What would it take for you to want Pete fired?

[hoxrox]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

 

[pittpnthrs]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate about amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

How am I reading too much into it? After the Bills game he said he didnt understand how or why the Bills passed so much. He didnt understand why they game planned like that. He was dumbfounded. Its like he suddenly forgot that Seattle had one of the worst pass defenses ever. What did you think they were going to do? That was embarrassing.

The Rams game was worse. Yeah, Wilson threw a pick 6. but he only threw 27 times the entire game. If Shotty had a horrible game plan wrote up that day, its up to the head coach to adapt and fix it. Shotty was a scapegoat for Pete last season. Akers ran for 130 yards, the Rams defense was depleted and banged up, and Goff was playing with 4 fingers on his throwing hand. Those are the games good head coaches win. Not Pete.

I never worried about Holmgren on game day. He planned around his team and against the rival. Even when he was the underdog with not very talented teams, he always had them prepared. Not Pete. I'm constantly wondering how terrible his game plan will be and how Wilson will overcome it to maybe squeak out a victory.

 

[hoxrox]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate about amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

How am I reading too much into it? After the Bills game he said he didnt understand how or why the Bills passed so much. He didnt understand why they game planned like that. He was dumbfounded. Its like he suddenly forgot that Seattle had one of the worst pass defenses ever. What did you think they were going to do? That was embarrassing.

The Rams game was worse. Yeah, Wilson threw a pick 6. but he only threw 27 times the entire game. If Shotty had a horrible game plan wrote up that day, its up to the head coach to adapt and fix it. Shotty was a scapegoat for Pete last season. Akers ran doe 130 yards, the Rams defense was depleted and banged up, and Goff was playing with 4 fingers on his throwing hand. Those are the games good head coaches win. Not Pete.

I never worried about Holmgren on game day. He planned around his team and against the rival. Even when he was the underdog with not very talented teams, he always had them prepared. Not Pete. I'm constantly wondering how terrible his game plan will be and how Wilson will overcome it to maybe squeak out a victory.

Pete is not without flaws - he should gameplan the opponents more. But no brilliant mastermind HC with excellent game plans can overcome 3-4 turnovers a game. Besides, Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs are pretty good.

I liked Holmgren a lot, but he had some terrible games where they were blown out... badly. Some of those teams did not look competitive. East coast 10 AM games?? ukeface:

Pete over the course of his tenure has at least kept the point differential low. Very rarely has a PC team ever been blown out.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

If we had a really down year and missed the playoffs then I'd be open to breaking up the band.

Because if we go 8-8 or worse and miss the playoffs? That'd be what it took to keep Russell......a new monster extension and him being involved in the next coach hire.

Other than that? Then HE'D be the one demanding out again after this year if we had a 3rd or 4th place NFC West finish and no playoffs type of season.

So it wouldn't just be the fans calling for Pete's head, it'd be the franchise QB (and probably some other key players).

 

[John63]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate about amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

How am I reading too much into it? After the Bills game he said he didnt understand how or why the Bills passed so much. He didnt understand why they game planned like that. He was dumbfounded. Its like he suddenly forgot that Seattle had one of the worst pass defenses ever. What did you think they were going to do? That was embarrassing.

The Rams game was worse. Yeah, Wilson threw a pick 6. but he only threw 27 times the entire game. If Shotty had a horrible game plan wrote up that day, its up to the head coach to adapt and fix it. Shotty was a scapegoat for Pete last season. Akers ran doe 130 yards, the Rams defense was depleted and banged up, and Goff was playing with 4 fingers on his throwing hand. Those are the games good head coaches win. Not Pete.

I never worried about Holmgren on game day. He planned around his team and against the rival. Even when he was the underdog with not very talented teams, he always had them prepared. Not Pete. I'm constantly wondering how terrible his game plan will be and how Wilson will overcome it to maybe squeak out a victory.

Pete is not without flaws - he should gameplan the opponents more. But no brilliant mastermind HC with excellent game plans can overcome 3-4 turnovers a game. Besides, Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs are pretty good.

I liked Holmgren a lot, but he had some terrible games where they were blown out... badly. Some of those teams did not look competitive.

