To all the guys that don't like Carroll

[Seahawker]

I have to wonder if we had beaten the Rams in that one point loss and were currently sitting at 8-6 if Pete would be taking so much heat. I think most in here would be much more optimistic about potentially entering a wildcard berth at 11-6 on a four game winning streak.
I agree that Carroll often shows too much loyalty to his assistant coaches/players, sometimes lacking on gametime adjustments and maybe even seems the game has evolved past him at times but he has delivered for this club over the last 14 years.
Personally I think there is is a spoiled faction of Hawk fans who want to throw the baby out with the bath water that should be careful for what they wish for.
Pete is signed though 24' & 25', minus a near total collapse, I think Pete should be able finish out his career with the respect and appreciation he deserves.
I am not saying PC should be untouchable as to a firing, but I am saying I think we have a better chance at a SB in the next year or two with Pete than without. Shore up the D & OLine a bit and I think we take a big step up in our NFC future standing.

 

[GemCity]

I have to wonder if we had beaten the Rams in that one point loss and were currently sitting at 8-6 if Pete would be taking so much heat. I think most in here would be much more optimistic about potentially entering a wildcard berth at 11-6 on a four game winning streak.
I agree that Carroll often shows too much loyalty to his assistant coaches/players, sometimes lacking on gametime adjustments and maybe even seems the game has evolved past him at times but he has delivered for this club over the last 14 years.
Personally I think there is is a spoiled faction of Hawk fans who want to throw the baby out with the bath water that should be careful for what they wish for.
Pete is signed though 24' & 25', minus a near total collapse, I think Pete should be able finish out his career with the respect and appreciation he deserves.
I am not saying PC should be untouchable as to a firing, but I am saying I think we have a better chance at a SB in the next year or two with Pete than without. Shore up the D & OLine a bit and I think we take a big step up in our NFC future standing.

Nailed it. The two Rams losses deflated my stance (supportive).

 

[Aircrew]

Again, wanting your team to lose is f'ing stupid. Geezus, I can't even believe some of the sh** I read on here.
Paging Herm Edwards.........

To be clear, I'm not advocating for tanking, never will. What I am saying is that winning games now is not necessarily a good thing for the long term success of this franchise.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough. But do you HONESTLY think that Jody will fire Pete either way? I sure don't.

 

[TheLegendOfBoom]

You can’t just use one single game to determine should Carroll continue to be coach or not.

I prefer to use the entire body of work to determine how successful this season was.

Sure, Seattle, beat Philadelphia, but this season has had more frustration than happy moments with this team. And you can’t forget those.

In my perspective, I would still evaluate Carroll as the same after the win against the Eagles as I did before the Eagles.

I still think major organization changes are needed, including moving on from Pete Carroll.

But that’s just where I stand, personally.

And I’m not trying to convince Carroll supporters otherwise. To each their own.

 

[keasley45]

You can’t just use one single game to determine should Carroll continue to be coach or not.

I prefer to use the entire body of work to determine how successful this season was.

Sure, Seattle, beat Philadelphia, but this season has had more frustration than happy moments with this team. And you can’t forget those.

In my perspective, I would still evaluate Carroll as the same after the win against the Eagles as I did before the Eagles.

I still think major organization changes are needed, including moving on my Pete Carroll.

But that’s just where I stand, personally.

And I’m not trying to convince Carroll supporters otherwise. To each their own.

The team also is in the playoff race after fielding THE most injured o-line in the league ( lost botg tackles in thr loss to the Rams), losing its starting RB (contributing greatly to the Rams loss), losing its arguably its best player in the front 7 (Nwosu) and losing its starting QB for 2 games against 3 of the leagues best teams and ... we won one of thise games.

We should be a win or two better by potential alone, and 3 better if not for the refs. But tye Eagles should be 3 better. The Ravens lost to the Browns and Colts.the Chiefs are losing to everyone. The Bills are very mortal and Detroit lost to us and got taken to the wire by the Bears.

I think we should be better as well. But how often to coaching regime changes actually work and end up being better in the near term?

