely not. Would we be better as a team? Probably be at least 2 wins by this point.

I honestly think it is funny that people are fawning over the offense being better but not realizing that the defense being this bad means we are in such a worse position than we ever expected at the start of the year. This doesn't fix in 1 year almost assuredly, no matter who your QB is.

For all the laughing and jeering about Wilson, Pete is just as terrible so far - in terms of actual results. Both teams are probably going to end up at .500 and that will be the amusing thing.


BTW
Team 3 would never have stayed on with Pete. The perception was that Pete was holding Wilson back. Wilson wanted an offensive coach to help him put up better #s. So no, there was no chance that Pete stayed and Wilson stayed....the only way to keep Wilson would have been to either jettison Pete or MAYBE kick him upstairs Tom Coughlin style.

This is quite the dizzying word salad of nonsense trying to lead forum members down a false flag road of "Pete bad."

Pete didn't all of a sudden forget how to coach and develop a defense after a 50 year career of understanding, developing and implementing defensive schemes and concepts to great success.

Now did he and John not only underestimate their current roster and make poor draft decisions the past 5-6 years, especially on the defensive side of the ball? Absolutely, but these two things are mutually exclusive. Period.

I'm absolutely neutral on Pete, keep him, get rid of him. At this point in his career I don't know if either means a better chance of success. But make no mistake, if you get rid of Pete you're suffering through ANOTHER 4-5 years of rebuilding, but this time it's not only coaching, but the entire front office as well.........and my friend, HIGHLY doubt you'll come out the other side any better than you are right now with rebuilding this roster to hopefully compete.

 

[BASF]

@TwistedHusky your premise is flawed, and as I pointed out in my reply to this thread is silly. Your premise is addition by subtraction by keeping Wilson, we would have to jettison Carroll. On the surface, quite possible. However, Wilson wanted the new contract and everyone has reported that he would not have taken a lower contract for us as he did for Denver.

Our owner would not have given that contract to Wilson. Most people in the league would not have given that contract to Wilson. I know there are Hero-ball Syndrome people on this board who would, but paying a declining thirty-three year old QB who has decided that he knows better than anyone else how to run a team and offense is not good business. Especially when there is tons of tape on said QB not playing well in a traditional style offense in the past seven seasons. No Wilson contract, no Wilson.

Also, believing that we could lure a top coach with Wilson making public that he wanted more say in personnel and offensive system is ludicrous. Top coaches do not give up their systems or control of personnel to suit the QB. They may tweak their system to fit what the QB does well, but allowing the QB say does not happen. Arians did it for Tom Brady, but Brady is the GOAT. His offense has produced multiple super bowl wins. Wilson's offense has produced no playoff wins in the better part of a decade. All of the Russell Wilson marks blame Carroll for the post season failures, but there is only one game (Cowboys 2018) that Carroll did not put it in Wilson's hands since we lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl.

Wilson with his attitude and entourage has become a coach killer. He was unwilling to own up to his mistakes (see his post game press conference against Tenn in '21 and several of them for the Broncos this season) until this past game. I laugh reacted to one of the posts on this forum when someone said this week that Wilson needs an offensive coach to design a system for him. That was exactly what Wilson and Hackett were putting over in the offseason and preseason.

As far as the defense this season, I thought it was pretty clear over the past few seasons that Carroll usually lets his DC figure it out for a month or so before stepping in. Personally I hate that approach, but Carroll considers himself a teacher and he is giving his student a chance to improve. Problem is that he chose the Miami Cheat as DC and he is not talented enough to be a DC in the NFL.

 

[Donn2390]

Because the only way for Wilson to have stayed is if Pete didn't. That changes things.

Supposedly a bullet dodged. But the team isn't better though.

In all likelihood, even if the 'terrible' version Russ stayed, the team would likely be better than it is now.

Because That isn't how it would have worked.....

If we kept Wilson, we wouldn't have kept Pete.
But having a top QB, we likely would have been able to lure a top coach.

We wouldn't have the garbage defense. (But then again, wouldn't likely have as effective an offense.)

Still, funny thing, terrible Russ is putting up the exact same record as Pete right now.

So we dodged nothing but the 250M. Does having that 250M make the team better? No.
(How much of that 250M is Geno going to eat BTW)

Do we tend to spend wisely when we have cap space? No.

Should you expect any kind of significant improvement based on our history when we have cap space? No.

You live entirely in fantasy land, quit while you're behind, as you usually are..

 

[Hollandhawk]

The Hawks should be 1-4. I'm sure Wilson could manage that.

Such a dumb statement (again). Why should they be 1-4? Because of the Denver game? How about 3-2 because of the screw job against the Saints. It’s always the same idiotic “should” argument. You can always use it but it makes you look dumb.

 

[HawkinNY]

That trade will never get the credit it deserves. The biggest 1 sided trade of all time.

But you also have to hand it to Russ as well...HUGE contract, zero effort.
Everybody screwed Denver on this deal!

Peter knew what he was doing on this one.

It’s still kinda early. I don’t see Russ playing this bad the whole time he’s in Denver.

 

[Maelstrom787]

The Hawks should be 1-4. I'm sure Wilson could manage that.