Pete over the course of his tenure has at least kept the point differential low. Very rarely has a PC team ever been blown out.

ahh you do realize it is very rare we have 2-3 Tos a game. You are correct very rarely have we been blown out but that is not just abou5t PC, that's also about the defense and Wilson and the offense. As to keeping the differential low some of that has to do with scoring a lot and letting Wilson off the leash.

 

[John63]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate about amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

How am I reading too much into it? After the Bills game he said he didnt understand how or why the Bills passed so much. He didnt understand why they game planned like that. He was dumbfounded. Its like he suddenly forgot that Seattle had one of the worst pass defenses ever. What did you think they were going to do? That was embarrassing.

The Rams game was worse. Yeah, Wilson threw a pick 6. but he only threw 27 times the entire game. If Shotty had a horrible game plan wrote up that day, its up to the head coach to adapt and fix it. Shotty was a scapegoat for Pete last season. Akers ran doe 130 yards, the Rams defense was depleted and banged up, and Goff was playing with 4 fingers on his throwing hand. Those are the games good head coaches win. Not Pete.

I never worried about Holmgren on game day. He planned around his team and against the rival. Even when he was the underdog with not very talented teams, he always had them prepared. Not Pete. I'm constantly wondering how terrible his game plan will be and how Wilson will overcome it to maybe squeak out a victory.

Pete is not without flaws - he should gameplan the opponents more. But no brilliant mastermind HC with excellent game plans can overcome 3-4 turnovers a game. Besides, Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs are pretty good.

I liked Holmgren a lot, but he had some terrible games where they were blown out... badly. Some of those teams did not look competitive.

Pete over the course of his tenure has at least kept the point differential low. Very rarely has a PC team ever been blown out.

ahh you do realize it is very rare we have 2-3 Tos a game. You are correct very rarely have we been blown out but that is not just abou5t PC, that's also about the defense and Wilson and the offense. As to keeping the differential low some of that has to do with scoring a lot and letting Wilson off the leash.

 

[John63]

I've wanted him gone for years now. Its evident that the game has passed him by. He gets outcoached on a regular basis. Last season when he openly admitted that he didnt understand how the Bills and the Rams beat him with their game plans,,,,,that was the final straw. That was embarrassing. Sadly Jody wont fire him because she doesnt want bothered with the team and its still making money right now, so everybodys stuck with old Pete and those early round playoff exits until he steps down or runs Wilson out of Seattle.

You're reading too much into a post game presser. The Bills game you cite is not a good example. Russell turned the ball over 3-4 times that game? What was Pete supposed to do - throw Russell under the bus?

Likewise for that Rams playoff game - the pick six was horrible and Russell did not have a good game overall. That doesn't excuse the horrible game plan by Shotty that day, but the disproportionate about amount of blame (and credit) being assigned to the HC is clearly evident in this thread and others.

How am I reading too much into it? After the Bills game he said he didnt understand how or why the Bills passed so much. He didnt understand why they game planned like that. He was dumbfounded. Its like he suddenly forgot that Seattle had one of the worst pass defenses ever. What did you think they were going to do? That was embarrassing.

The Rams game was worse. Yeah, Wilson threw a pick 6. but he only threw 27 times the entire game. If Shotty had a horrible game plan wrote up that day, its up to the head coach to adapt and fix it. Shotty was a scapegoat for Pete last season. Akers ran doe 130 yards, the Rams defense was depleted and banged up, and Goff was playing with 4 fingers on his throwing hand. Those are the games good head coaches win. Not Pete.

I never worried about Holmgren on game day. He planned around his team and against the rival. Even when he was the underdog with not very talented teams, he always had them prepared. Not Pete. I'm constantly wondering how terrible his game plan will be and how Wilson will overcome it to maybe squeak out a victory.

Pete is not without flaws - he should gameplan the opponents more. But no brilliant mastermind HC with excellent game plans can overcome 3-4 turnovers a game. Besides, Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs are pretty good.

I liked Holmgren a lot, but he had some terrible games where they were blown out... badly. Some of those teams did not look competitive.