We aren't the Pats, who's fall from grace has been colossal. This team is still improving and fighting through a good bit of adversity. Whether growing pains, culture challenges, or unfortunate injuries.

 

[ZagHawk]

I understand your point. I really do. I suppose it matters as to what one may find to be of the upmost importance.

Obviously, a Super Bowl win is the goal. But, San Francisco also suffered a horrible few years and perhaps got lucky in the draft, whereas some teams don’t fare nearly as well.

I am a bit on the fence to be honest. I always want us to win and be competitive. Pete Carroll has been one of the winningest coaches of the last decade. But, obviously, that doesn’t top a Super Bowl.

I’m not quite sure that the odds are in favor of losing games for positioning and making it to the Super Bowl.

When the playoffs hit, everyone has the same record. What if San Francisco doesn’t win the big one? Would you still say those years that they absolutely sucked were worth the pain and suffering?

I also see your view that when the playoffs hit, all teams start at 0 and we have seen in history teams get healthy, teams get injured, teams get hot, others suddenly slump or they have young players that can't handle the big lights. btw I appreciate your perspective and input.

At the same time i do still have a different view about going into the playoffs. The teams that are built into a powerhouse, are more likely to guarantee their playoff spots early, rest starters, get to play at home through the playoffs (and/or even a bye) making their road to the SB that much easier even though ALL teams start at 0 to start the playoffs, some teams just have an easier road.

Lets be real...all 3 SB appearances for the Hawks involved a road through Qwest/Clink/Lumen. So creating a powerhouse to me is more important than creating a winning team.

as far as the Niners if they don't make it to, or lose the big one. Oh of course i absolutely hope for that for them. But now whether or not I would say it's worth it....Yes, it is worth it. A SB is not easy that is for sure, but that is the goal, not a winning season...a championship is the goal. So if it means having really REALLY bad years to hopefully build a true contender that MAY go deep in the playoffs for a 2-3 year window vs staying relevant but truthfully not good enough for 10 straight years. I'll take the team with the highest chance to actually WIN. Maybe it did not pan out, but they gave themselves the highest chance to get there and take home the prize.

Perfect point...the Zag in my name stands for Gonzaga...I know what continued success without actually winning is like. Sure many other teams wish they were in the dance year after year after year...but at some point it starts meaning a lot less when you know they don't have the ability to truly get it done. Meanwhile the other teams may not have the continued success but when they get in, they have a real chance to get it done.

I think the continued better than average but not true contender success is a business decision truthfully. It's the same criticism with the Mariners. It brings in more money overall but its not motivated to actually give the best chance to win. For anyone who listens to motivational or business speakers they like to talk about the concept of delayed gratification as the path to ultimate success.

 

[Ozzy]

The team also is in the playoff race after fielding THE most injured o-line in the league ( lost botg tackles in thr loss to the Rams), losing its starting RB (contributing greatly to the Rams loss), losing its arguably its best player in the front 7 (Nwosu) and losing its starting QB for 2 games against 3 of the leagues best teams and ... we won one of thise games.

We should be a win or two better by potential alone, and 3 better if not for the refs. But tye Eagles should be 3 better. The Ravens lost to the Browns and Colts.the Chiefs are losing to everyone. The Bills are very mortal and Detroit lost to us and got taken to the wire by the Bears.

I think we should be better as well. But how often to coaching regime changes actually work and end up being better in the near term?

We aren't the Pats, who's fall from grace has been colossal. This team is still improving and fighting through a good bit of adversity. Whether growing pains, culture challenges, or unfortunate injuries.

You're not totally wrong but I'd argue you're overstating a couple of points. The Niners offensive line is a bottom 5 line and yet they look like the best team in the league. I'd argue losing Walker and going to Charbs isn't a massive drop off and every team has had impactful injuires and if I had to guess we're not even in the conversation for most injuries to key players.

How many teams change coaches and get better near term? This actually happens fairly often. We can list them all out if needed.