No, they shouldn't be. Complete and utter nonsense.

 

[Fade]

The early returns look great so far.

The trade won't mean much if the Hawks fail to capitalize and squander the picks in this upcoming draft, which is possible.

Denver is in trouble this year as the most injured team in the NFL, but I can see them bouncing back next year. And if Pete is still here the defense will be terrible again.

It will be measured by who had the most success (W-Ls) Pete or Russ. They both could end up being failures or even successes, it's not binary.

"We won the trade"!

-Okay, what did we win?

"A losing team with a historically bad defense that only seems to get worse."

-Any signs whatsoever it can improve?

"No, but we have extra draft picks."

-What's their recent history on high draft picks on defense?

"Malik McDowell, LJ Collier, Jordyn Brooks, Darrell Taylor, Marquise Blair, etc."

-Exactly. If they don't make changes at the top, it could lead to squandering the haul you got. Making the initial trade moot based on the previous 5 seasons of draft history.

 

[BlueTalon]

The early returns look great so far.

The trade won't mean much if the Hawks fail to capitalize and squander the picks in this upcoming draft, which is possible...

If they don't make changes at the top, it could lead to squandering the haul you got. Making the initial trade moot based on the previous 5 seasons of draft history.

If you're going to judge this trade, then judge it by what they did with what they actually got in the trade.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Exactly Fade.
Draft picks only matter for what we do with them. And even then, that only matters for the results they drive.
Ws and Ls are how you measure this. Nothing else.

Right now Wilson and Pete are tied. At the end of the year, they will likely be tied as well.
Saving cap space doesn't matter if you do nothing with that cap space.
Neither does saving draft picks or getting them.

We have the rest of the season to see how this shakes out. But you cannot call a clear winner with 2 losing teams.

 

[hawkfan68]

If you're going to judge this trade, then judge it by what they did with what they actually got in the trade.

Aside from the draft picks, the players they received from the Broncos - Fant, Harris, and Lock haven't been all that great. Fant is starting to show a bit. Harris and Lock have been extremely underwhelming.

 

[NampaHawk]

Exactly Fade.
Draft picks only matter for what we do with them. And even then, that only matters for the results they drive.
Ws and Ls are how you measure this. Nothing else.

Right now Wilson and Pete are tied. At the end of the year, they will likely be tied as well.
Saving cap space doesn't matter if you do nothing with that cap space.
Neither does saving draft picks or getting them.

We have the rest of the season to see how this shakes out. But you cannot call a clear winner with 2 losing teams.

Comparing W/L record THIS season is disingenuous - and I think you know it - if you want to compare which team has greater success over the next 3 years - I think that's fair. I'm just confused why you are so bent out of shape that the 3-5 year trajectory for the Seahawks has changed from declining/stagnant to improving after having the baseline "reset" - the baseline being defined as the trade making the Broncos Superbowl contenders and the Seahawks a 4-win team - you should be excited. Pure speculation, but maybe you're a fellow COUG like me and just have a deep hatred for the USC Trojans and Pete Carroll.

 

[NampaHawk]

Aside from the draft picks, the players they received from the Broncos - Fant, Harris, and Lock haven't been all that great. Fant is starting to show a bit. Harris and Lock have been extremely underwhelming.

I know it's too early to have a final conclusion on these guys, but shouldn't they be included in this conversation as to what Seattle received from Denver for Russell?

• Round 1, Pick 9 (from Broncos): Charles Cross, OT, Mississippi State
• Round 2, Pick 40 (from Broncos): Boye Mafe, LB, Minnesota

 

[BlueTalon]

Aside from the draft picks, the players they received from the Broncos - Fant, Harris, and Lock haven't been all that great. Fant is starting to show a bit. Harris and Lock have been extremely underwhelming.

Lock didn't win the starting job, but we needed a 2nd QB regardless of how the battle in training camp went. The trade allowed us to get a QB that had a shot at winning the job, and would have been at the top of the class had he been in this year's draft -- at least in the estimation of our GM, who didn't have to spend any picks to get him.

Regarding Fant and Harris, let's see how the season turns out before making any final judgments. But even if they do turn out to be underwhelming, it's mostly about the draft capital IMO.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Such a dumb statement (again). Why should they be 1-4? Because of the Denver game? How about 3-2 because of the screw job against the Saints. It’s always the same idiotic “should” argument. You can always use it but it makes you look dumb.

Lol. Ok they are 2-3. So are the Broncos. Does that make your thin skin feel better?

 

[Maulbert]

Just curious how the team is better since Wilson left? Not in the W/L department.

When Wilson was good, we won lots of games. Went to the playoffs, etc.

Even when the defense was dog awful.

Now the offense is good but this is barely a .500 team. Seems a weird thing to be happy about since the team is (results-based) worse.

Yes, Geno is not as much of a d**che as Wilson. But W/Ls are projected to be worse. Not sure what bullet we dodged here.

Denver is 2-3 with a good defense. We're 2-3 with a crappy one.

 

[nwHawk]

Aside from the trade Denver made that huge extension before Russ ever took the first snap.

You folks know more than I do....Why did they do that?

Well, that an easy one… they asked John63. Seems pretty obvious.