Pete over the course of his tenure has at least kept the point differential low. Very rarely has a PC team ever been blown out.

ahh you do realize it is very rare we have 2-3 Tos a game. You are correct very rarely have we been blown out but that is not just abou5t PC, that's also about the defense and Wilson and the offense. As to keeping the differential low some of that has to do with scoring a lot and letting Wilson off the leash.

 

[chris98251]

Pete can be blinded by his confidence in his scheme, on defense and offense, teams see a hole, Pete thinks his guys are better than they are at times till it's branded in his forehead, the TE pass burned us time after time after time till he corrected something. The two deep zone shut us down basically the second half of the season with no corrections, again scheme and stubborn confidence his system is fine. His on the fly corrections in games are the same way. If he has a flaw that is it, non reactionary to issues till well after the fact.

 

[Chapow]

I voted no playoff wins this year. I didn't want to put a fixed number, but neither did I feel that I wanted to hold my opinion until the end of the year. I want to see some type of improvement rather than another season of mediocrity.

I fully admit that I'm somewhat spoiled, that fan bases like the Lions or Browns would love to be in our predicament of having appeared in the playoffs in 9 out of the past 11 season. But there comes a point when I'm willing to risk a throw of the dice by starting over from scratch if the alternative is continued post season flops.

I'm also including Russell Wilson in on my contempt if we can't show some improvement, depending on how things turn out. This is his team as much at it is Pete's.

Needless to say, this is a pivotal season for my sticking on the bandwagon.

In the past 4 seasons the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, and 12-4 (in that order). Is improving your record every season for 4 seasons in a row not "some type of improvement"? And is it really reasonable to consider double digit wins 3 years in a row in the NFL, and improving on those double digit wins 3 years in a row, mediocre?

Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as any other Seahawks fan with our lack of postseason success lately, but I just can't get on board with the opinion that this team is stuck in some sort of pattern of mediocrity, or that they haven't shown any improvement over the past 4 years. They have improved their record every season for 4 years in a row, and quite frankly, if you consider double digit wins 3 years in a row mediocre, including going 12-4 in what was widely considered the toughest division in football just last season, I just don't know what to say other than I think your opinion is wildly irrational. We're talking about the NFL. It's not easy to get to double digit wins, and it's damn hard to do it 3 years in a row. Mediocre teams don't do that.

 

[pittpnthrs]

In the past 4 seasons the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, and 12-4 (in that order). Is improving your record every season for 4 seasons in a row not "some type of improvement"? And is it really reasonable to consider double digit wins 3 years in a row in the NFL, and improving on those double digit wins 3 years in a row, mediocre?

Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as any other Seahawks fan with our lack of postseason success lately, but I just can't get on board with the opinion that this team is stuck in some sort of pattern of mediocrity, or that they haven't shown any improvement over the past 4 years. They have improved their record every season for 4 years in a row, and quite frankly, if you consider double digit wins 3 years in a row mediocre, including going 12-4 in what was widely considered the toughest division in football just last season, I just don't know what to say other than I think your opinion is wildly irrational. We're talking about the NFL. It's not easy to get to double digit wins, and it's damn hard to do it 3 years in a row. Mediocre teams don't do that.

Regular season records could easily be attributed to strength of schedule and other factors of the same ilk. Last season, Seattle had a cakewalk schedule and won the division, but yet again, got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. After winning 12 games, not once did I feel they were contenders and they werent. Thats not true improvement, thats being stuck in the same cycle over and over.

Honestly, look at last season. Seattle won the division. They split with the Rams and lost to them in the playoffs. Was the Seahawks really better then them? The 49ers had their starting QB hurt once again. When Jimmy G. last played an entire season in 2019, they went to the Super Bowl. The Cardinals are still finding themselves. Lots of factors. Last years divisional title was hollow and I cant see how thats considered improving.

 

[TwistedHusky]

It feels like people need to look at the Trailblazers to understand where we are as a team.

We do not have getting the SB as our primary goal. We couldn't.

A goal without a plan is a wish. And organizations that fail to achieve a goal, reorient, refactor, and hold members accountable. None of that is happening. Because we are not failing.

Both the Blazers and Seahawks are teams that float near the playoffs and count making the playoffs as their success.

Both leverage their star, if not all everything, key player to achieve this.