Again you're not totally wrong but you slanted every argument or point your way to confirm your position. Thankfully we won against a good but struggling Eagles team or it would've been 5 straight. Still we have a fighting chance and I do think we win out or at worst 2 of 3 to salvage a pretty good year. This debate is endless because both sides can site valid points to prove their case so it never ends. I love Pete, I think its either time or very near time we start thinking about a new coach and the idea that we are destined to suck for decades because its impossible to get a good coach is a bad faith argument and just as silly as any other position people have.

 

[ZagHawk]

I have to wonder if we had beaten the Rams in that one point loss and were currently sitting at 8-6 if Pete would be taking so much heat. I think most in here would be much more optimistic about potentially entering a wildcard berth at 11-6 on a four game winning streak.
I agree that Carroll often shows too much loyalty to his assistant coaches/players, sometimes lacking on gametime adjustments and maybe even seems the game has evolved past him at times but he has delivered for this club over the last 14 years.
Personally I think there is is a spoiled faction of Hawk fans who want to throw the baby out with the bath water that should be careful for what they wish for.
Pete is signed though 24' & 25', minus a near total collapse, I think Pete should be able finish out his career with the respect and appreciation he deserves.
I am not saying PC should be untouchable as to a firing, but I am saying I think we have a better chance at a SB in the next year or two with Pete than without. Shore up the D & OLine a bit and I think we take a big step up in our NFC future standing.

If the Hawks swept the Rams and were 9-5 Pete would not be getting the same amount of heat. However, the type of gameplan, preparation and adaptation that would have allowed Pete to come out of those games with a W would probably have results in other Ws vs Ls and Pete isn't doing that, hence the heat.

As for throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes having Pete vs not having Pete will be greater success over the next 1-2 years than without him. But I think for the "spoiled faction" as you have so eloquently call it, we also see that greater success isn't actually going to win a SB, its going to be more of the same. Be careful what you wish for...this is what we are wishing for...DOWN YEARS. Breaking Eggs to make an Omelet. I fully acknowledge it's a gamble, we may end up with 3-10 years + of garbage...horrible seahawks football in the hopes that maybe in 3-4 years we end up with a new coach, team that has gelled into the new powerhouse that people are pointing at as the team to beat. But the hope is that team to beat will be for real for 3-4 years vs the next 1-2 years which honestly is just going to play out the same.

I am okay with losing football if it means maybe something GREAT may come. I am not okay with GOOD football as the ceiling that is HOPING to somehow get past GREAT teams via luck/health/questionable calls. That may get you a game or two, its not going to get you 3-4 games and the narrative will be the same in the end "exposed". I am a long term thinker. I don't care about winning seasons now or the next 1-2 years, and what gives this current team the best opportunity to a win a SB over the next seasons. I want a team that when it is ready is going to have the best opportunity to win a SB over all the other teams in the NFL.

The 2013 Seahawks did not luck their way to the SB, they were the preseason #1 and the team to beat team most of that year and it was created from a ground up rebuild. Not hanging onto Holmgren or Mora.

 

[cymatica]

I want my team to win, every damn game they play. And hell yes, bring on the playoffs. What happened in the past has NOTHING to do with this year. Still gotta' lace em up. Nothing is a guarantee. If you want to assume they will lose, great. I'm not assuming sh**

Actually, with the same head coach showing the same warts year in and year out for a decade, with no indication it will ever change, the past has everything to do with this year.

I asked what logic you were using to think things have changed. Apparently the logic stems around desperate hope and optimism

 

[SoulfishHawk]

He's not going anywhere, win or lose. Period. Until I see it, I won't believe Jody has the guts to fire him in the off season.

Screw the past, I'm thinking about right now. If we get in, hell yeah. I'm fully aware of the one on done stuff. I'm just not gonna' dwell on it 24/7.

I want a change, it's not gonna' happen.

 

[cymatica]

SF last won a SB in 1995. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen this year, but, if this is the model… I’ll pass.