With Allen, Carroll is was accountable to Allen. And was forced to make changes, sometimes against his preference. Allen gave him a long leash, but there was accountability.

Now Carroll is accountable to Carroll. So the misses can be frustrating, but do you expect him to fire himself?

And if they fire him, then what?

I would love to see Pete gone, just so I could see what Wilson would do with a coach that could put a system in place that works with his strengths instead of against it. But it seems the odds of success are pretty low.

 

[Chapow]

In the past 4 seasons the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, and 12-4 (in that order). Is improving your record every season for 4 seasons in a row not "some type of improvement"? And is it really reasonable to consider double digit wins 3 years in a row in the NFL, and improving on those double digit wins 3 years in a row, mediocre?

Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as any other Seahawks fan with our lack of postseason success lately, but I just can't get on board with the opinion that this team is stuck in some sort of pattern of mediocrity, or that they haven't shown any improvement over the past 4 years. They have improved their record every season for 4 years in a row, and quite frankly, if you consider double digit wins 3 years in a row mediocre, including going 12-4 in what was widely considered the toughest division in football just last season, I just don't know what to say other than I think your opinion is wildly irrational. We're talking about the NFL. It's not easy to get to double digit wins, and it's damn hard to do it 3 years in a row. Mediocre teams don't do that.

Regular season records could easily be attributed to strength of schedule and other factors of the same ilk. Last season, Seattle had a cakewalk schedule and won the division, but yet again, got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. After winning 12 games, not once did I feel they were contenders and they werent. Thats not true improvement, thats being stuck in the same cycle over and over.

Honestly, look at last season. Seattle won the division. They split with the Rams and lost to them in the playoffs. Was the Seahawks really better then them? The 49ers had their starting QB hurt once again. When Jimmy G. last played an entire season in 2019, they went to the Super Bowl. The Cardinals are still finding themselves. Lots of factors. Last years divisional title was hollow and I cant see how thats considered improving.

I was replying to a specific comment from a specific post (which you removed when you quoted my post).

That comment was "I want to see some type of improvement rather than another season of mediocrity."

They have improved their record every season for 4 seasons in a row. Is that not showing "some type of improvement"?

Do you consider 11-5 and 12-4 to be mediocre seasons?

 

[hawker84]

At least two losing seasons in a row with no signs of improvement.

The NFL is hard, with more parity now, and fans are spoiled and impatient.

Lol...spoiled and impatient? Guess 7 years isn't long enough to wait for another SB bid.

 

[hawker84]

Chris made some really salient points in regards to us being a victim of our own successes. Newer Seahawks fans might not understand just how good we've been for the past decade, but it truly is a handicap in a game as brutal as football with a salary cap. It's also the reason that I believe Jody will be hesitant to fire Pete.

I voted "No playoff wins this year". I also want him to bounce if our Defense allows 25+ points per game and Norton doesn't get tossed, regardless of our record.

People really don't see that the only reason Seahawks win games is BECAUSE Russell Wilson. Take Russell Wilson out of the equation, and Pete Carroll would have been fired just like the Patriots and the Jets.

Yep, and a historically great defense for those two SB bids...

 

[Chawker]

It would involve a gun but, before you had a chance to use it, I'ld of stuck it were the sun don't shine. :mrgreen:

 

[RolandDeschain]

Hoxrox,

Not sure what point you are making.

The Packers fired McCarthy because he used to be good but then failed to get them deep enough in the playoffs.

Since they fired him they have gone to the NFC championship.

If anything, the success of the Packers w Rodgers since firing McCarthy is an example of why we SHOULD fire Pete.



Are you even reading what you are posting?

You should check how many NFC championship games they got to under McCarthy, lol.

 

[TwistedHusky]

hence the 'use to be good' part of the sentence.

He didn't take them the year he was fired.

The next guy did since though.

Which shows it was more Rodgers than the coach.

That was the point.

The other interesting thing is that a team that was known to be terrible at defense and running the ball, suddenly became good at both with another coach.

So what strengths could the Seahawks have under another coach?

Supposedly the strength of a Carroll team is the defense, but we know that has not been happening lately (and we have a good idea why).

So what if an offensive minded coach was in the seat?

 

[Maulbert]

hence the 'use to be good' part of the sentence.