I'm not a Shanahan apologist, but to his credit he got to a SB with Jimmy G and barely lost at the end to a hot KC team. That would be like Pete riding Lock to a SB

 

[Mad Dog]

I still think Pete needs to move on to greener pastures. But I don't hate him. And I never hate winning. I'm not a believer in tanking. Draft's too unpredictable for that to be reliable model to victory.

So I'm enjoying this win. I'll enjoy the next win and I'll feel like crap after every loss. I'm a fan.

But I'll give Pete props for getting to .500 with a crap defense and backup quality QB's. I'll also give Pete the gears for building a team with a crap defense and backup quality QB's.

 

[keasley45]

You're not totally wrong but I'd argue you're overstating a couple of points. The Niners offensive line is a bottom 5 line and yet they look like the best team in the league. I'd argue losing Walker and going to Charbs isn't a massive drop off and every team has had impactful injuires and if I had to guess we're not even in the conversation for most injuries to key players.

How many teams change coaches and get better near term? This actually happens fairly often. We can list them all out if needed.

Again you're not totally wrong but you slanted every argument or point your way to confirm your position. Thankfully we won against a good but struggling Eagles team or it would've been 5 straight. Still we have a fighting chance and I do think we win out or at worst 2 of 3 to salvage a pretty good year. This debate is endless because both sides can site valid points to prove their case so it never ends. I love Pete, I think its either time or very near time we start thinking about a new coach and the idea that we are destined to suck for decades because its impossible to get a good coach is a bad faith argument and just as silly as any other position people have.

Fair enough. Im not trying to confirm a position. If a change at coach is what is needed, then I'm for it. Im just not one who looks back on the years since the LOB as an indictment on the staff.

But its kind of hard to argue the 9ers have a bad o line. I mean, seriously? And its fine to try to equate Charbs and KW3. The problem is that with KW3, Charbs spells him. Not a bad drop off. With Charbs as your back, Dallas is being relied upon. And as good a kid as he is, i dont think he sniffs a similar role on another team.

And im sure there are a few coaches who come in and succeed for a few years. But for a decade?

Look at the Giants. Last year, they were darlings. That didnt last long.

The Chargers? Same.

Carolina? Square 1.

Jets? Purgatory

Philly? They looked like world beaters with the stacked roster they had. But now? I woukdnt want their staff. No way. But last year, they were all the rave.

Buffalo? Not the team on the brink of a dynasty that everyone thought they were.

Their are far more teams who maybe have coaches who come in and flash for a few seasons and fail, truggering another rebuild than those who have a formula that is sustainable over the long haul.

Things look great down in Miami right now. Lets see where they are in 3 years. It wasn't long ago that they thought they had their guy... twice.

Are the Vikings better now?

Dan Quinn sounds great. Of all the candidates that I've heard talked about, I think he's the one id be most ok with. But, he's the same Dan Quinn who lost his team and presided over the worst SB collapse in league history.

I'd be interested to see what the success/ fail rate is right now for new coaches in the league or coaches who have been at their posts for less than say, 3 years. If it's less than 50%, are those good odds?

Can it work? Sure.

My only argument is that the grass isnt always greener. And that this grass isnt as brown as it looks. Walking away from a team that is far from dead (it seems) for odds that are 50 50 that we will be better off? After going through the reboot we just did? I'm not saying it CANT work. I'm asking why you'd risk it now.

Granted, if they crap the bed and we lose out on our own merits, I think the seat will obviously be hot for Pete. But right now? Just not sold on it.

 

[keasley45]

I'm not a Shanahan apologist, but to his credit he got to a SB with Jimmy G and barely lost at the end to a hot KC team. That would be like Pete riding Lock to a SB

Jimmy G is (was when he was in the SB) 2x the QB that Lock is at the moment.

 

[TwistedHusky]

One of the reasons the Rams game was not so egregious is that you knew we had a game like this coming to offset it. But in the same way, you cannot take that Eagles game in a vacuum. You get games like that, and you get games like the Rams game. That is how Carroll-led teams work right now.