He didn't take them the year he was fired.

The next guy did since though.

Which shows it was more Rodgers than the coach.

That was the point.

The other interesting thing is that a team that was known to be terrible at defense and running the ball, suddenly became good at both with another coach.

So what strengths could the Seahawks have under another coach?

Supposedly the strength of a Carroll team is the defense, but we know that has not been happening lately (and we have a good idea why).

So what if an offensive minded coach was in the seat?

The thing you neglect is that the Packers were 13-18-1 in McCarthy's last 2 seasons and missed the playoffs both times. The Hawks have been 23-9 with playoff appearances in each of the last 2 years.

But keep trumpeting that false equivalency.

 

[pittpnthrs]

In the past 4 seasons the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, and 12-4 (in that order). Is improving your record every season for 4 seasons in a row not "some type of improvement"? And is it really reasonable to consider double digit wins 3 years in a row in the NFL, and improving on those double digit wins 3 years in a row, mediocre?

Believe it or not, I'm just as frustrated as any other Seahawks fan with our lack of postseason success lately, but I just can't get on board with the opinion that this team is stuck in some sort of pattern of mediocrity, or that they haven't shown any improvement over the past 4 years. They have improved their record every season for 4 years in a row, and quite frankly, if you consider double digit wins 3 years in a row mediocre, including going 12-4 in what was widely considered the toughest division in football just last season, I just don't know what to say other than I think your opinion is wildly irrational. We're talking about the NFL. It's not easy to get to double digit wins, and it's damn hard to do it 3 years in a row. Mediocre teams don't do that.

Regular season records could easily be attributed to strength of schedule and other factors of the same ilk. Last season, Seattle had a cakewalk schedule and won the division, but yet again, got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. After winning 12 games, not once did I feel they were contenders and they werent. Thats not true improvement, thats being stuck in the same cycle over and over.

Honestly, look at last season. Seattle won the division. They split with the Rams and lost to them in the playoffs. Was the Seahawks really better then them? The 49ers had their starting QB hurt once again. When Jimmy G. last played an entire season in 2019, they went to the Super Bowl. The Cardinals are still finding themselves. Lots of factors. Last years divisional title was hollow and I cant see how thats considered improving.

I was replying to a specific comment from a specific post (which you removed when you quoted my post).

That comment was "I want to see some type of improvement rather than another season of mediocrity."

They have improved their record every season for 4 seasons in a row. Is that not showing "some type of improvement"?

Do you consider 11-5 and 12-4 to be mediocre seasons?

I want to see post season success. Wilson gives the team an automatic 9-10 wins every season. 11 and 12 win regular seasons are great, but not an indication of improvement. With a lame schedule, its pretty much expected. Last season they won 12 games, but how many teams above .500 did they beat? If regular season success is what your weighing the Seahawks on, then yes, 12 wins is officially better than 11, but let me ask you, was there anytime last season that you truly felt they were contenders for the title? I didnt. They are stuck in a vicious cycle of mediocrity right now. Win regular season games and get beat early on in the playoffs. Is that really improvement?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

We do not have getting the SB as our primary goal. We couldn't.

Why do you say that?

If our primary goal wasn't to get to the SB, then we'd do what other perennial loser franchises do.........make GM and coaching changes every 2-3 years and have to trade away all our good players because they eventually refuse to play for our dysfunctional organization anymore.

If you and other Pete critics on here were in charge of the Chiefs you would have fired Andy Reid after his first 10 years in KC of being unsuccessful of getting his team over the hump, or even fired Belichick after an almost 10 year dry spell of SB appearances during the 2000's.

You guys act like all you need is a great QB and voila! It should be nothing but Lombardis raining down for 15 years straight. That's not how the NFL works, it's rigged against success.

Pete has his flaws, and lord knows we've EXHAUSTED those on this forum for over a decade. But the biggest proven barometer of success in the NFL if you look at it's history is first and foremost stability of the GM and head coach. The franchises that perennially win are the ones who find a good coach and GM, and keep them for very long periods of time.

We're now one of those franchises, to just fire Pete just to fire him without a plan in place is the opposite of having a primary goal, which is to win in this league on a consistent basis....and Pete and John have done that, very well.