If the opponent is good, and takes the time to execute - they are going to beat us. Because Carroll is easy to gameplan for and because he is going to give the other team opportunities. Even in this last Eagles game, the middle of the field was open all night. They just didn't take it. Bad teams are going to lose against him, because Carroll makes you convert long drives. If you can do it, you can rack up points. But he bets that you will make a mistake somewhere during the drive. Bad teams tend to do so, and good teams tend not to. We will give you 6-8 yd passes all night though, and your TEs are likely open.

This is the reason I consider Pete a high-floor low-ceiling coach now. Not necessarily a negative, if you are fine with a .500 team or team that bobs around that record. He will beat the below .500 teams, generally. And he will occasionally even beat the above .500 team on nights like the other night....if they make enough mistakes.

I'm convinced few, if any, other coaches could likely get the results from this roster that Carroll has. But few would try for long either, they would fix the problems in this roster that we like to paper over or disregard.

If you are fine with .500, Carroll is fine too. If not, then you might want change. (Even though you know that change will come with the team being worse than .500 until we can find another good HC, because the odds are stacked against us on that).

 

[nanomoz]

Are you going to enjoy this big win with us? You can still feel the way you do about Carroll but as a Seahawk fan let's celebrate the big win together? Let's give credit where credit is due the players were fantastic.

LTH

I'd say I'm enjoying others' enjoyment of the win more than I am the win itself. But the game was fun. It was nice to finally see some commitment to the run game, and some variation therein.

But my worst case scenario is probably going to happen, the Hawks stumbling into the playoffs only to get shellacked; but it's enough to justify Pete finishing out his contract. An appropriate metaphor would be it's as if a few tubes of toothpaste were squeezed into a large crack in the foundation of a house.

BTW: it's not about not liking Carroll. It's about believing it's time for the team to go in a new direction. I love Pete. He's a Seahawks legend. But I don't believe he's going to compete for a super bowl again. He can't even compete well with two coaches in our division.

 

[cymatica]

Jimmy G is (was when he was in the SB) 2x the QB that Lock is at the moment.

I'd say he was better, but not by Much. He had a great offensive minded HC making things as easy as possible for him.

 

[GemCity]

I also see your view that when the playoffs hit, all teams start at 0 and we have seen in history teams get healthy, teams get injured, teams get hot, others suddenly slump or they have young players that can't handle the big lights. btw I appreciate your perspective and input.

At the same time i do still have a different view about going into the playoffs. The teams that are built into a powerhouse, are more likely to guarantee their playoff spots early, rest starters, get to play at home through the playoffs (and/or even a bye) making their road to the SB that much easier even though ALL teams start at 0 to start the playoffs, some teams just have an easier road.

Lets be real...all 3 SB appearances for the Hawks involved a road through Qwest/Clink/Lumen. So creating a powerhouse to me is more important than creating a winning team.

as far as the Niners if they don't make it to, or lose the big one. Oh of course i absolutely hope for that for them. But now whether or not I would say it's worth it....Yes, it is worth it. A SB is not easy that is for sure, but that is the goal, not a winning season...a championship is the goal. So if it means having really REALLY bad years to hopefully build a true contender that MAY go deep in the playoffs for a 2-3 year window vs staying relevant but truthfully not good enough for 10 straight years. I'll take the team with the highest chance to actually WIN. Maybe it did not pan out, but they gave themselves the highest chance to get there and take home the prize.

Perfect point...the Zag in my name stands for Gonzaga...I know what continued success without actually winning is like. Sure many other teams wish they were in the dance year after year after year...but at some point it starts meaning a lot less when you know they don't have the ability to truly get it done. Meanwhile the other teams may not have the continued success but when they get in, they have a real chance to get it done.

I think the continued better than average but not true contender success is a business decision truthfully. It's the same criticism with the Mariners. It brings in more money overall but its not motivated to actually give the best chance to win. For anyone who listens to motivational or business speakers they like to talk about the concept of delayed gratification as the path to ultimate success.

Short on time but, appreciate your perspective as well!

 

[ZagHawk]

I want a change, it's not gonna' happen.

You really should have started your posts with this...it changes the perspective of your optimism vs delusion.